In his essay "The Achievement of Desire," Richard Rodriguez uses the term "scholarship boy." This term first appears on page 431. Rodgriguez sums up his meaning of scholarship boy in a sentence, saying he was "always successful" but "always unconfident." He was "too eager, too anxious - an imitative and unoriginal student."
Rodriguez goes on to use the term "scholarship boy" for the rest of the essay. Although it sounds like a good thing, he uses it to refer to himself and his school experience negatively. Scholarship boys seem like good students, but actually are just imitators. They mimic what the teachers say. Instead of using school as a platform for future successes, scholarship boys only strive to be successful in school. They want to please the teacher, perhaps even be the teacher.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Inventing the University: Fake it 'til you make it
David Bartholomae address exactly why academic writing can be so difficult for students. We simply have not been taught how to do it. He first explains that successful writers "can write from a position of privilege... They must be equal to or more powerful than those they would address" (515). To be a good writer, you must act like an expert, talking to a group of experts. In order to become an expert, you need to practice sounding like one. In other words, you must "fake it 'til you make it." Although students new to a field may not have the actual experience or knowledge, if they develop their writing skills, they will already have that strong authoritative voice when the knowledge part finally can back up their statements. However, many students have never been taught how to exercise their academic voices.
Bartholomae illustrates where teachers go wrong and how they can help students develop a more mature writing style. He uses the example of a writing assignment where a students are asked to "write about 'To His Coy Mistress,' not to for your teacher, but for the students in [their] class" (515). This type of assignment, which requires the student to write for an outsider, does not reflect how the academic community works. To better prepare students for writing academic discourse, where writing is addressed to an insider's circle, they should be required to write about "To His Coy Mistress" for a person who is already an expert on it. With this type of practice, students will be better prepared for entering the academic conversation.
Looking back, I can see how my writing teachers in high school molded me into a stronger writer by following Bartholomae's recommendation. I was taught to write from a position of authority. For example, here are two versions of an excerpt from a paper of mine in high school:
The mistreatment of women, primarily Chaucer’s portrayal of women as mere afterthoughts of men, is evident in “The Clerk’s Tale.” Chaucer deliberately undermines the essential worth of women, and in doing that, destroys the fundamental freedoms which come with humanity.
In earlier drafts, this statement began as
It seems as if Chaucer portrays women as mere afterthoughts of men in "The Clerk's Tale." It could be argued that the essential worth of women is undermined. When women are disregarded, it threatens their place in the world as human beings, along with the fundamental freedoms which come with humanity.
Although the two excerpts have similar substance, the first one is much stronger. In my original draft, I wrote "It could be argued that the essential worth of women is undermined." It "could be" argued? Why don't I argue it right now? In my later draft, I changed this to a bold accusatory statement, claiming "Chaucer deliberately undermines the essential worth of women." I was taught that I can and should take control of my writing like this; I'm an expert, aren't I? Like Bartholomae says, by acting like an expert on this topic, I am qualified to write to an audience of inside experts.
Bartholomae illustrates where teachers go wrong and how they can help students develop a more mature writing style. He uses the example of a writing assignment where a students are asked to "write about 'To His Coy Mistress,' not to for your teacher, but for the students in [their] class" (515). This type of assignment, which requires the student to write for an outsider, does not reflect how the academic community works. To better prepare students for writing academic discourse, where writing is addressed to an insider's circle, they should be required to write about "To His Coy Mistress" for a person who is already an expert on it. With this type of practice, students will be better prepared for entering the academic conversation.
Looking back, I can see how my writing teachers in high school molded me into a stronger writer by following Bartholomae's recommendation. I was taught to write from a position of authority. For example, here are two versions of an excerpt from a paper of mine in high school:
The mistreatment of women, primarily Chaucer’s portrayal of women as mere afterthoughts of men, is evident in “The Clerk’s Tale.” Chaucer deliberately undermines the essential worth of women, and in doing that, destroys the fundamental freedoms which come with humanity.
