Reading Questions:
1) When the writer of this passage states that a student should "invent the university," he means that when one is writing for a class that person should write from the viewpoint of a professional in the given field of expertise. The student should use similar terminology to that of a professional economist for an Economy class, or Psychologist for a Psych class. The student should still write like a expert even if the ideas are still unclear to them.
2) For one to become an insider in a certain field one must try to see things for the insider's perspective, or put themselves in an expert's shoes. It is key to learn the material and the vocab, or at least know how to make it seem as though you have learned it. Students need to think of themselves as a person qualified to speak about the given subject.
3) The writing was clearly written and concise, however, still uninteresting and contradictory; in my opinion. The writing, i feel, should have contained more body, more back-up, and more grounds. It seemed as those she went against some of the introduction later in the writing. The writer happens to think his writing is at a higer level, and somewhat difficult to understand. I disagree. The writer believes the second essay should have been made using a bit more complex sentence structure. I, again, disagree.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You state that a "student should still write like a expert even if the ideas are still unclear to them." I think you're right, but students assume that experts have total understanding about their fields and about the terminology used in it. Bartholomae and the books we're reading will help show that experts are often dealing with concepts that are still unclear to them, and this lack of clarity is part of (or generative of) professional discourse. In some sense, you could say, that this unavoidable lack of clarity is part of the reason professionals communicate in the first place.
ReplyDelete