US graduate schools (and I recently finished a post-retirement graduate degree in history) do seem to emphasize volume and quotations over analysis and conclusions.

I wrote a pithy 57-page thesis for my English M.A. I stopped at 57 because I'd said what I needed to. And since that was the case, the department didn't insist it have more content to pad it out. Brave department, based on Art's observation!

LTS, with spell checks and given time to let a document cool, dyslexia isn't a competent excuse for bad writing. I have dyslexia, and yes I make some standard typos that I don't see on the first pass of proof reading. Given a little time, I catch them.

Bruce is correct about who should teach good writing. Every professor who assigns papers should be paying attention to style and grammar as well as content. It's lazy on the professor's part and a disservice to the student to pass them and figure someone else will sort out the bad writing.

I took a graduate teaching assistant seminar in grad school, and I would have loved to teach English composition, but I had a job already and couldn't afford the lost wages were I to go into teaching. Sorry state, isn't it?

The debate rages--should you clamp down on bad grammar and incomplete sentences or muddy thoughts for fear of chasing off a student altogether? "Look at what they're trying to say, not how they say it" is the PC approach to teaching English composition. It is possible to have a distinct voice, and a clear "accent" (even written in English). But that means an examination of the writing that is out there, to let students see how writers from many cultures and backgrounds manage clarity and good communication. You can't just rest on the approved text book to accomplish this.

SRS