2013-10-17
Proposals for WR-Equivalent Courses
BU undergraduate students typically satisfy the writing requirements of their
respective schools and colleges by taking one or both of a pair of writing seminars
offered by the CAS Writing Program: WR 100 and WR 150. The College, however,
has long considered some courses offered by other units as “equivalent” to these
courses for the purpose of fulfilling schools’ and colleges’ undergraduate writing
requirements. In recent years, WR-equivalent courses have been offered by the
departments of English, History, Chemistry, and Mathematics, as well as by the Core
Curriculum, the College of General Studies, and the Kilachand Honors College.
WR-equivalent courses need not, and probably should not, simply parallel the
seminars offered by the Writing Program. Rather, WR-equivalent courses provide
alternatives to WR 100 and WR 150 that are comparable to these courses in terms
of their broad goals, workload, and rigor.
WR-equivalent courses allow students to develop as writers in specific disciplinary
or inter-disciplinary contexts. They allow departments to introduce students to
discipline-specific forms of writing and writing practices; to integrate writing
throughout their curricula; and to assume greater responsibility for and control
over the general educations of prospective majors. They allow the university’s
general-education programs to integrate writing into their curricula in ways that are
consistent with these program’s goals, values, philosophies, and traditions.
Although WR-equivalent courses may be substituted for the Writing Program’s
seminars for the purpose of satisfying the writing requirements of BU’s schools and
colleges, these requirements continue to belong to the schools and colleges, which
have delegated authority for overseeing them to the College of Arts & Sciences.
Consequently, responsibility for establishing and supervising WR-equivalency
arrangements resides with the CAS Writing Board (subject to review by the CAS
Academic Policy Committee and the CAS faculty). WR equivalencies will be granted
by the Writing Board through a review procedure analogous to that of a college
curriculum committee.
The board, however, is not just an adjudicating body; it is also a resource that can
help departments and programs think about how they wish to integrate writing into
their curricula. Units considering proposing WR-equivalent courses are encouraged,
indeed invited, to talk informally with the Writing Board before submitting formal
proposals.
Criteria for WR-100 or WR-150 equivalencies

Curricular Rationale: WR-equivalent courses should have a clear purpose
within the curricula of the departments and programs offering them. When
proposing a WR-equivalent course, the proposing department or program
should indicate the role the course will play in its curriculum or major.
1
2013-10-17

Comparability: WR-100- and WR-150-equivalent courses should not merely
duplicate or mimic these Writing Program courses (in either content or
form). But they should have goals or learning outcomes that are broadly
comparable to those of WR 100 or WR 150. For reference, here are the
learning outcomes for these courses. In WR 100, students develop their
abilities to:
 craft substantive, motivated, balanced academic arguments
 write clear, correct, coherent prose
 read with understanding and engagement
 plan, draft, and revise efficiently and effectively
 evaluate and improve their own reading and writing processes
 respond productively to the writing of others
 express themselves verbally and converse thoughtfully about
complex ideas.
In WR 150, students continue developing these abilities while also while
working intensively on prose style and learning to conduct college-level
research. The expectation is that WR-equivalent courses offered by
departments will introduce students to modes of research and forms of
research-based writing specific to the fields and disciplines the offering
departments represent.

Amount of Writing: Although there is no minimum threshold for the amount of
writing students must do in WR-equivalent courses, such courses should be
comparable to WR 100 or WR 150 in the amount of work they require from
students. As points of reference, WR 100 requires three major papers totaling
15–20 pages of finished writing; WR 150 requires three major papers
totaling 17–25 pages of finished writing.

Pedagogy: Instructors teaching WR-equivalent courses are not required to
adopt any specific pedagogical practice (e.g., peer review). Rather, they should
use practices appropriate for the course. However, WR-equivalent courses
should provide students with regular and appropriate opportunities to receive
feedback on their work and to revise it.

Consistency of WR-Equivalent Status: Courses designated WR-equivalent
should always function thus, regardless of changes in staffing. A course
cannot be WR-equivalent when one instructor offers it but not WRequivalent when another instructor offers it.

Frequency and Regularity: WR-equivalent courses must be offered with
reasonable frequency and regularity, not necessarily every semester or every
year, but often enough for the course to become a recognizable part of the
College’s writing curriculum. When proposing a WR-equivalent course, the
2
2013-10-17
proposing department or program should indicate how it plans to sustain the
course as a regular offering.
WR-Equivalency Proposals
WR-equivalency proposals submitted to the Writing Board should indicate whether
the course is being proposed for WR-100 or WR-150 equivalency and should
address at least the following topics. The board may request that proposals address
additional topics as well, as circumstances require.
Course Description:
 Course goals: a statement of the goals of the course, especially with
respect to writing.
 Provisional syllabus: does not have to be fully developed, but should be
detailed enough to convey the arc or trajectory of the course, especially as
it pertains to writing.
 Pedagogy: a description of how writing will be taught in the course
 Provisional assignment sequence: as with the syllabus, the sequence need
not be worked out in detail. But the proposal should describe the course’s
major assignments and explain their rationale.
Unit Rationale:
 Fit: How does the course fit into the curriculum of the proposing
department or program?
 Contribution: How does making the course WR-equivalent serve the
needs or goals of the proposing department or program?
Logistical and Administrative Requirements:
As noted above, WR-equivalent courses need not be patterned after WR 100 and
WR 150. In particular, they need not be small seminars on the model of these
courses. But whatever the format of a proposed course, the proposal should
address the logistical and administrative considerations involved in offering it:
 Staffing: How will the course be staffed?
 Funding: How will the course be funded (if additional funding is needed)?
 Frequency/Regularity: How often will the course be offered, and what will
the proposing department or program do to ensure that the course can be
offered regularly?
 Special Considerations: Are there any special logistical or administrative
considerations that must be addressed?
Proposal and Review Procedure
Recommended: Conversation with Writing Board: The Writing Board is
eager to help departments and programs develop WR-equivalent courses. To
this end, those interested in proposing a WR-equivalent course are
encouraged to talk with the board informally, at one of its monthly meetings,
3
2013-10-17
before submitting proposals. Alternatively, conversations might be arranged
with individual board members. The board would also be happy to review
draft proposals and to provide feedback and suggestions.
Submission of Proposal: To submit a proposal, please email it to Joseph
Bizup, Assistant Dean and Director of the Writing Program, at
jbizup@bu.edu. Professor Bizup will convey the proposal to the Writing
Board, and the board will then review it. The board may reject the proposal,
accept it, or return it to the proposing unit with questions and/or
suggestions for revision.
Decision by Writing Board: The Writing Board generally meets monthly
and strives to make decisions expeditiously.
Acceptance by the College: Like the decisions of divisional curriculum
committees, the decisions of the Writing Board regarding WR-equivalent
courses are subject to final approval by the Academic Policy Committee and
the CAS faculty.
4