# data[].attributes.body
Jackie Larson discusses pedagogy at great length. In her discussion of implementing new pedagogies and strategies, she says, “...I am also aware of the constraints that surround effective implementation (time and cognitive readiness to try something new being the biggest factors).” Larson’s practical discussion of the time constraints highlights one of the many challenges teachers face even as they continue to develop their pedagogies. Are we asking too much of teachers with regards to the first-year composition course?

Ambrose speaks about the focus on pedagogy in teaching writing and additional modalities. She comments on the immense scope of what we do in our field and the balance between that and teaching what we think our students need to be able to do in order to be successful. Ambrose’s discussion touches on the the challenges facing the teaching of first-year composition and likely relates to the question of whether this course should be eradicated. Are we expecting too much from the first-year composition course? Is expecting too much of this course in addition to the challenges of reconciling these problems contributing to calls to eradicate first-year composition?

# data[].attributes.body
Jana Shepard argues that stepping into a reality that may be quite a bit different from what we are used to is an everyday part of life and views "Inventing the University" part of adding tools to students' rhetorical toolkits. “James Berlin offers a similar argument when he says “[t]o teach writing is to argue for a version of reality”  (qtd. in Tate, 4). As evidence, Shepard cites Chris Anson who states: “[b]y studying the role of language in their new settings, [students] started to gain conscious strategies for tackling new, complex writing and speaking tasks” (4). Studying language in their new settings directly speaks to Bartholomae’s “Inventing the University”, Shepard argues. Therefore, if these activities add to students’ rhetorical tool boxes, the struggle to invent the university is instructive to the student and helps the student to develop critical academic, professional, and lifelong skills.

Marie Hanson draws attention to privilege in Bartholomae’s foundational essay in relation to Bartholomae’s discussion of “authority”. Hanson writes, “I tell my students to do the same thing. I tell them to assume they have done adequate research to speak on a subject with some authority.  That authority is what I perceive to be Batholomae’s ‘privilege’. This concept is considerably difficult for many students as they have not been allowed such privilege in most classes” (Hanson).

Sara Skelton emphasizes the teacher’s role in “helping … students become part of the academic universe”. Skelton states: “Like Bartholomae notes in “Inventing the University,” so they could become participants in the discourse (Bartholomae, 5).

# data[].attributes.body
Denny Knights: “the questioning of some universities having a first-year composition class, that’s to say, they are considering removing them from the curriculum, blew me away." Channel Cook adds,  “the idea of including more types of writing that students will need in their careers is excellent.” Both of these points bring me to question whether the traditional first-year composition class is effective in preparing students for the professional world and life beyond academia.

Is it possible that the first-year course is due for a major revision or overhaul precisely because it continues to be rooted in the first-year composition courses that began at Harvard in the 1880s. Is the first-year composition course truly preparing students for the types of writing [that] emerge out of social conditions to meet communicative needs”? In light of Bartholomae’s “Inventing the University at 25”, it is clear that Bartholomae’s essay continues to resonate precisely because not much has truly changed in the 25 years since “Inventing the University” was first published. If even after taking first-year composition courses, students are still not prepared to write according to the expectations of most of their courses in various academic fields – and students are not able to translate their writing skills to the professional workplace – why shouldn’t we consider that first-year composition courses may not be meeting the social conditions or communicative needs of the students and, therefore, may be in need of considerable revision?

# data[].attributes.body
Zack Butovich states “I agree with a lot of what the writers and contributors of FYC state—ultimately there isn’t necessarily a “wrong” English, but simply English that serves for different occasions. Another researcher I read (John Bean, I believe) mentioned once that speaking English was like knowing what to wear to a wedding: sometimes it’s more formal than others, but what’s important is knowing what is appropriate at the time.”

Denny Knights states: “As Tate, et al. (2014) posit, “it contains much that is worthy of extensive scholarly and practitioner attention, and the more deeply we engage it, the more complex and diverse it becomes.” Consequently then, one singular composition pedagogy is not universally applicable to instructors. They must be able to take up the mantle of several pedagogies that are attuned for a particular area of investigation.

I suppose then, that as part of our teaching philosophies, we must realize that sticking to one pedagogy is not in our best interest. Not that we necessarily need to erase an old pedagogy, but modifying it and rebuilding it in a different, more suitable and applicable manner is within the realm of necessity.”

A teacher's pedagogy must an amalgamation of different pedagogies. Just as language and social needs change, pedagogy must be in a regular state of revision. It is, after all, a reflection of our actualized selves as teachers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Social Conditions Meet Communicative Needs

# data[].attributes.subject
Social Conditions Meet Communicative Needs

# data[].attributes.body
It is undeniable that language is evolving. Denny Knights states, “As apparent in our society today, our language is not that of our forefathers. A prime example is digital writing.”

# data[].attributes.headline
"Inventing the University" is a means of adding tools to students' rhetorical toolkits (Jana Shepard).

# data[].attributes.subject
"Inventing the University" is a means of adding tools to students' rhetorical toolkits (Jana Shepard).

# data[].attributes.body
James Berlin offers a similar argument when he says “[t]o teach writing is to argue for a version of reality”  (qtd. in Tate, 4).

Chris Anson says “[b]y studying the role of language in their new settings, [students] started to gain conscious strategies for tackling new, complex writing and speaking tasks” (4).