I fail to see how Wikipedia renders the essay obsolete, any more than the Encyclopedia did before it. The technologies with which we write and conduct research have indeed changed over the years; I composed my undergraduate masterpieces on a transitional hybrid of computer and electric typewriter (you wrote and edited on a small, monochromatic screen, and the finished product was printed out the back), and I actually drafted with pen and paper. But the fundamental value of the essay as a way to teach and measure independent, critical thought (as well as originality, creativity, novelty, the ability to engage with other writers in a meaningful dialogue) isn't diminished at all by these changes. The lazy or unprincipled student formerly could cut and paste from a paper-bound encyclopedia or an essay purchased on the black market; now they might cut and paste from Wikipedia or SparkNotes.
The example of a physics department continuing to teach FORTRAN is amusing, but it doesn't really apply in this case. If the English (or social studies, or any other . . .) department were requiring students to use manual typewriters, or quill and inkwell--or to rifle the card catalog for their research (still dusty and accessible in the upper halls of the University library)--the analogy might be more apt: we would be pointlessly insisting on an obsolete technology, for no practical or educational benefit. Of course we teach our students to use the Internet, as well as the library's various online databases and search engines, to research efficiently. And they compose on a word processor. But the essence--and value--of the essay isn't touched by these changes in technology.
I prefer to label my assignments "essays" rather than "papers" for a related reason. "Paper" focuses on the material product ("I have to assemble a certain number of words onto three or four pieces of paper in a way that looks more or less like a coherent piece of writing . . . "), while "essay," as I remind my students, is a noun that started life as a verb: to *assay*, to attempt, to explore, to attack (a topic or idea). The value of an essay, for the author/student, is in the *act* of thinking, synthesis, dialogue--participation in a wider intellectual community. And originality is of the essence (even if that consists in the original combination and formulation of received ideas). An essay, with or without research to supplement it, should reflect the distinctive intelligence and sensibility of its author. This is why, in my view, plagiarism is actually more offensive on a gut-level than other forms of academic fraud (which I also oppose, natch): it is the impersonation of another *mind*.
Oh, and dude? "Hide-bound" is not the preferred nomenclature. "Old-school," please.
I fail to see how Wikipedia
I fail to see how Wikipedia renders the essay obsolete, any more than the Encyclopedia did before it. The technologies with which we write and conduct research have indeed changed over the years; I composed my undergraduate masterpieces on a transitional hybrid of computer and electric typewriter (you wrote and edited on a small, monochromatic screen, and the finished product was printed out the back), and I actually drafted with pen and paper. But the fundamental value of the essay as a way to teach and measure independent, critical thought (as well as originality, creativity, novelty, the ability to engage with other writers in a meaningful dialogue) isn't diminished at all by these changes. The lazy or unprincipled student formerly could cut and paste from a paper-bound encyclopedia or an essay purchased on the black market; now they might cut and paste from Wikipedia or SparkNotes.
The example of a physics department continuing to teach FORTRAN is amusing, but it doesn't really apply in this case. If the English (or social studies, or any other . . .) department were requiring students to use manual typewriters, or quill and inkwell--or to rifle the card catalog for their research (still dusty and accessible in the upper halls of the University library)--the analogy might be more apt: we would be pointlessly insisting on an obsolete technology, for no practical or educational benefit. Of course we teach our students to use the Internet, as well as the library's various online databases and search engines, to research efficiently. And they compose on a word processor. But the essence--and value--of the essay isn't touched by these changes in technology.
I prefer to label my assignments "essays" rather than "papers" for a related reason. "Paper" focuses on the material product ("I have to assemble a certain number of words onto three or four pieces of paper in a way that looks more or less like a coherent piece of writing . . . "), while "essay," as I remind my students, is a noun that started life as a verb: to *assay*, to attempt, to explore, to attack (a topic or idea). The value of an essay, for the author/student, is in the *act* of thinking, synthesis, dialogue--participation in a wider intellectual community. And originality is of the essence (even if that consists in the original combination and formulation of received ideas). An essay, with or without research to supplement it, should reflect the distinctive intelligence and sensibility of its author. This is why, in my view, plagiarism is actually more offensive on a gut-level than other forms of academic fraud (which I also oppose, natch): it is the impersonation of another *mind*.
Oh, and dude? "Hide-bound" is not the preferred nomenclature. "Old-school," please.