Scholarly Writing

Lucia Torres
English 201- Online
September 26, 2010
Scholarly Writing

When I entered my first English class at UWM I was concerned with the idea of what a “good enough” paper would be. It took me several essays and probably until my second year at UWM to understand what writing a good paper really should be. My understanding came to me more clearly after reading Kitchen Tables and rented rooms: The extra curriculum of composition by Anne Ruggles Gere and Bullshit by Eubanks & Schaeffer. Gere constantly brings up groups like the “Tenderloin Women’s Workshop” and how these poverty level women come together to write about their life’s instances; they collectively read and revise each other’s work. Yet it seems as if Gere is almost saying that these types of workshops are more helpful than actual courses given in a school classroom. In many ways I can a agree that not merely enough discussion, peer editing, or self expression comes out school writing courses, but where will we get a sense of unified writing. How will future writers learn how to distinguish their style of writing to the next? Yes I do think that series of critical analysis is necessary to have full comprehension of writing, but to say that the school system is not doing a good enough job. To whom would that be? Writing in many ways is abstract, It’s either you get it, or you need help getting there. All I can really do is agree to disagree, because I do believe that students spend more time focusing on the mechanics of writing more than they spend on how to “actually write.” Though Unconvinced of her argument I may sound the quote on page 81 seems to catch my eye, “A Help to Young Writers, a self guide published in 1836, found fault with the rapid subjects” assigned by teachers and tendency with the schools to teach composition as though it bore no relationship to good conversation.” I always knew writing papers in high school was of no relation to me if it was dealing with books like How to kill a mocking bird, or Romeo and Juliet, but now after reading this article I am not so sure if I am actually to blame. I distinctively remember having to write several responses and short discussion papers for anything that we would read, yet I vaguely remember ever talking about the importance it had in relation to me. Maybe I might just sound like a high school hater, but it wasn’t until I entered college that I realized that mostly everything that is read in this world can have some sort of connection to me other than a mechanically organized essay. So, I guess now I can assume that Gere has me convinced on her theory of literate disconnect in our school systems. Though I find it difficult to realize that there is some sort of solution to this problem; students have to learn how to write a paper mechanically, and what a better location, school. The understandings of how to form a paper is important, but how does a teacher connect the student with what they are writing on a required piece. When should a student learn how to write a conversation within their very own essay?
“First, the writing style of composition research risks being called bullshit because it often has the timbre of abstruse literary criticism or of social science. Second, Composition has taken up disciplinary writing as an important area of study and thus implicitly endorses it. It probably does not help that writing studies has often focused its attention on the rhetoric of science; that simply enlarges the number of suspect academic texts. Third, one major consequence of studying disciplinary writing has been the abandonment of the abstract ideal once called “good writing” (Eubanks & Schaeffer 374). This passage it makes sense why academic writing can be skewed to a more research based composition; thus losing “good writing”. This reminds me of what the Gere article was saying about how academic writing isn’t formulated to create a situation where literary criticism does not exist. It makes sense why academic writing can be skewed to a more research based composition; thus losing “good writing”. This reminds me of what the Gere article was saying about how academic writing isn’t formulated to create a situation where literary criticism does not exist. Under my impression both articles are stating that “correct” writing is almost impossible to accomplish, yet “bad” writing is easily judged and accomplished because it is the way “we’ve” taught it.
After reading Kitchen Tables and rented rooms: The extra curriculum of composition by Anne Ruggles Gere I came to the conclusion that her main argument is not in what one writes, but how one gets to the process of writing. I believe that this piece for the most part is directed towards educators and towards people that make any efforts in teaching “how to write”. I can tell that she is directing this piece towards educators because she repeatedly talks about “how well” we are teaching students how to write. Which brings me to a quote from Eubanks and Schaeffer’s article; “First, the writing style of composition research risks being called bullshit because it often has the timbre of abstruse literary criticism or of social science. Second, Composition has taken up disciplinary writing as an important area of study and thus implicitly endorses it. It probably does not help that writing studies has often focused its attention on the rhetoric of science; that simply enlarges the number of suspect academic texts. Third, one major consequence of studying disciplinary writing has been the abandonment of the abstract ideal once called “good writing” ( Eubanks and Schaeffer 374). This really makes me realize how much academics have skewed my view on academic writing throughout my entire experience in high school. Yet now that I am in college I have really realized that my understanding in allowing voice into my papers has been solely on college instructors explaining to me how, and why I should care about the things I write about, because it is my own thoughts and feelings that makes the paper work.

Teaching Academic Discourse; Extracurriculum in the University

For my analysis paper, I have chosen to focus on the parallels and common ideas presented in the articles by Gere and Bartholomae.  I am using this blog setting as a sort of thought map, so this is not so much a draft of my draft as it is a generalized pool of my ideas which I will use to help me write a cohesive paper.  I tend to ramble on, and become very tangential, so please bear with me.

Although Bartholomae is a bit ambiguous in his argument, I have come to the conclusion that he is not altogether happy with the status quo of academic literacy, or perhaps academic language altogether.  This is obviously paralleled in Gere's article, as she argues for the integration of more forward-thinking methods of learning into the classroom.  They seem, however, to be addressing different audiences, which is what intrigues me most about linking the two articles together.  Gere is addressing mainly the high school (and perhaps lower) level educators, the people who are actually initiating students into the composition mini-sphere, whereas Bartholomae is addresses university-level educators.

The difference between these two levels of education is the existence of options.  Students are required, at lower age levels, to take English classes.  Some high schools may offer a limited variety of options in regard to subject matter, but nobody really has the option of not taking English classes.  At the university level, however, only a basic level English class is actually required - and some students may test out of that requirement, bypassing further English instruction altogether.

The issue at hand, according to Bartholomae, is that academic composition is required in areas outside of English instruction.  This is where students can run into trouble.  They may be competent enough to test out of English 101, but perhaps still lack a thorough understanding of the discourse they are required to use for writing in other classes.  However, many students will likely opt not to take an extra course on academic writing if it is not required, for a number of reasons: it would add unnecessary credits, unnecessary work load, and an unnecessary extra class in a window that could possibly fit a different class which fulfills major requirements.

It is the fact, though, that students would view it as unnecessary at all that is the real problem.  Deeming a class unnecessary, and therefore not valuable, communicates some sort of disdain for the subject which stems from unsuccessful education methods originating at the lower levels.  This is where Gere's argument begins to apply.  Current methodology in English education has the unfortunate effect of neglecting or excluding certain students based on academic skill level.  Students who feel alienated by the subject matter are less likely to maintain an active interest in the subject itself, and will be less likely to seek out further instruction when they may actually need it.

