If I ever go back to language teaching, I think I've just come up with an engaging and rewarding lesson:
* assign students the task of writing an N-word or -page paper and explicitly instruct them to use as much fluff as possible (creatively, i.e. not using "really" x100)
* allow them to read each other's papers and vote on the most vapid essays
* assign a follow-up task to ruthlessly edit a partner's paper to distill the real content
* never attach a word or page count to any future assignment, preferring complete coverage of assigned topic, and hold students accountable for use of fluff
Hands-on experience is a great learning aid. A frank acknowledgement and analysis of filler content (instead of just discouraging it in the abstract) coupled with an educator's willingness to forgo artificial targets or limits could go a long way in improving this aspect of writing style.
The notion of "complete coverage" is fantastically subjective and contextual. The Civil War is, in various scopes, completely covered in several page articles and several volume sets. Word count ranges are a good way to convey expected scope.
Perhaps "complete" is not the right adjective -- something along the lines of "appropriate" might be more fitting. I was driving at "complete" with respect to the purpose of a given assignment.
I think that the article makes a strong case, which meshes with my personal experience as both student and teacher, that word count ranges aren't always a good way to convey the expected scope. If you're a regular contributor to a magazine, with a well-defined and professional style, then a target length can be a reasonable metric. For students in their formative years, such a metric can lead them astray.
As mentioned in the other reply, it's not about humiliation; succeeding in the overt task of writing badly doesn't directly imply failure in the task of writing well. In fact, I would expect some of the brightest students -- especially the ones who are already adept in gaming the essay-writing system -- to be ranked highly if previous academic courses implicitly rewarded fluff. Students with a simple, clear writing style, on the other hand, may find writing intentionally overwrought language to be a challenge; because past assignments with artificial word or page counts may have punished them for their clarity (as the article suggests), they may find it refreshing to score low. Getting the incentives framed properly would be crucial but far from impossible.
I don't see a problem with it: being vapid is the stated purpose of the exercise. Cyranix did not propose blindsiding the students with this exercise by applying this criteria to essays the students wrote in earnest.
> never attach a word or page count to any future assignment
Whenever I teach English writing, I never attach word counts. I tell them to write on one side of an A4 sheet. The students use less fluffy language, handwrite more legibly, and leave plenty of whitespace for me to write comments. It's easier to mark, as I just need to scan the sheets without turning them over, sorting them into order from best to worst.
There is a second part to it. The text may be better when edited, but that is not what they get paid for.
You also should teach aspiring writers about the new digital ways of earning money. I still see so many people who are in the "I am a journalist / I am a writer" and so on camp relying on old thinking about 'but I only get paid by that'.
