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.