Okay, this is more of a venting post. In one of our first classes, Hillory handed out a worksheet containing many different definitions of rhetoric. We spent most of the class discussing these definitions, as well as the Herrick article, "The History and Theory of Rhetoric." One topic of discussion we focused on was the difference(s) (if it even existed), between rhetoric and communication. According to Herrick, the differences between rhetoric and communication are very small. Herrick states, "If persuasion is central to social organization, and if the art of rhetoric takes in the study of persuasion, then our lives as members of human communities are inherently and inescapably rhetorical." In my opinion, everything humans do is rhetorical. Whether we are designing buildings, talking with a friend, or dancing, rhetoric is always involved. I was a bit perplexed a few days ago when one of my professors brought up the topic of rhetoric vs. communication. I was giving a presentation on visual aids and mentioned rhetoric and the strategies of ethos, logos, and pathos. Since my audience was not quite ready to discuss the differences between communication and rhetoric, I decided to leave the topic out; yet, when my professor brought it up, she stated, "And what I'd like to note now that there is a distinct difference between rhetoric and communication. Communication is the sending and receiving of messages, while rhetoric is communication with intent, motivation, or a goal." I was shocked -- keep in mind that this professor is highly decorated and I would easily consider her a knowledgeable source of information. Naturally, I did not want to correct her in front of an entire class, but I think that in order for rhetoric to advance as a strong term it is important that all are on the same page. A unit or study of rhetoric should be mandatory for all first-years in either FYP or FYS, isn't rhetoric equally or more important than learning how to write a research paper? Rhetoric is involved in daily life and the ability to recognize and employ it is very impressive. Rhetoric is a life skill.

Doing Too Little

Ok, this is sort of a comment to Ryan's post and something I was just thinking about. We talked about minimalist tutoring and how the student the can learn more if we do not engage ourselves too deeply in their work. However, I have a question for you guys, can a tutor do too LITTLE in helping a student? What I mean is, well, we talked a lot about how we, as tutors can do too much but what about not doing enough? Can we find an in-between? By trying hard not to do all the work, is there a chance that we could do more harm then good? I was reading Ryan's post and all these questions just popped in my head and I realized that I did not know the answers, I don't even know if there IS an answer.

I never thought that tutoring could be so hard or so complex. I really thought tutoring would be easy, I would just go in, help the student with their paper and that would be it. Silly me, right? There is so much more to it.You have to worry about too much and then on the other hand, make sure that you're not doing too little, its enough to make someone crazy. Or maybe I'm just thinking about this too much but I think that being a tutor would require me to give it all the thought that I have.

Styles

So this week I observed a few mentors and tutors helping students with papers and projects for our journal entries. I decided to do my two entries on the two mentors that I felt were the most productive and efficient in their job. They both took on the roll of the minimalist tutor very well. I personally admire this approach because it really gets the tutee to think. It helps them more then if they were told what to do, I feel, because if they were told what to do then sure their papers or projects would be good, but would the student learn anything? That’s the real question.

By being a minimalist style tutor, I feel that you really work the student into creating a better way of thinking. The way these two mentors guided the students who needed help turned out to be very effective because each student left with a greater feeling of accomplishment then those who were just told what to do. That is why I support this style, because you are rewarded with that feeling as a tutor as well.

Vagueness, Politics and Rhetoric

As I was finishing the readings for this week, one quote really stood out for me. This quote to me can explain how and why people perceive rhetoric as something evil, especially when used in politics.

"In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of the British rule in India...[and] the drooping of the atom bombs in Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness" (Booth 107).

I find this to be true and used too often. There have been many political speeches that I have heard in which the politician answers the reporter's questions without really answering the question. I don't know about you guys but it leaves me scratching my head thinking "what in the world...?" This leaves the audience saying things like "That was all rhetoric" and not really seeing what rhetoric is. I also see this as a person not taking their audience into account. It is like politicians are trying to confuse us on purpose and through all the vagueness and deceit our perception of rhetoric becomes misconstrued. Sure there are subject matters that may be harsh to hear but can cloudy run-around answers really help? The answer that I got from the quote is without vagueness and quite simple...no

Drawing the Line...Where?

As I was observing a tutor in the Word studio, I started to think about the article that we had to read for class last week, Minimalist tutoring: Making the Student do all work by Jeff Brooks. Can a tutor totally NOT involve themselves into the student's work. The article talks a lot about how to tutor without doing ALL the work and we did some role play in class but it may be harder then that. Well, at least for me.

There have been times when I looked over one of my friend's paper or peer reviewed for class and wanted to change the paper to please me! I caught myself thinking things like, "I should put this here or took that away then..." or "This doesn't sound right, maybe I should say it like this or hmm...". Maybe this doesn't all that bad and maybe its a good mark of being an efficient tutor but will I be able to draw the line? I noticed the subject of my thinking was me or "I". If I tutor a student, it should be about the student not me. I would hate to be one of those tutors that completely takes over the student's paper.

One line that I think that all tutors should take in to account is "When you "improve" a student's paper, you haven't been a tutor at all; you've been an editor" This quote hit because as so simple as it is, it holds so much truth. How can a student learn if you, as a tutor, fix the paper yourself? I know I will think about this quote if I ever think I overstepped my duties or didn't perform it adequately.