Tyla Iacobucci
ENG 1001 –027
Rhetorical Analysis – Rough Draft 1
10 February 2020
About Inventing the University
- Introduction
Have you ever thought about writing? Not just picking up your pencil and writing something out. But like really thinking about what you write and the story you are telling. Whether it be informative, for entertainment, or to argue, all writing has a different language and a different meaning if you really think about it. When you’re given a topic to write about you are recreating what happened or how you feel towards the situation or maybe even to inform someone on something they did not know! Writing is deeper than just picking up your pencil, don’t just write it, think it!
- Summary
In the article “Inventing the University” by David Bartholomae, starts off by stating how students change the way they write depending on their audience. When students sit down to write for the University, they must speak their “language,” create something that fits the discourse of their community. Meaning as students write they may not know the subject, but they must invent it for the time being. Use your imagination to create something on the valid topic. To spend years at the University you must learn a variety of different voices and languages to meet the requirements of the writing. Students must adapt to the topic of any essay and write about it to the best of their ability. Bartholomae then provides examples of students doing so, to see the different errors that can be made.
Every student writes in their own way, whether it be a beginner writer or an expert writer, mistakes are easy to be made. In the article, Bartholomae analyzes two essays, one by a beginner and one by an expert. The biggest mistake that Bartholomae mentions is how in one of the articles the author got lost in their own words explaining things but not exactly staying on topic, jumping all over the place, possibly losing the audience. This can very easily happen, especially when you’re unsure with what you’re writing. Being well educated on your topic is important to creating all writing. Remember to re-read your own writing to make sure it makes sense and you’re staying on track.
- Purpose/Audience
This is an informative article that shows and gives examples of how students adapt to new ideas, languages and credentials by simply writing a paper. The point that the author is trying to get across is very clear and well explained in the first paragraph of this article. Reading this article really made me open my eyes as a writer, because I never really thought about reinventing what I am writing about in my head. I never thought that it was deeper than just writing what was asked of me but now I know there is so much more. I know that this will help me become a better writer and help me take on writing with a whole new mindset. This article was made for beginner writers, just like me, to show the audience there is so much more to writing then just getting a grade.
- Content Analysis
Bartholomae explains how students are not being able to write very effective papers or being able to write to the best of their ability because lack of knowledge towards a subject. The author shapes his content around giving examples and explaining the errors for each of his examples, to provide enough information to get his point across to the audience. Bartholomae mainly wrote this for beginner writers such as me and you, to give us a better understanding that everyone makes mistakes even the experts. Despite all the good information this article provides it was very hard for me to not get confused, by the way things are worded and all the different directions the main topic could go. This bothered me because I had to keep going back and reread some things until it became clearer to me.
- Organization, Language, and Style
The style of this article is and Rogerian argument. First by stating the problem then leads on to show evidence and examples to support to the problem. With an academic and serious tone to get the point across to the audience. The tone of the article did not take away from the meaning, but the vocabulary and the way things are worded does. Personally, I had to go back over and reread some parts of this article just to properly understand. The vocabulary was difficult and distracts the purpose and meaning. This article is deductive that claims the problem first then shows the proof.
- Evidence
I think that the Bartholomae is mainly relying on pathos as he explains his opinion of this subject. In this article the author uses more of his beliefs and observations on writing than actual data or authority. For example, Bartholomae says “There are ways, I think, that a writer can shape history in the very act of writing.” Just in this sentence the author uses words such as “I think” to state his opinion on the topic. The author relied more on his assertions than evidence, instead of stating facts and data Bartholomae relies mainly on the examples that he provides. I think if David provided more actual facts and data the article could be stronger and more convincing to the reader.
- Overall
After reading the article “Inventing the University” by David Bartholomae I have learned that it is a very well written informative article on the way college students adapt their writing to different situations. The intention of this publication is to inform new unexperienced writers on the different mistakes and the difference between expert writers and beginners. This article goes into great detail to inform the writer to the best of their ability. My overall feeling is that Bartholomae should have included actual facts and data to help support his main idea. I also feel that the article could have been worded better, the language took away from the meaning. Overall, Bartholomae covered many different points and examples, so I enjoyed reading this piece.
- Conclusion
In conclusion, this relates to me as a University student because this makes me have a totally different outlook on writing. As I grow as a writer, I will think about this essay and remind myself how important it is think deeper into the topic than what it really is. I have so much to improve on as I write throughout my life I will always remember to dig deeper and to remember that mistakes are okay. This article was very interesting to read, just took me a little while to understand it.
Work Cited
Bartholomae, David. “Inventing the university.” Journal of Basic Writing,vol. 5, no. 1, 1986, pp. 4-23.
Tyla Iacobucci 
Name: __Paris Lee __________________________________________ Date: 2/10/20__________________________________
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.
The opening sentence is clear and starts off with the title, the authors name, and kind of states the reason for writing the article.
2. Does the first paragraph contain a summary of “Inventing the University”? If not, how can he/she fix this?
The first Paragraph is a strong summary, I would say don’t paraphrase the author because I saw as I was reading you said “The biggest mistake that Bartholomae mentions is how in one of the articles the author got lost in their own words explaining things but not exactly staying on topic, jumping all over the place, possibly losing the audience.” But overall a great summary.
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.
As I examined the summary it did not have personal opinions and the summary also referred back to Bartholomae when need be.
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.
Though you may state early in the summary what the paper is about you do not state at the end of the thesis and what will be talked about in your essay. To fix this just add the thesis or something explaining what your essay will include or be about.
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.
I think the summary is fine the way it is just change the few things I stated in the questions above and you’ll have a good summary.
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?
Though you may say in the beginning it is an informative article you don’t state the exact purpose. To fix this make it clear what the exact purpose is.
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?
You don’t really make it clear who the audience is that the article is really talking to. The portion of the essay as I read focuses on how you feel or some of the things you do. To fix this state who the audience is what purpose he has for talking to them.
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.
When writing the purpose and audience be more clear what the purpose is and who the audience.
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?
You kind of explain the overall content but then you start to lose me because of wording and how you have things set up. At the end of your paragraph, it sounds like you are answering a question make it sound more fluently.
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?
You need to add quotes within this paragraph to make it more clear of what the author was saying in his 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.
Just add some quotes and make your paragraph needs to flow.
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?
Your paragraph doesn’t clearly state what the organization at which the article. To fix this add the organization at which the article follows.
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 explained well what the language was far as tone and vocabulary but like I said before your paragraph needs to flow and don’t make it sound like your answering a bunch of questions. Also, add quotes.
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?
Your paragraph examines the style at which the article is but it also sounds like your answering a question. Also, add quotes.
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.
Add quotes, make your paragraph flow, and don’t make it sound like your answering a bunch of questions. Also, change how you word some things.
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, the paragraph provides evidence but the way you word some things makes it seem unclear.
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?
The paragraph identifies whether the Arthur uses logos, pathos, or ethos and explains.
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.
After quoting an Arthur put last name and what page you found the information. Also don’t refer to an Arthur by his first name only by the last name.
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?
Paragraph explains well what you learned from reading this article and some of the changes that could be made.
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.
Paragraph sounds like your answering questions so make it flow better.
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? \
Paragraph explains well why this article meant something to them as a university student. Just reword some things.
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.
The paragraph also explains how this will be applied in the future. Maybe add more detail on how it be applied to current or future course work.
LikeLike