Because these students become outcasts of academia early in their academic career, they are then less likely to succeed if they opt to continue in education, or may not even have the option of continuing education due to their perceived 'failure'.  The perception of failure in a given subject can have a widespread effect on all classes, as I experienced a few semesters ago in my final attempts at finishing my degree in music.  I had such a negative perception of my abilities in music that I no longer wanted to try, and started to feel very depressed which affected my other classes as well as my social life and health.

Another way in which the two articles are indirectly related is in Gere's advocation for integration of extracurriculum with the current curriculum.  Because she is addressing a primarily lower age level, her argument is still valid; however, extracurriculum is much more widely accepted as legitimate at the college setting (mostly in terms of creative writing, rather than academic composition).  The university has many opportunities for students to share extracurricular writing, both in and outside of the classroom, which helps to foster a more positive writing environment for those who are pursuing that path of study.

The fact that many Topic classes are available to students in a plethora of different subjects immediately makes the study of English more enjoyable and more accessible to those who may not have been interested in straight-up composition or literature courses.  If this could be made more widely available to student populations, perhaps it would foster more of a general public interest in the subject as a whole.  This is a possible alternative to Bartholomae's proposal that students be obligatorily taught to write in academic discourse: perhaps initiating students into the extracurricular aspects of composition will lead to a sort of willing literacy of that special sort of discourse, if it is slowly disbursed among other, more "fun" and interesting pieces of literature or assignments.

At this point, a particular sentence in the Eubanks & Schaeffer article is looking as though it will be the catalyst of my paper. On page 374, E&S make their provocative declaration, "If academic writing is bullshit, then bullshit is what we teach." I had an adverse reaction to this sentence the first time I read the article, and Bartholomae's article really helped to substantiate the problem I have with the idea.

Bartholomae's piece described students' various reactions to the standards and problems that are set before them when it comes to academic writing. The standards are very elusive, and may even take shape largely in the students' own minds—which is to say, students aren't necessarily taught to bullshit, but perhaps they rise to the occasion and bullshit of their own accord. I found Bartholomae's view very constructive, that student "bullshitting" indicates initiative within the student to pull him/herself "up," into "the conversation." He discusses what a terrific and even unfair struggle it is. However, I find myself fascinated with this particular "personal responsibility" students are given within their own educations. I keep likening the process, in my mind, to learning to walk. Babies who are learning to walk certainly have a silly 'interpretation' of the act, but it is an essential part of their development. Children are applauded as they make their wobbly way to legitimate "walking," and nobody seems to think they should be confined to their parents' arms until they "are first instructed how to walk properly," and then be allowed to attempt the feat—it is acceptable that they just learn as they go. My gut feeling is that there is a lot of value in a student's individual development of his or her own academic voice, and I look forward to exploring this further.

I also want to add that I am not an education major, and this course has been my first exposure to any philosophical thought behind teaching. Therefore, this paper is going to be written by someone who doesn't have visions of actual students in her near future, and will probably handle "the student" as more as an "idea" than as a potential reality. (Which is to say, I am excited to explore these ideas, but I have a feeling that when I look back on this is a couple years, I'm going to find a couple of missteps in my thought patterns that make me cringe! That is normally the route things go when I first begin exploring new concepts...)

'Deciding to Live:' When Writing and Thinking Become Acts of Resistance

I am going to write about Gere and Bartholomae, because the ideas they raise seem to fit well in conjunction with one another. Based on these articles, I have been thinking more and more about how I became comfortable with academic writing. I wasn’t comfortable with taking command with an academic voice in high school, but I took to it quite readily in college. Theorizing Bartholomae’s ideas about inventing the university in conjunction with Gere’s assessment of the kinds of environments that lend themselves best to composition has led me to an understanding. My writing improved generally upon exposure to the college classroom, but specifically become more academic, for two main reasons—the first, that I was encouraged to have big thoughts and make connections between text and autobiography or political context that were never allowed previously, and secondly, that every time I was there I was there by choice.

At least in my experience, my first semester at the university required immersion in academic texts. We weren’t just reading novels or textbooks; we were reading theory and literary analysis, we were reading the opinions of others and piecing together one of our own. So, in a sense, having already been admitted, we were not “imagining the university” as much as we were inside of it, taking everything in, mastering the conventions of this new way of thinking, speaking, and being. My first semester of college I had to take a bus line from beginning to end to get from my mother’s house to school, and I remember every night when I came home, just feeling electrified! I had so many thoughts and ideas, I was constantly revisiting what I had learned that day and making connections between different concepts I learned about in different classes. Often I would walk the mile home from the bus stop very quickly in the dark, with my face down in the cool winter air, warm breath making clouds upon exhale, trying not to slip on any ice and get home as quickly as possible. It is difficult to describe without sounding a little crazy, but starting college made me afraid of dying. Every night I walked home from the bus in the freezing darkness, I felt so determined just to get home, and was paranoid that anything might come at me and interrupt the quest I was on. I was so hungry and so alive; I felt so on the verge of something monumental my first semester of college, that I became incredibly afraid that something might take away my ability to see the quest through, and often everything that I saw (a sign, a fire hydrant, a bush mistaken for an unchained dog) posed a threat to me…to my ability to realize my full potential.

In other words, something happened to me. College tapped into me in a way that k-12 school never did. It is hard to say if it was the different academic environment, my own changing attitude toward schooling, or a combination of the two. However, when I got to college, I became part of the conversation. I needed to be in that conversation. I think that I made a similar decision to that of Dorothy Allison, who describes this as “deciding to live” in the opening essay of her collection of short stories, Trash. Somehow, in making a commitment to write and to think, to treat my own thoughts and ideas as something worthy of consideration, to elevate my own speech to the level of those whom I admired, was a decision to live in the world--to be engaged, and to take action. It was also a confirmation: that I could, that I was worthy.

(I will fit this experience into and against the thoughts of Gere and Bartholomae as it happens when I share my draft paper with y'all this Tuesday!)

-Erin M. Day
(AKA "The Moment of Change is the Only Poem") ;)

Bartholomae

"He is trying on the discourse even though he doesn't have the knowledge that makes the discourse more than a routine...And he does this, I think, even though he knows he doesn't have the knowledge that makes the discourse more than a routine. He defines himself as a researcher, working systematically, and not as a kid in a high school class."

