QQC1

1. Fulkerson writes about the four philosophies of composition and, ultimately, concedes that a rhetorical axiological approach is most popular today. However, given that some audiences--in and outside of the academy--will evaluate writing based on grammar and usage, how does one negotiate a comprehensive rhetorical approach rooted in developing voice and persuasiveness with a formalist approach which might seem punitive and discourage students from developing the skills necessary to develop a persuasive argument?

2.  On page 12 of Bartholomae's essay, he says that he's reluctant to support graduate students who wish to build a professional identity around the CCCC and composition journals. He goes on further to illustrate a Comp Specialist who does essentially everything in the field other than teach comp courses. Because of the discipline's nature, I'm nodding my head. However, I wonder about the reverse case (especially in other disciplines where teaching isn't as heavily emphasized): What do we make of a tenure track creative writing instructor who doesn't publish creative work? What do we make of a distinguished lit professor who isn't publishing criticism or actively researching? Naturally, each discipline has different standards for accomplishment, but do you believe Bartholomae's critique marginalizes people in the composition field who have changed the way people teach and why (or why not)?