In earlier drafts, this statement began as
It seems as if Chaucer portrays women as mere afterthoughts of men in "The Clerk's Tale." It could be argued that the essential worth of women is undermined. When women are disregarded, it threatens their place in the world as human beings, along with the fundamental freedoms which come with humanity.
Although the two excerpts have similar substance, the first one is much stronger. In my original draft, I wrote "It could be argued that the essential worth of women is undermined." It "could be" argued? Why don't I argue it right now? In my later draft, I changed this to a bold accusatory statement, claiming "Chaucer deliberately undermines the essential worth of women." I was taught that I can and should take control of my writing like this; I'm an expert, aren't I? Like Bartholomae says, by acting like an expert on this topic, I am qualified to write to an audience of inside experts.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Academic Bullshit: Members Only
My primary problem with academic bullshit is that it encourages membership into only an exclusive club. Philip Eubanks and John Schaeffer point out the reason why most people hate specifically academic bullshit but tolerate all kinds of other bullshit in everyday life. People have trouble with academic writing because "it uses jargon, words whose meaning are so abstract and vague as to seem unrelated to anyone's experience. Such jargon seems to contribute nothing to the reader except confusion and only serves to enhance the ethos of the speaker" (381). To the everyday reader, it seems like writers purposely use obscure words and difficult sentence structure just to make themselves look better or smarter. Eubanks and Scaeffer go on to explain that the academic culture encourages exactly that -- the use of bullshit to appear qualified to gain admittance into an academic circle of specialists.
"Academic writing... is seldom meant for an average audience; it addresses an audience of specialists, ... [and] aims to qualify the author for membership into a group of specialists" (382). The purpose of most academic writing is primarily to give the author an "in" to an exclusive club. Are we still in junior high, folks? The people in academia are happy to keep membership exclusive. If their colleagues can understand them, and most importantly, be impressed by their bullshit writing, then they think they have done their job. In contrast to the current academic culture, I think that knowledge should be a public, accessible entity. Sure, academic specialists can understand the jargon and obscure pretentious language, but I (and most other readers) get lost in the first paragraph. This keeps knowledge exclusive. I think academic circles need to open up the discussion to outside thought. Although it is important to value and showcase the thoughts of proven specialists, what harm is being done in making the discussion accessible to a layperson? Perhaps it would break the incestuous tendencies of many academic fields and encourage the introduction of new ideas.
Eubanks and Schaeffer eventually throw their hands in the air and concede to the culture of accepting bullshit in academic writing. They attempt to convince us that there is "a productive sort of bullshit: bullshit that ultimately produces better thought and better selves." They compromise, giving in to the legacy of inaccessible academic writing, even going so far as to praise it by saying that "bullshit is inevitable when people are tempting to write well" (387). The authors perpetuate the belief that good writing sounds like good writing and must sound like bullshit as well.
"Academic writing... is seldom meant for an average audience; it addresses an audience of specialists, ... [and] aims to qualify the author for membership into a group of specialists" (382). The purpose of most academic writing is primarily to give the author an "in" to an exclusive club. Are we still in junior high, folks? The people in academia are happy to keep membership exclusive. If their colleagues can understand them, and most importantly, be impressed by their bullshit writing, then they think they have done their job. In contrast to the current academic culture, I think that knowledge should be a public, accessible entity. Sure, academic specialists can understand the jargon and obscure pretentious language, but I (and most other readers) get lost in the first paragraph. This keeps knowledge exclusive. I think academic circles need to open up the discussion to outside thought. Although it is important to value and showcase the thoughts of proven specialists, what harm is being done in making the discussion accessible to a layperson? Perhaps it would break the incestuous tendencies of many academic fields and encourage the introduction of new ideas.
Eubanks and Schaeffer eventually throw their hands in the air and concede to the culture of accepting bullshit in academic writing. They attempt to convince us that there is "a productive sort of bullshit: bullshit that ultimately produces better thought and better selves." They compromise, giving in to the legacy of inaccessible academic writing, even going so far as to praise it by saying that "bullshit is inevitable when people are tempting to write well" (387). The authors perpetuate the belief that good writing sounds like good writing and must sound like bullshit as well.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)