When I read Bartholomae's piece, this first example stuck with me. I think the whole idea that this student, as many students do, conforms to whatever standards must be followed. More specifically, I am interested by the idea that we, as writers, naturally try and appeal to the readers desires. This takes practice and does not always work, but this student knows that the readers in this case want someone who sounds intelligent and calculating. Bartholomae points out that "He moves quickly into a specialized language...and draws...a textbook-like conclusion." This is what a student wants in an essay that needs to sound academic. Despite this student's efforts to "invent the university" in his writing, he makes a few slips. He becomes a lecturer, a parent, rather than an academic. It is interesting that many of these beginning essays become "life lessons" rather than conclusive pieces of writing. What is it that makes a student slip into teacher mode? Is it the desire to be at the reader's level and avoid looking young, naive, or uneducated?
I believe that writers that are writing ahead of themselves in the hopes of meeting the university's standards definitely fill their pieces with B.S., to go back to E&S. They hope the right jargon and technical language will cover up small errors and misunderstandings within a complicated field. But how does being forced to try to write ahead of what one knows help anyone? Shouldn't students feel comfortable "writing in their own words," as I've always been taught to? Why do universities and academics hold this standard for people who are just learning a subject? Yes, students need to learn to write an academic piece in their field of study, but shouldn't that come later on? Shouldn't that happen on it's own once the student has mastered the subject themselves? That would be the logical path, after all. When one has immersed him or herself in a certain world (academic or otherwise) they begin to read, write, think, and talk as that community does.
I know most of this is rambling, but why are students pushed to fill papers with technical words and long quotes when less can truly be more? In the end, a student's paper may be more simplistic when they write what they know, but at least it's clear where they are at. They shouldn't feel the need to go beyond their own vocabulary. Yes, they should be adding to that vocabulary frequently, but they shouldn't need to consult a thesaurus in order to do well on a short essay. That being said, students sometimes need to be pushed in order to produce better writing; I'm just not sure that compelling them to sound academic is the way to accomplish this.

Very rough draft of paper #1

After reading the three articles we have been assigned for this class I noticed a common theme among the pieces. The two I felt had the most in common were “A Kind Word for Bullshit: The Problem of Academic Writing” by Eubanks and Schaeffer and “Inventing the University” by David Bartholomae. These two pieces expressed ideas of academic writing. They focused on the ideas of how students often struggle to meet the required jargon of academic writing. Although both pieces do have different views on academic writing their overall theme is similar.

In Eubanks and Schaffer's article, they discuss how academic writing is written by people are the “academics” or professors. They felt that the start of academic writing or “bullshit” comes from professors. They in turn teach our students who then continue on with the use of “bullshit” academic writing. “... one major consequence of studying disciplinary writing has been the abandonment of the abstract ideal once called “good writing”. The current mainstream of composition studies not only takes up academic writing as an object of study, but it also sees writing instruction as at least partly a matter of introducing undergraduates to the established practices of expert academic writers”. (pg. 374). Eubanks and Schaffer explain how teaching writing in school or as a class is part of the problem with academic wrtiting. Since the people who are teaching do not know how to correctly write then how can they teach others the correct way. The creativity is being taken out of writing. It has become an assignment and has to fit into the correct mold of what our university wants.

In Bartholomae article, he describes how students are taught through out their schooling how to “invent” what the school wants. They are required to write to meet the standards of each teacher and professor. They must use the correct jargon or else their paper will be seen as a failure. They has created a class of writers who have lost all creativity. Rather than expressing how they feel about something or actually writing what they think, they often write what they are “suppose” to. Or at least what they think they are suppose to write in order to be accepted by the university.

More on Bartholomae

Since I have written my rough draft already I have decided to go with option #1 on the blog tonight. Why not? I can use the practice and I feel like having fun.

I just went back to read the opening quote by Foucault. The first time I read the article I had no idea what was meant by that quote. After re-reading a couple of thoughts pop out. First, the idea that education and higher education are available to anyone who chooses to pursue it. It is no accident that many of the best universities are located in democracies, where the right to make one's own choices is fundamental. Freedom of choice means freedom of thought and freedom of thought means freedom of ideas. Greater ideas lead to greater opportunities for education. The university is then a product of democracy, a democratic institution. But, as Foucault quickly points out and Bartholomae expands upon, it is not an institution of equality.

For Bartholomae's purposes this inequality is manifested in academic discourse. Academics can do it and have the inside track, students cannot do it and are left to fake it, knowing full well most of the time that they are not fooling anyone. The imbalance of power is enormous. The professor has extensive knowledge of the subject. The student does not, and maybe never will, perhaps the class in question is meant of fulfill GER. How can the poor student be expected to know anything? Not only doesn't the student know anything, he must now write an academic paper on this baffling subject for the know it all professor. Worse yet, this paper must be in a language he can barely read, let alone write! Failure is imminent. A career in fast food awaits. Democracy crumbles, and freedom dies. Would you like fries with that?

But look, out on the horizon! It is David Bartholomae, our savior who would have the poor struggling future McDonald's Shift Manager avoid this awful fate by taking a class that teaches him how to write this baffling language. "Muddier and more confusing" sentences will soon flow from him like soft serve ice cream into a cone. Failure is averted. Goodbye Ronald McDonald, hello Johns Hopkins.

More seriously, Bartholomae takes the position that academic writing is here to stay and to succeed on the university level, students had better acquire this level of literacy. His most significant point (to me anyway) is that universities should consider instruction in the style. Students shouldn't be expected to write in the jargon of academic discourse if they have no experience with it. But it can be taught, and with this knowledge, students can become part of the academic conversation.

Similar Ideas in Bartholomae and Eubanks & Schaeffer articles

This part of my rough draft summarize the similar ideas between Bartholomae and Eubanks and Schaeffer in their articles. The authors of these two articles both discuss of the perpetual cycle of bullshit that occurs in academic writing.

Eubanks and Schaefer’s article “A Kind of Word for Bullshit: The Problem of Academic Writing” is about the perpetual cycle of bullshit that occurs in academic writing. Those who teach composition teach bullshit, and therefore bullshit is reflected in their students’ writings. Eubanks and Schaefer acknowledge right away that “all of us are familiar with bullshit” and that “we are also conflicted about it,” (p. 373). The article attempts to define what constitutes as bullshit, and also discusses the difference between prototypical bullshit and non-prototypical bullshit. When prototypical bullshit occurs, “the bullshitter attempts to misrepresent himself or herself, that is, to create an ethos that implies a character that the speaker does not possess,” (p. 377). Prototypical bullshit is the more common form of bullshit found in academic writing. One main problem with academic writing is the use of jargon- “words whose meanings are so abstract and vague as to seem unrelated to anyone’s experience,” (p. 381). The use of jargon among academics causes students to feel the need to attempt to use jargon as well, since that is what they view as a major part of sounding academic. Eubanks and Schaeffer state that academic bullshit among students is bound to occur because of the conventions of academic writing that students read in the writing of established academics. Students then imitate these conventions, such as the use of jargon, and apply them in their own writing, continuing the use of bullshit in academic writing.

