Paris Lee
English 1001-027
Rhetorical Analysis –Rough draft 1
10 February 2020
Inventing the University
A. Summary
The Essay Dr. David Bartholomae writes about Inventing the University it makes a lot of key points and ideas when you sit and think what he is trying to convey to his readers. Bartholomae’s purpose is clear, he explains what must happen in order for the student who is attending that University, when writing an essay how it should be well put together but also is in a language of clear understanding for Professors who teach English to be able to understand the language of what the essay is talking about. Bartholomae gives a couple of examples of essay’s that were written and he examines and give points on how each any every essay had a problem and or didn’t fit the discourse community meaning didn’t have the language at which the Audience (Professors) would not understand. When writing for the University you want to write professional and have language that the University will understand. It’s the not the simple fact that students can write an essay and present it because anyone can write an essay, but the difference is can you write an essay to an academic discourse and be able to mimic the academic discourse meaning, to have the knowledge to speak in the language as them, to speak as the voice of the community. Bartholomae makes it very clear what students must do but also what Professors have to do in order for the students to replicate what they have been taught and produce it to the University.
A. Purpose/Audience
After reading this Essay, the purpose looking at it now makes more since but if you was just it reading for the first time and not really knowing where this essay is going or what purpose it served for reading then you would think that this essay was unclear or seemed kind of muddled seeing that this essay was written in 1986 and it is now 2020. After reading it twice I gained the knowledge of what Dr. David Bartholomae’s. purpose was, he wants his Audience (fellow Academic writers) to know how one, the student should write when it is being presented or submitted to a University or even a Academic writer. Bartholomae is suggesting to the Academic Professors to teach their students the right way of writing when in a Discourse community and mimic the academic discourse meaning, to have the knowledge to speak in the language as them, to speak as the voice of the community.
B. Content Analysis
In the article, Dr. David Bartholomae writes specifically on the content of how students don’t know the difference between discourses when writing an essay and it is being presented to the discourse community. Bartholomae as a reader isn’t looking to see how the writer represents their skills demanded by the neutral language. He states “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” (Bartholomae 1). This idea he formed is the thesis that leads to the purpose of this article. Bartholomae examines 3 different essays written by 3 different people and in each essay, he states “The purpose of the remainder of the paper will be to examine some of the most striking and characteristic problems as they are presented in the essay” (9).
C. Organization, language, and style
At the beginning of the paper, the first few sentences you could tell what Bartholomae’s thesis is that would lead throughout the article. The structure Bartholomae portrayed in this article was deductive, meaning stating the thesis early in the paper. I feel the structure of his article is a little of Classical because he states his thesis early but also captures his audience being the academic writers, but there are some pieces in this article that would make it seem like it was Rogerian because he states the problem and voices how it can be resolved. He presents various essays written by different people and examines each one and says what the errors were in that essay and how it could be fixed to mimic the “discourse community” of the University. Bartholomae, when he wrote this article it was in 1986, so the language and some of the vocabulary I was seeing throughout the article was recurring but also it was a little bit difficult to understand because the he’s a college professor so he’s going to use terminology that an Academic writer may use.
D. Evidence
Dr. David Bartholomae relies on logic and reasoning as to what his purpose is in this article. Bartholomae, as I said previously in my other paragraphs, he examined a couple of essays and broke down the reason as to why each essay had an error. He didn’t just say “Oh that essay has a grammatical error, or punctuation is right”, he literally word by word, sentence by sentence checked if the student wrote and it was up to the “community” standards. Bartholomae says, “the stages of development that I’ve suggested are not necessarily marked by corresponding levels in the type of frequency of error, at least not by the type or frequency of sentence-level errors” (14). This leads back to what his purpose was, which is to get the attention of his audience (academic writers) to teach their students how to write in a “discourse community” and his evidence to his purpose was the various essays he read and explained what the errors were.
E. Overall (close) Assessment
Dr. David Bartholomae, when writing this article he knew what his clear cut intentions were. He wrote this article directing his message to the academic writers of the University telling them that as academic writers you guys need to correct the errors that occur in the essays that students present or submit to the university when it involves the language at which it doesn’t mimic the language as if you as a professor was writing it. I learned that as a student of a university, I must mimic the language and the way the community speaks within the discourse community. What stuck to me that Bartholomae said at the end of the article was “ It may very well be that some students will need to learn to crudely mimic “distinctive register” of academic discourse before they are prepared to actually and legitimately do the work of the discourse, and before they are sophisticated enough with the refinements of tone and gesture to do it with grace or elegance” (Bartholomae 17).
Conclusion
In conclusion, Dr. David Bartholomae wrote this article is that he was an academic writer of a university, he seen the numerous essays that were being submitted and observed that the students who were submitting them did not know the correct language or in other terms the correct discourse when writing for the university. His purpose is clear what should be the expectation of how academic writers should teach their students how to mimic the university and speak as if they are the community. The academic writers should teach their students how to find an authoritative voice when writing to the university.
Works cited
Bartholomae, David. “Inventing the university.” Journal of Basic Writing, vol. 5, no. 1, 1986, pp.
4-23.
Site Title 
Introduction:
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, but it should be worded different. I think that you should introduce the author and the title of the article before you provide the information. Starting off with an introductory sentence would have been more clearer to the audience then just by starting off by diving straight into the information.
2. Does the first paragraph contain a summary of “Inventing the University”? If not, how can he/she fix this?
Yes, the first paragraph contains a summary of 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.
The author refrains from personal opinions very well in the summary, but the summary can use more of referring back to Bartholomae. It contains a lot of good information from Bartholomae but you just need to give him more credit.
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.
Yes, it clearly states what will be discussed. Also provides enough details for the reader to understand.
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.
The summary is very easy to follow, great!
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?
It already focuses on the purpose in great detail. No fixes!
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?
I think this states who the audience is very clearly.
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.
I think that you really stated the purpose and the audience very well. It was made clear.
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?
It states the content very well, but I it needs more detail. I think adding more details to your quotes and explaining them to the reader better but help understand.
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, you use good quotes just need a little more detail explaining and leading up to the information from the passage.
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.
Just add more details but overall your essay flows really nicely.
4. Organization, Language, and Style
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?
It states the organization well! Enough detail to explain both parts of your opinion too!
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?
You provide great detail but do not clearly state the tone. Add a little more info on the tone.
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?
You state the organization well, but left out the style. To improve I think you should state the way the Bartholomae wrote the essay, what is this essay trying to do?
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.
Just add the tone and style, to make this paragraph flow better.
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?
I think
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?
I see nothing about logos, ethos, and pathos. Adding one of these and explaining will help the reader understand better.
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.
Just add more information logos, ethos, and pathos.
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, it examines the conclusions in great detail.
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.
Just make sure you answer the important questions and don’t leave out important information.
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?
I don’t see any information on how it relates to you personally. Explain your thoughts and opinion better.
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.
In your conclusion, there really isnt any of your opinion or how it could be applied to your future.
LikeLike