Brianna Ciriaco
ENG 1001- 027
Rhetorical Analysis- Rough Draft 1
10 February 2020
Learning to Speak the Language of the University
In the article “Inventing the University” by David Bartholomae, the author says that students at the university have to “invent the university”. He says this because they take many different courses and have to learn how to express themselves in each course. This is part of having a liberal arts education. This can be a problem, because students are required to speak and write before the skill is ‘learned”. David Bartholomae gives examples of four student essays and then analyzes them for the reader. He points out positive and negative things in each essay. The first essay shared was a placement essay that a student wrote at freshman orientation in which the student described something creative that he/ she had done. In the second essay, a student writes about his work as a mechanic and an incident that was important to him. In the third essay, the writer writes about his football team and how he had the idea of changing the kind of socks and cleats he and other players would wear. The last essay shared is when the writer talks about his interest and experiences with music. David Bartholomae mentions the opinion of Linda Flower. She thinks that expert writers should consider the reader when writing essays and be able to change their writing accordingly. He also mentions the opinion of Mina Shaughnessy. She states regarding advanced writers: “The evidence of a problem is the presence of dissonant, redundant, or imprecise language.” David Bartholomae concludes that some students will have to imitate the “distinctive register” of academic discourse before they are able to complete the work. He states that: “Our students must be our students. Their initial progress will be marked by their abilities to take on the role of privilege, by their abilities to establish authority.”
The question or problem the author addresses is he wants the students writing to speak in his language. The author, David Bartholomae, shapes the content being used to match his intended audience by telling that instead of saying this or that, they can be more specific and add more detail. The author, David Bartholomae’s thesis relates to his purpose by stating that every students’ stories were good, just need to be more critiqued. Key moments in the article, “Inventing the University”, are the stories “Clay Model” and “White Shoes”. Important for “Clay Model” because David Bartholomae says, “the student who wrote about constructing a clay model of the earth is better prepared than is better prepared for his education.” The assumptions the author makes on the reader would be that in the two stories, “Clay Model and “White Shoes”. The student who wrote the “Clay Model” would be a better prepared student than the student who wrote “White Shoes”. There are no problems or contradictions in the article. Nothing really bothers me about the article. I agree with the author that it can be too hard on the student to write in each different subject. A good example is when David Bartholomae states, “A student after the first year or two, must learn to try on a variety of voices and interpretive schemes- to write for example, as a literary critic one day, and experimental phycologist the next.”
The type of structure the author used for his argument would be deductive. The author’s tone is academic, preachy, and casual. The tone supports the authors purpose and meaning. I thought the sentences and vocabulary were easy. The sentence and vocabulary support the purpose and meaning. Yes, there were recurring words that relate to the purpose and meaning. “Every time a student sits down to write for us, he has to invent the university for the occasion- invent the university, that is, or a branch of it, like History or Anthropology or Economics or English. He has to learn to speak our language.” Later he says, “They must learn to speak our language. Or they must dare to speak it, or to carry off the bluff, since speaking and writing will most certainly be required long before the skill is learned.
The kinds of evidence that the author David Bartholomae primarily relies on are personal experience, descriptions, and analytical reasoning. This is shown when the author, David Bartholomae, gives examples of student essays and then analyzes them. The evidence that was the most effective, was the example from the “Clay Model” essay which the author David Bartholomae critiqued. The author relied on assertions rather than on evidence when he talked about reviewing essays. David Bartholomae states: “As I read these essays, I was looking to determine the stylistic resources that enabled writers to locate themselves within an “academic” discourse. My bias as a reader should be clear by now.” I feel the author, David Bartholomae’s quality of evidence is good. The evidence David Bartholomae provides is convincing, because he gives examples of various essays and analyzes them.
In the article, “Inventing the University” by David Bartholomae, his purpose was to inform the readers by giving the audience examples of how it is to be a college student in the university and suggestions of how to be a better writer. Me personally, I thought the article was overall very well understandable and interesting. Especially the given point of examples of student writings. The article affected me in a really positive way, such as keeping my focus. The article kept me wanting to read and study more in depth. The article wants to change the reader by making them become a better writer, which will help them to be a more successful student. I don’t think the articles purpose was “hidden”, or different from the stated purpose, I actually thought it was straight forward. The intended audience was me, the reader and the students of the university. I was very much a part of the intended audience. Assumptions the author makes about the reader’s knowledge or beliefs would be how it interests them and how they organize themselves. The contexts the article is coming from is first person and third person.