In his article “Inventing the University,” David Bartholomae is also discussing the use of bullshit in academic writing at the college level. Bartholomae says that a student in a liberal arts education setting has to learn how “to write, for example, as a literary critic one day and an experimental psychologist the next,” (p. 511). Like Eubanks and Schaeffer, Bartholomae states that college students create a character that allows them to write as someone that they are not. Being able to write for the reader (in the case of college students, usually professors) is an important skill for students to acquire while in college. Bartholomae states that students must “learn to speak our language. Or they must dare to speak it, or to carry of the bluff, since speaking and writing will most certainly be required long before the skill is,” (p. 512). When Bartholomae talks about “inventing the university” he means that when students enter college, they are faced with the task of sounding more academic in their writing than they were used to in high school. Bartholomae gives an example of a college freshman’s placement essay, who “knew that university faculty would be reading and evaluating his essay, and so he wrote for them,” (p. 512). “Inventing the university” refers to students who attempt to sound more academic in their writing without necessarily knowing the language or rules that are used. Bartholomae gives examples of several students “inventing the university” in their essays, which show that many students coming into college are unknowledgeable about the jargon or structure of academic writing. Students who do not formally learn how to write academically learn from what they read by academics. The bullshit that occurs in academic writing is then perpetuated by students when they attempt to imitate the jargon in their own academic essays while in college.

Blog Post for Sunday 9/26

As I read “Kitchen Tables and Rented Rooms: The Extracurriculum of Composition” by Anne Ruggles Gere and “A Kind Word for Bullshit: The Problem of Academic Writing” by Eubanks and Schaeffer I noticed that there was a common theme. Both of the writers seemed to be focusing on the problem of academic writing and how students deal with the issue of writing academic papers. Although both articles talk about academic writing in different forms they both come to the same conclusion that academic writing is filled with way too much jargon and that something needs to be done about the way it is taught and how it is viewed by universities.

The article “Kitchen Tables and Rented Rooms” by Gere focuses mainly on how one acquires the literacy skills to be able to write and how extracurricular writing can be more beneficial to one’s literacy skills than academic writing in classrooms. She states a lot that classroom writing can be harmful to some writers because once they receive a bad grade on a paper or a negative comment from an instructor they start to believe that they cannot write so they give up on it all together. She believes that personal writing is very helpful for students because it allows them to write about things they know and in doing that improves their confidence and brings more meaning to writing than just forcing themselves to write an article filled with terms and ideas they don’t care about does. One of my favorite lines from Gere’s article and one that I can relate to is “our students would benefit if we learned to see them as individuals who seek to write, not be written about, who seek to publish, not be published about, who seek to theorize, not be theorized about.” To me this line really focuses on how Gere feels about how academic writing is being taught and how teachers view their students.

In the article “A Kind Word for Bullshit” Eubanks and Schaeffer seem to be backing up Gere’s statements about academic writing while looking at it from a different angle. The main message that Eubanks and Schaeffer are trying to get across is that academic writing is filled with way too much jargon or “bullshit” that students, when writing academic papers themselves seem to add things like words they don’t understand, and statements that ramble on and on without actually going anywhere. This can be simply to fill up the paper or because they are trying to impress the professor and trying to get him or her to think that the student is a very advanced writer and they know it will get them a better grade. Eubanks and Schaeffer make the statement that “when non-academic writers call writing bullshit, they mean that it uses jargon, words whose meanings are so abstract and vague as to seem unrelated to anyone’s experience.” For me this statement was one that really ties the articles by Gere and Eubanks and Schaeffer together by talking about the need for writing to relate to one’s personal experience in order for the reader to make sense of it.

Connetions between a kitchen table and a university

When it comes to writing our first paper for English 201, I felt confident that I would be able to make a strong argument when it came to connecting two essays. Out of the three readings we have read so far I felt the strongest connection with "Kitchen Tables and Rented Rooms: The Extra curriculum of Composition", by Anne Gere and "The Inventing University", By David Bartholomae. I felt that not only could I relate to these essays but that they were also very strongly linked. Throughout most of my schooling I have fallen short when it came to reaching teachers standards of writing because I myself am not a very good writer. I felt that both in Bartholomae and Gere essay that there was something that stood out that i could relate too. I have decided to write my paper on how students enhance their writings to please their professors. This is part of my rough draft on my Gere and Bartholomae paper;


When it comes to academic writing everyone struggles to find the correct way to phrase a sentence or where they can insert jargon to intensify their paper. There are two essays that walk hand in hand to discuss the struggles that students and other writers face and how they are able to use simple writing techniques and rules to over come their battles with academic writing. In "Kitchen Tables and Rented Rooms: The Extra curriculum of Composition" by Anne Ruggle Gere and "Inventing The University", By David Bartholomae. They involve opinions from a wide range of people whether it be professors or students and also share stories of individuals real life experiences.

When reading Gere and Bartholomae the connection was very strong, Gere works off of what Bartholomae is saying. Batholomae discusses the struggles that students face when it comes to writing in the university. Students do not express themselves in the way they would if doing extracurricular composition. Instead students write to please their professors using jargon and many times bullshit to impress someone other than themselves. While Gere discusses the many people who have failed to pass their composition classes throughout school and how they find the inspiration to write in a way that they are able to express themselves.

A Word to the Wise

This week, I am very excited to get cracking on my essay. For once I feel like I can relate and understand the readings we have been given thus far. I actually feel very confident that I know what is going on, which is always a wonderful feeling! This week, with Bartholomae's piece especially, I have felt that I can relate the most. I agree that writing has become to rule oriented, and that coming into college we all have a sense of fear of how it will be. After reading Bartholomae I remembered feeling like I wasn't up to par for my English 101 class last year, and that I would really have to add a lot to my writing in order for it to sound good. I think this is the reason why our writing can be filled with so much jargon. Because of this memory, I have chosen to base my essay around the world of fear that first year students come into.

