Haas and Bartholomae Quotes

In Bartholomae, he states “to speak to us as a person of status or privilege, the writer can either speak to us in our terms-in the privileged language of university discourse-or, in default (or in defiance), he can speak to us as though we were children, offering us the wisdom of experience” (514).

To me, this is stating that a student’, or scientist in Haas’ case study, language, tone and vocabulary determine his audience and how he views them. Does the student have the advanced writing skills to speak within the academic discourse? Or do they think they know and offer some knowledge in the form of wisdom? A writer must not only master concepts and knowledge within a particular discipline, but also learn to write with authority to engage in scientific discourse. The steps to this includes many of Bartholomae’s ideas including using mimicking, relying less on grammar and the rejection of commonplaces, which seem to complicate essays more than enhance them.

The complementing quote from Haas I chose states “in general, these educators have argued that in order to understand, use, and judge scientific content-and, of course, scientific content remains of vital importance to science educators-students need a meta-understanding of the motives of science and scientists and the history of scientific concepts” (359).

Understanding of scientific figures and facts is important, and as we learned with Eliza’s progress, but also knowing views and opinions of other scientists becomes significant in engaging in the discourse of that field. Bartholomae would agree with understanding facts and knowledge because it is part of mimicking, copying other ideas until you’ve become advanced enough to create your own. The only thing I can think of that would complicate these two quotes if a student relied too much on context and did not contribute their own ideas to the conversation, or discourse.

Relection Essay: Bartholomae

As I reflect back on my essay and Bartholomae's thought on it, I have to say he would not be impressed. I would probably be considered a basic writer according to him, but would probably place somewhat well on a placement test. As I reread my essay, I notice many things. First, I noticed that I was definately trying to improve my grammar, a technique that will be hard to rid of. Also, I became aware of the fact that I use commonplaces throughout my essay. There weren't any explanations to my statements. I assumed my audience knew what I was talking about and in actuality, I did not even know. Another point I observed was that while writing my essay, I was not aware of my reader. Myself being the reader, I wanted more elaboration on some of my reasons. A statement I used to describe creativity was: "Creativity is a relfection of the brains thought, memories, and emotion." After I read this I ask out loud, "And how?" I wanted more answers from this essay.

Comparing my essay to one in Inventing the University, I would have to compare it to the "While Shoes" essay, not that I want to. Without reading Bartholomae, I would have compared it to an advanced writer's paper. My analytical view on grammar, my short explanations, and my wide use of commonplaces give my essay a lower grade. Bartholomae's views and opinions helped me to understand my writing and style. I have become more aware of what constitutes an advanced writer and now know how to strive to achieve that status. Hopefully with future discussions, I can learn even more.

I do still question his view on writing to your specific audience and how far that is taken before you start to lose your own personality.