What I learned from close examination of this publication was how to become a better reader and writer. Some of the “hidden” beliefs that can be seen within this publication are shown in this quote: “He has to learn to speak our language, to speak as we do, to try on the peculiar ways of knowing, selecting, evaluating, reporting, concluding, and arguing that define the discourse of our community.” The intention of this publication is to teach that every student can be a good reader and writer. They may improve their reading and writing skills by taking their time and focusing on the content knowledge in each different academic class. My overall feeling about this publication is that it is very good. I think this publication exists because it teaches the students that in order to become a successful writer, they must know much of the knowledge that comes within each academic course. A situation when this publication might be read, is when a teacher assigns this to students when trying to teach a class about what it is like to write proper English.
Work Cited
Bartholomae, David. “Inventing the University.” Journal of Basic Writing, vol. 5, no.
Bartholome, David. “Inventing the university.” New York: Gulliford, (2019)
1. 1986, pp. 4-23
ENGL 1001- 027 Writing Portfolio 
1. Summary:
1. Does the opening sentence provide a clear indication of the author’s name and the title of the text being reviewed? If not, how can he/she fix this? If so, is there a way to make it clearer or more succinct? Be specific.
Yes, the opening sentence provides a clear indication of the author’s name and the title of the text being reviewed.
2. Does the first paragraph contain a summary of “Inventing the University”? If not, how can he/she fix this?
The first paragraph is 75% summary of the “Inventing the university”. You can fix this by taking out the parts you talked about the 4 different essays summarizes how they are different or similar to what the author is trying to inform in the article.
3. Does the author refrain from personal opinions about the text in the introductory (summary) paragraph? If not, how can he/she fix this? If so, are there any sentences that do not include a mention of Bartholomae or the text, where the author needs to attribute words or ideas back to Bartholomae in a clearer way? Be specific.
Yes, Brianna has included the author’s personal opinion but I think you show try to clean up some of the sentences because we are trying to make sure the readers have a understanding of what the article is about.
4. Does the final sentence of the introductory paragraph contain a thesis that clearly explains what content will be discussed in the essay? If not, how can he/she fix this? If so, is there a way to make it clearer or more succinct? Be specific. No, the final sentence of the introductory paragraph doesn’t contain a thesis. She can fix this by not ending the sentence with a quote but with a sentence that explains the thesis just how she did in the beginning of the paragraph. Concluding the first paragraph should always go back to your main point that you explain at the top.
5. Is the summary easy to follow/understand? If not, how can he/she fix this? Are there any parts that need rewording or revising for clarity? If so, what needs to be done? Be specific. No, the summary isn’t easy to follow or understand because she didn’t make it into a summary. She didn’t summarize the article. There are citations in the summary that I think it shouldn’t be there. Instead of summing up the article she summed up what the author had to say about the 4 essays. I think Brianna should reread the article and try to sum it all up and just putting it in your own words without using any text citations. The summary is supposed to be about what you think the author may have been talking about and also still introducing your thesis in the beginning and the end.
Body:
2. Purpose/Audience
1. Does the first paragraph of the body examine the purpose of “Inventing the University”? If it does not focus on purpose at all, how can he/she fix this? If so, does it go into enough detail? If not, how can he/she fix this?
Yes, she talks her 1st body paragraph talks about the purpose of the article and why the author has written it. No its not detailed enough. She can fix this by making her sentence structor to what you are trying to say then find a quote that can back up what you are saying so the readers know exactly what you are trying to persuade to them.
2. Does the first paragraph of the body also examine the audience of “Inventing the University”? If it does not focus on audience at all, then how can he/she fix this? Does it go into enough detail? If not, how can he/she fix this?
No, the essay doesn’t examine the audience of “Inventing the University” because she is more focus on telling us her opinion. She can fix this by erasing the parts that shows where she thought about it and explain to us what audience the author thinks he is addressing to us. Instead of putting your opinion try putting the author opinion to whom he might have wrote the article for. Was it for students or teacher??? Could it be both??? Try not to say I think or in my opinion.