Along with Bartholomae, Anne Ruggles Gere also portrays the fear that students have been left with. Because writing has become overly structured students fear using their imagination. Her piece has shown that we no long get comfortable writing, but instead worry about having out essays be the right length, and use all of the right words. Students today write more their teachers, opposed to writing for themselves. They no longer add their own opinions and thoughts, but talk to the teacher, and try to state what they believe the teacher will want to hear. This in turn causes a lot of faults. Instead of having a sense of feeling their writing, the teacher is reading words that have no meaning to the student, which only dig them in a greater whole.

I like both Gere and Bartholomae’s articles the most because I feel like I can relate the most. I have felt the sense of fear that writing can give off. I have feared writing the wrong thing, and not using the best word choice. I have also feared not being allowed to write about what I think is important, and having to write for my teachers feelings. However, this class has allowed me to see that when I forget about the rules, and look at them more as guidance for my writing, I have become a better writer. I see myself in the papers, and have learned more and more about myself through every post. This class has been really inspiring for myself, especially being able to read things that I agree so closely with. I love the feeling of understanding and agreeing. I also really enjoy the discussion forum, and being able to relate to others within the class. I am looking forward to writing the essay, for myself and not just for my teacher to read!

BLOG POSTS FOR SUNDAY, 9/26

Dear all,

Please consult the Announcements page on D2L and/or your Panthermail for the prompt for Sunday's blog post (9/26)--I've mapped out a couple of options for us!

Dr. Odrcic

Getting Past the B.S.

In both essays "A Kid Word for Bullshit: The Problem of Academic Writing" by Eubanks and Schaeffer and "Kitchen Tables and Rented Rooms: The Extra Curriculum of Composition" by Anne Ruggles Gere, the authors address the issue if academic writing versus personal writing. Despite the fact that each peice considers academic writing from completely different lenses, each conclusion is clear: academic writing often is filled with bullshit that does not help the reader or the writer.
In "Kitchen Tables and Rented Rooms" Gere focuses on the need for writing outside of the classroom and the need for writing for personal reasons. Although she does not seem completely opposed to academic writing, she seems to find most academic writing practices frivilous and ineffective in teaching people to truly use writing to their benefit. Gere consistantly supports writing groups of all ages and from all backgrounds and points out the accomplishments they have made using tactics involving group edits and attempts at publication. Through such examples, Gere shows how many academic writing practices can hinder students because they learn to regurgitate information rather than write for themselves and real-world situations. Because of this, people grow up to see writing as a chore, not something that can be creative and give way to new concepts and ideas.
While coming from a different angle, Eubanks and Schaffer's "A Kind Word for Bullshit" also sees the unsucessful side of academic writing. The authors focus on all the "bullshit" academic writing is filled with, namely gargantuan words and long, twisted sentences that seem to house ten concepts at once. These drawn-out pages that never seem to make an actual point can allow writers to get away with looking good and saying nothing, while readers are stuck with guesswork rather than a solid idea. Eubanks and Schaffer see the lack of real writing in these pieces that are too complicated for most people to get through. They end up hindering both reader and writer when the reader is coming up with their own interpretation and the writer only needs to know half of what they are talking about. This leaves everyone with a mixed-up conclusion that they assume is right because it is "academic writing" after all. Sometimes simple words and a clear, concise point is much stronger than a rambling writer who hopes they stumble upon something relevant that sounds good.
Clearly both pieces touch on the negatives of academic writing, therefore relaying the positives of writing strong personal pieces. While Anne Gere focuses on the good that can come out of learning to write in a different manner, Eubanks and Schaffer focus on the bad that has come out of "academic writing" in general. In the end, both authors are trying to tell their audiences the same thing: Write for yourself because it is an interest, or even a passion, of yours - not because it's an intellectual subject or you're trying to impress your teacher.

As i read the two essays "A Kid Word for Bullshit: The Problem of Academic Writing" by Eubanks and Schaeffer and "Kitchen Tables and Rented Rooms: The Extra Curriculum of Composition" by Anne Ruggles Gere, I realized that at first glance they may seem to be discussing two completely different topics. If you look deeper into their issues you will realize that they are arguing the same point; that academic writing has changed from benefiting its students to now bullshitting its readers. Gere talks more about the forms of writing, while E&S discusses how academic writing is generally made up of bullshit and nonsense. If Gere ever needed evidence for why extracurricular writing is better than academic she would be able to use E&S's piece as evidence to back up her theory.

The one thing that i really enjoyed about Gere's piece was that i could relate to the stories of those who were being written about. Unfortunately I do not appreciate writing as much as a use to due to the new rule and processes that come along with academic writing. These rules force people to lose interest in academic pieces, which is why academic writing is under appreciated. Both Gere and E&S agree that academic writings is no longer aimed at the joy of writing, now it generally is aimed at informing its readers, but the issue is whether or not what your reading is completely true. As stated in E&S, "Academic writing very seldom aims to deceive the reader about its content, but certainly is meant to enhance the reputation, the ethos of the writer" (383). Many times academic writers fill in the blanks with "bullshit, they use this technique to keep you the reader involved in their writings.

When E&S discuss literacy, I felt that they were talking about how academic writing has become a challenge for many to read and the reasoning is the use of jargon. When most people think of jargon they think of big words and intense phrases. If a writer uses too much jargon it can become hard to read and sometimes overwhelming. "when non-academics call academic writing bullshit, they mean that is uses jargon, words whose meanings are so abstract and vague as to seem unrelated to any one's experience"(381). Academic writing has become overwhelming for many people to read. Why would you read something you cannot understand or relate too ? In the closing of their essay E&S quote Frankfurt, "We can hope for is to avoid making the problem of academic bullshit larger than it is"(387). Everyone needs to understand that there is always going to be bullshit in academic writing but we need to learn how t decipher true information from false information.

Blog #1

Blog #1
After reading Kitchen Tables and rented rooms: The extra curriculum of composition by Anne Ruggles Gere I came to the conclusion that her main argument is not in what one writes, but how one gets to the process of writing. I believe that this piece for the most part is directed towards educators and towards people that make any efforts in teaching “how to write”. I can tell that she is directing this piece towards educators because she repeatedly talks about “how well” we are teaching students how to write. Which brings me to a quote from Eubanks and Schaeffer’s article; “First, the writing style of composition research risks being called bullshit because it often has the timbre of abstruse literary criticism or of social science. Second, Composition has taken up disciplinary writing as an important area of study and thus implicitly endorses it. It probably does not help that writing studies has often focused its attention on the rhetoric of science; that simply enlarges the number of suspect academic texts. Third, one major consequence of studying disciplinary writing has been the abandonment of the abstract ideal once called “good writing” ( Eubanks and Schaeffer 374) After reading this passage it makes sense why academic writing can be skewed to a more research based composition; thus losing “good writing”. This reminds me of what the Gere article was saying about how academic writing isn’t formulated to create a situation where literary criticism does not exist. Under my impression both articles are stating that “correct” writing is almost impossible to accomplish, yet “bad” writing is easily judged and accomplished because it is the way “we’ve” taught it. After reviewing another classmate’s response I noticed that their quote was a perfect representation of what both of these articles were trying to explain. “IF academic writing is bullshit, then bullshit is what we teach” (Eubanks and Schaeffer 374) this to me is can be a translation to the entire overview of both articles; that our education system and what educators are teaching is what supplements the teaching of “bullshit” and what makes it acceptable in our society as writers. Eubanks and Schaeffer’s article refers to literacy in the sense of why literacy is the way it is, and why “we” have let it become a complete line of “bullshit lingo.”

