Dirty laundry y flores

So, my department is under review. The process started last year with a survey of graduate students and the review committee (from French, German, Theater Arts here at UCD and one import from Arizona) has organized for today and tomorrow a series of meetings with staff, faculty and us. I attended today's meeting for students. The majority of students will attend tomorrow's. Having worked in education and gone through the accreditation process I was familiar with this sort of meeting. A bit of a drawback perhaps, because I left it feeling sort of icky. The committee was comprised of very busy people who are very committed (no word-play intended and I'm not changing it now) to improving UCD as a whole and to listening to the needs of their colleagues and students. They used as a springboard for discussion the results of last year's survey, but I don't know that any of the committee had training in how to direct a session like this. Especially when given only 45 minutes. I almost want follow-up so that there can be a more balanced discussion - especially about the literature requirement for linguistics students and vice versa. So many people see it as bullshit, but I think it's pretty valuable. In every seminar I've taken, there's been a linguistics student who introduces him/herself at the first meeting by saying they're nervous and don't know anything about literature and have doubts about their contributions. In every seminar, the professors assure them that they'll be fine. Indeed, in every seminar, I've found that these students make unique observations and provide perspectives and interventions that are quite illuminating. I also imagine that literature can provide them with some amazing data. Although I suspect that I remember just enough linguistics to be dangerous, I think the reverse must be true as well. Even a basic knowledge of linguistics, and not just socio-linguistics, either, can add a refreshing and perhaps appealingly scientific dimension to literary analysis and criticism.