3. Are there any issues that need more work or more detail? If so, explain. If not, then explain what the author did well in this section? Be specific. By finding your purpose try rethinking about what you wrote with what the thesis was and find evidence you think that may can be a match with it. Try thinking about what was his purpose to writing this article and who was he writing it for?? Make your sentence very clear to what you are trying to say here. Find quotes you think that can relate to his purpose not just quotes you think you might like.
3. Content Analysis
1. Does the second paragraph of the body examine the overall content for the essay? If it does not focus on the content at all, how can he/she fix this? If so, does it go into enough detail? If not, how can he/she fix this?
Yes, she states what she thinks what the overall content for the essay is but it seems like she just went down the questions lists and wrote what she thought it may be. She can fix this by not trying to answer the questions going down the line but what an over view of the whole article is about.
2. Does the author highlight key passages, arguments or moments within the text? If not, how might he/she fix this? If so, are there any places where those passages, arguments, or moments are unclear or require further documentation? Be specific, and provide examples of how the author can fix this?
Yes, she gives us an example by adding quotes but she forgot to give the author credit for his work. Ways she can fix this by going to files in canvas and selecting the citations paper to help with giving the author credit.
3. Are there any issues that need more work or more detail? If so, explain. If not, then explain what the author did well in this section? Be specific. Instead of telling what the author tone is he should try showing instead of telling because the goal is for the reader to figure out what you could be explaining. You want to kepp the reader focuses by showing clear explanation.
4. Organization, Language, and Style (Missing)
1. Does the third paragraph of the body examine the organization (structure) of “Inventing the University”? If not, how might he/she fix this? If so, are there any details/examples that the author might have missed that should be included?
2. Does the third paragraph of the body examine the language (tone, vocabulary, imagery, etc.) of “Inventing the University”? If not, how might he/she fix this? If so, are there any details/examples that the author might have missed that should be included?
3. Does the third paragraph of the body examine the style (way that the author wrote the essay) of “Inventing the University”? If not, how might he/she fix this? If so, are there any details/examples that the author might have missed that should be included?
4. Are there any issues that need more work or more detail? If so, explain. If not, then explain what the author did well in this section? Be specific.
5. Evidence
1. Does the fourth paragraph of the body examine the evidence of “Inventing the University”? If not, how might he/she fix this? If so, are there any details/examples that the author might have missed that should be included?
Yes, she examines evidence but once again I feel she typed this part of the essay by just going down the lists of questions and not wording it in a different way. She can fix this by taking out the parts where it sounds like she is answering from the questions and try say it in a different way than answering the questions.
2. Are there any examples of logos, pathos, or ethos that the author might have missed? If so, what are they? Are there any details/examples that the author might have missed that should be included?
No, because in her essay she tells us what he uses but hse doesn’t shows us by giving a quote that can be similar to when she is talking about personal experiences. She can fix this by finding example when the author is talking about his personal experience or any other experience that can relate to why he wrote this article.
3. Are there any issues that need more work or more detail? If so, explain. If not, then explain what the author did well in this section? Be specific.
There really isn’t any good detail examples in the essay. She should re look back at the questions to see what this part of the essay should be about.
6. Close Examination (Bartholomae)
1. Does the fifth paragraph of the body examine the conclusions that the author makes in “Inventing the University? Is there anything missing? Does the author provide enough evidence?
Yes, she has a conclusion to what the author is trying to say here but she is not very clear of what the question for this part of the paragraph was stating. There are a lot of opinions in this paragraph, like a lot of agrees or disagrees.
2. Are there any issues that need more work or more detail? If so, explain. If not, then explain what the author did well in this section? Be specific.
Yes, there are issues in this part of the essay. More evidence needs to be provided instead of what you are agreeing about.
Conclusion:
7. Your Conclusion
1. Does the author clearly explain how this essay relates to them as a student at UC? Are there any more examples that they might provide? If so, what? \
No, she doesn’t state how this essay can relate to her as a UC student instead she uses everyone but herself. To fix this part of the selection I think you should focus on more about yourself as a writer and how you can relate to the essay because this conclusion is all about you.
2. Does the author clearly explain how “Inventing the University” can be applied to their current or future course work? If not, what should they add? If so, are there any places that could be made clearer or more succinct? Be specific.
No the author doesn’t clearly explain how “Inventing the University” can be applied to their current or future course work. She talks mainly about other people which in this section she should only focus on her-self and her writing and how this article can help her improve a little bit more.
LikeLike