Gere, Eubanks & Schaeffer

After reading Gere and Eubanks & Schaeffer’s articles, I found that the focus of both is pointing to how academic writing is affected by the writer’s emotions. For example, Gere mentions that extracurricular writing is more personable because the author is doing it on his/her behalf. They have no forced motive to be writing, so what they’re writing is more likely to be about something they love or enjoy ‘talking’ about, because extracurricular writing is like a “conversation.” I see a relation to Eubanks & Schaeffer’s essay because they talked about academic bullshit. This is related to a person’s emotions as well, because if a person doesn’t truly relate to what they are writing about, it comes out as bullshit. On the other hand, if it is only for an academic purpose (the writing that is), then the writing just sounds like jargon ( a class favorite) which is also bullshit. I believe, that for true literacy acquisition, beyond what is deemed academically correct, academic writing is truly achieved by combing one’s true emotions with what the topic of writing is. This is the main connection I saw between the two readings. A minor connection I saw was the presence of peer reviews and their affect on productive writing. Both Gere and Eubanks & Schaeffer acknowledge that peer review can be very positive for academic writing.

Eubanks & Schaeffer describes literacy in a very controversial way. First off, they make the statement that academic writing is not for the general audience, which is why most consider it bullshit. By saying this, I feel as though Eubanks & Schaeffer are saying that literacy is different for all types of people. I feel this means that people can be literate in a general sense, but when it comes to some academic topics they become illiterate, because what they are reading seems to be bullshit and unintelligible. In truth, academic writing may not always be that indecipherable bullshit, but may be a writing made for those who have become ‘literate’ in that category of academic writing. Because this occurs, bullshit may be found in those trying to become better academic writers. This happens when you attempt to become better at something you have not yet mastered and you can make mistakes along the way.

One of my favorite lines of the bullshit article is “good writing is inseparable from the context in which it arises” (385). I think this is a great way to connect both articles and can be a perfect quote to motivate learning writers. It shows how extracurricular topics should be introduced to the classroom (from Gere’s article) because this can lead to the good writing that Eubanks & Schaeffer are trying to sort from the bullshit. Writing about something you love, can lead to the love of writing and the acquisition of good writing and literacy. When I first started reading the two articles, it was hard to get through them at times because I thought they were sort of dry. After searching for the main points they offer to our class, and discussing them with our class, I have found that they relate to myself in a lot of ways. When I began to understand them more, it was easier to write about them, which is basically the point both made about writing. I thought this was a really cool observation.

The Art in the Everyday: Making the Extracurricular and the Vernacular Academic, Without the Bullshit

For me, the main overlap of Gere’s article and the article we read by Eubanks and Schaefer is that academic discourse is structured to only value certain kinds of experience and very specific ways of communicating that experience. For example, in many ways student writers are expected to keep the self out of their writing, to eliminate their own voice and appropriate the voice of academia—a voice that has not historically allowed the smallest fraction of subjectivity. Many of the writers Gere describes not only had “many negative experiences with schooling,” but also came from communities in which “nobody ever asked them their opinions about anything” (78, 76). So, the abnegation of self that has already been internalized in so many student writers is even further impounded by the expectations of academic writing when they get to secondary school and college. Along these lines, Eubanks and Schaefer point out that composition “explicitly advocates” that students replicate the forms and internal logic of academic discourse, forcing students to “develop an identity within a community of discourse,” or in other words, “gain genre knowledge” (385). However, they also point out that “good writing is inseparable from the context in which it arises,” something we can see quite clearly if we take into account the contemporary view that writing should be as direct and concise as possible and take a peak back and see how dense and confusing most academic writing was for the majority of history (385). It is really only since the civil rights era that academic discourse in universities began to challenge its own internal ‘bullshit,’ so they ways in which students manipulate their own voices to qualify as ‘good writers’ now vary from those that might have been produced earlier in the twentieth-century. As Gere found in her article, the extracurricular writing workshops motivated and inspired writers so substantially precisely because they valued the experience of each individual, and connections were permitted and encouraged between the writers’ compositions and the larger social situation they were writing from. While Eubanks and Schaefer mostly just critique academic discourse, Gere points to ways that composition can be made more organic (and less, well, shitty) by allowing connections between the work of the classroom and the life of the writer, as good writing usually has a strong life in the writer.

The Eubanks and Schaefer article seems to suggest that we tend to define literacy as an ability to speak on par with and follow the logic of academic discourse. In other words, we define literacy as the ability to create and interpret ‘bullshit,’ and those who are skilled in this arena are not necessarily more intelligent than others, but rather have merely mastered the genre conventions of academic discourse. Eubanks and Schaefer do not categorically reject ‘bullshit,’ however and spend most of their time delineating between malignant ‘bullshit’ and benign ‘bullshit,’ ultimately deciding that some of the latter is “inevitable when people are attempting to write well” (387).

My only observation is that I really enjoy the Gere article and appreciate how it connects the personal and the academic in compelling ways. The Eubanks and Schaeffer article is less interesting to me just because it appears more technical and less constructive than the vision Gere has for creating more engaging composition environments. I also feel like Eubanks and Schaefer’s approach to critiquing ‘academic bullshit’ remains very much within the realm of academic discourse and would like to have seen them take more risks than just using a relatively minor profanity; with Gere I feel like her article is smart and resourceful without relegating her message to a very specific community of intellectuals.

academic writing and literacy

Eubanks and Schaeffer’s article “A Kind of Word for Bullshit: the Problem of Academic Writing” and Gere’s article “Kitchen Tables and Rented Rooms: The Extracurriculum of Composition” both discuss the problems with academic writing. In “Kitchen Tables and Rented Rooms,” Gere discusses the fact that many people are turned off of writing because of the way it was taught to them in school. Having a creative outlet such as a community writing workshop was much more beneficial and helpful to people interested in writing than the academic writing of compositions in school. Gere argues that academic writing does not allow room for people to reflect their individuality in their writing. Gere states, “in concentrating upon establishing our position within the academy, we have neglected to recount the history of composition in other contexts; we have neglected composition’s extracurriculum.” Eubanks and Schaeffer appear to agree with Gere about this problems of academic writing. They discuss student’s use of “bullshit” in their academic writing as a way to sound more academic and professional. This leads to the combination of “disregard for the truth with the inevitable classroom pretense that the writer truly cares about his or her academic development, and an insidious variety of bullshit is fashioned.”

In her article, Gere offers ideas for educators to incorporate the extracurriculum of writing into their classrooms for a more writing workshop-type atmosphere. Eubanks and Schaeffer’s article, on the other hand, pretty much concludes that, yes, jargon is used in academic writing and people just have to deal with it. I did not find that their article offered any solutions or ideas for academic writing to be less bullshit and more non-academic friendly. I think it’s interesting that the two articles had such opposite approaches to dealing with academic writing. While Gere’s article is helpful for future educators who want to address the problems of academic writing, Eubanks and Schaeffer’s article is rather unhelpful. They even state in their conclusion: “At this point, convention would have us offer possible solutions to the problem of academic bullshit. But…we will demur.” Their logic is that bullshit is all around us and that none of us can put an end to it.

The Eubanks and Schaeffer article has to do with literacy because of its discussion of the use of jargon in academic writing. For non-academics, the overload of jargon commonly used in academic writing can be intimidating and make the piece confusing or difficult to understand for the common reader. By including jargon in their writing, academics are showing that their writing is exclusive and that not everyone will comprehend what they are trying to say, and they’re okay with that. Academic writing makes literacy seem more exclusive than it really is, and that is wrong. Just because a non-academic reader may not understand all of the jargon used in a piece of academic writing does not mean that they are illiterate.

Gere, Eubank's and Schaeffer

The two essays “Kitchen Tables and Rented Rooms: The Extra curriculum of Composition” by Anne Ruggles Gere and “A Kind Word for Bullshit: The Problem of Academic Writing” by Eubanks and Schaeffer don’t seem to have too much in common after the first reading. Gere’s essay directs the reader more towards the positives of the extra curriculum writing groups out in the world such as the examples of the Tenderloin Women’s Writing Workshop and the Lansing, Iowa Writer’s Workshop that show how people can find new levels of self-esteem through their extra curriculum writing groups. The Eubanks and Schaeffer’s essay on the other hand attempt to define bullshit and describe how it is found in great abundance in the world of academic writing. More obvious on the differences between the two articles is the readability. Gere’s article was less confusing than the seemingly more advanced Eubank’s and Schaeffer essay.

Though the bases of both essays were different there were some similarities. Both essays had their comments on the problems of academic writing and literacy in schools. According to all of the authors a reader gets a sense that there is too much structure in schools when it comes to writing. In Gere’s article she describes how schools are important bases for a person’s writing but there is not enough freedom when it comes to a students writing. In the Schaeffer and Eubank’s article there are paragraphs describing how the professors will use jargon or “bullshit” to make them appear better than they might actually be and then the article continues to describe how students will emulate their professors and this is their base for their professional writing thus restricting a students writing. According to all the authors schools give a student the basics of writing. Schools teach a student the cores of writing whether it is just basic grammar and structure or the different forms of writing jargons that a student learns from reading their professors writings.

Academia vs. The Real World

Reading the article by E&S, I couldn’t help but notice how well the article proves the point made by Gere in the most practical of manners. If anyone needed convincing of Gere’s point in her article (the need to break down the traditional ‘academic’ walls in order to include a wider variety of people in the exclusivity that is academia), the article by E&S provided a concrete example of exactly how readers can be alienated from the writing style so loved by members of the so-called ‘academy’.

Getting into the actual point of the article by E&S, there were several similarities in subject matter to Gere’s article. Both articles focused on the way certain styles of writing can affect readers. Gere referred to ‘extracurricular’ writers (a less accusatory tone, in my opinion), while E&S referred to ‘non-academic’ sources in a similar capacity. However, this is also where the articles differed: Gere advocated a more favorable consideration of ‘extracurricular’ writers, whereas E&S seemed to be dismissing the non-academics as lesser because they do not buy into the stereotypical bullshit of academia:

“When people consider writing to be not plain enough or deliberately obscure, what they really mean is that the writing does not appropriately address them . . . Academic writing, however, is seldom meant for an average audience; it addresses an audience of specialists” (382).

Indeed, many articles written in academia are meant for publication in professional journals or for education of fellow specialists on a certain topic. However, the fact remains that often there exists a simpler means of communicating ideas, rendering the hackneyed obscurity of clear points rather useless (except to enhance the image of the writer submitting the piece in question). Additionally, it would seem to me that, while an article concerning the particulars of astrophysics (or what have you) may be meant solely to educate peers within the field; there could be some benefit in allowing some lesser humans to be able to read and comprehend the material as well. Making education accessible to all who wish to pursue it seems more sensible to me than purposely obscuring information so only certain individuals may obtain it.

As I have illustrated, literacy in terms of the article by E&S seems to be defined in terms of competency. The academics who are most capable of deciphering (or most eager to swallow) the bullshit so often put forth as an earnest effort to sound more intelligent are deemed more literate than those who have less patience or less academic ability to do the same. This suggests to me a general view that literacy is somewhat like an organization of elitists eager to prevent others from joining - for fear that it might sully the impeccable reputation of those already admitted.

My scathing comments seem to indicate a disdain for academia, and that is simply not the case. However, if we are to reach the goal that Gere puts forth, of including all learning styles in our methods of education, and attempting to end the exclusivity that is so prevalent within the academic world, something has to give. It seems that the highest ranks of academia are fueled solely by the ego, and this isolates that elite sphere from the real world.

Is it Bullshit, or is it Not?

After reading both Gere’s and Eubanks’ and Schaeffer’s pieces, it has amazed me how alike both writers truly are. But what has amazed me the most, is seeing that they both think very similar to myself. As a second year college student, I have found that English is no longer “fun”. Each and every day I work with first year students, and at least once a day I hear about how they hate their English classes because of all the rules. I think Gere, Eubanks and Schaeffer hit this topic right now the head. All together Gere, Eubanks and Schaeffer agree that the writing process has become too rule oriented. Within Gere’s piece, she quotes from Multiple Functions, “you feel Brave here. You feel brave at the women writers group” (pg. 76). With this quotation, Gere shares about women who participate in the Women’s Writing Workshop. These women take time out of their family/working lives to write and enjoy writing. Within Gere’s piece, she writes how writing has no longer become relaxing, instead it has become too rule oriented. Children should be able to use their imagination, instead of worrying about rules. While Gere writes about the unimaginative writing, Eubanks and Schaeffer write about the fabrication of writing. Because so many writers fear breaking the so called rules, they add exaggeration into a lot of their work. This exaggeration is added to make the piece more interesting, because they cannot use imagination. Overall, all together Gere, Eubanks, and Schaeffer agree that without imagination, only bad consequences come.

Eubanks and Schaeffer have based their article on the topic of Bullshit! We all have heard the word, and might possibly misuse it each and every day. Eubanks and Schaeffer argue that all written pieces now include some sort of bullshit. Because people have so many boundaries to stay within, they are adding fabrication to all of their work. This fabrication is often used to make the piece more interesting for the reader. However, this is called bullshit, because in a research paper, there are fine lines between what actually happened, and what could have actually happened. For creative pieces fabrication or Bullshit is allowed, however in formal essays it is not. Eubanks and Schaeffer use many examples to portray this. For instance, an example within the essay is the salesman/client situation. The salesman truly fabricates the car by only showing it’s positive points, and by making the car’s bad aspects not seen. According to Eubanks and Schaeffer, “The sales situation exemplifies bullshitting to convince someone, but bullshit can also aim to create an ethos for its own sale, to misrepresent the speaker simply for the pleasure of doing so” (pg. 378). This means that the car salesman is not only affecting the sale of the car, but also the selling points of himself.

Overall, I found both pieces very interesting, and was very surprised with how much I agree. Usually when I read an academic piece it seems to be mumble jumble, however both Gere’s and Schaeffer and Eubank’s pieces were very agreeable for me. I found them very intriguing, and they grabbed my attention!

Connections between Gere & E and S

While reading the Eubanks and Schaeffer article I made various connections to the previous article by Gere. I noticed that many common ideas and thought patterns linked the two together. They both discussed the idea of academic writing. Both articles expressed the idea of academic writing as seen as more than it is. As a society we need to focus more on writing for pleasure. They both explained how academic writing really does not teach us anything. It is seen as above us common people but is really just a bunch of bullshit. If we collectively as a group remember why we enjoy writing and do it from our heart then writing can be what it used to be. We need to focus on making writing for everyone not just people who have a lot of experience with writing. The idea of academic writing is also seen as bullshit because people are not able to read and fully understand what is being discussed. If we focus on teaching people how to write with out all the bullshit everyone will be equal. This will eliminate people feeling less than because of their level of reading and writing. Gere's article explains how the workshops are used to bring people in the community together. This creates a sense of togetherness and begins to eliminate the lower class from the high “academic” society. Giving people who are seen as having no skills a chance to express themselves brings about a huge change. This change can be seen not only in their lives but it can affect the overall community in which these people live.

One of the main differences, I did notice between the articles was that one attacked the idea of writing where as the other described a way to change it. The E and S article basically attacked the idea of academic writing and the people who write them. Gere wanted to show how as a society we can bring about a change in writing. If we give people the opportunity to share their writing skills with others in a nonthreatening manner then we can start to see a change in writing as a whole.

I felt Eubanks and Schaeffer article, described “literacy” as declining because of all the jargon in academic writing. Current academic writing is so filled with jargon and bullshit that apparently you must be an academic in order to understand it. This makes the average person feel less than because they do not understand all the large words which are over emphasized in the writing. Since people feel like they do not comprehend the article then they will not attempt to read it making them feel dumb or illiterate. This is not the case at all unfortunately. It seems the authors of this article want to draw attention to how academic writing should cut out the bullshit to make it more accessible to the average person. Since apparently you must be seen as an academic to be literate.

Connecting the Extracurricular with Bull?

I’m going to start off with something in common that Gere and Eubanks and Schaeffer share, something important to each essay, but for different reasons. I’m talking about the concept of peer review. The success of the writer’s workshops that Gere described in her essay was dependent on the process of review by the writers’ peers. I think I hit on that point in one of my discussion postings on the essay. By having other members of the writer’s workshop read and review their compositions, the writers have the opportunity to improve their skills and fine tune their work. Peer review is critical since the writers involved don’t have the luxury of an instructor. Peer review also plays a role in the Eubanks and Schaeffer essay. In this case we are speaking of articles published in peer reviewed academic journals. When academics publish they are seeking to stand out among their colleagues as experts and achieving a high level of intellectual discourse. This leads to the employment of bullshit, or more kindly, jargon. Academic writing loaded with jargon is inaccessible to many readers. The use of jargon might even be purposeful in order to sound more scholarly, or to impress simply with the use of words. A difficult concept explained in a difficult matter must have taken a highly intellectual and literate person to produce right? So we have another difference highlighted. Gere’s essay points out writers working to produce a written product that will appeal to the members of their own communities. It must be easy to understand and have the ability to communicate with a larger group. Academic writing is targeted to a small group (academics, and typically just those in the same field) so it is deliberately obtuse and perhaps not the best form of communication.
Literacy is a concept with different levels. How do we define literacy? Is there a different definition in the academic world than there is in the world at large, the “real” world? The writers of jargon filled articles written for their peers may have a certain idea of who is literate. A literate person can read and understand and possibly refute the academic work. If this is the level of literacy required to be considered literate, our definition goes too far. I am going to favor a definition of literacy that is more inclusive. Literacy is knowledge, any level of knowledge, and the desire to expand that knowledge. Eubanks and Schaeffer describe a world of exclusive literacy. If you can’t understand us, too bad. If that is the attitude, then I am tempted to throw in an epithet. The Gere article describes literacy of a more inclusive nature. The writers are putting down words and improving their skills, all the while becoming more literate. Writing is about communication, not exclusion. I think we can even turn the concept of literacy around and say an academic work, full of jargon and obfuscation is its own kind of illiteracy, communicative illiteracy.
I think as we go on I may find ways to defend my inclusive idea of literacy a bit more. As a future special education teacher, inclusion is a big focus, finding someone’s capabilities and emphasizing those capacities. Why not take the same approach to literacy and find how we can make everyone literate to the fullest extent possible?

ENGLISH 201 ONLINE, BLOG UP & RUNNING!

Dear all,

Welcome to our English 201 Online Course Blog! Check back for the initial post/prompt for the Blog posts due Sunday, 9/19!

Dr. O.