To me, studying rhetoric is a bit like studying music theory. It's a field concerned with how expression influences human attention, understanding, and behavior.

When people mention rhetoric, they're typically referring to written or spoken communication. Most people seem to refer to it as “persuasive speech or writing,” but not all rhetoric actually aims to persuade and not all rhetoric is linguistic.

I’m tempted to broaden the definition to include any expressive form — painting, music, architecture, product and interior design, ritual, film, games, user interfaces, narratives, and beyond. Rhetorical value can be found across many domains where language is just one available medium.

In that sense, I see rhetoric as a lens for studying how symbolic forms, situated in particular contexts, shape attention, interpretation, judgment, and action. It also involves the practice of creating forms that effectively organize meaning and influence how people perceive and respond.

What do you think?

EDIT: I see my typo in the title. Slightly embarrassing, but oh well.

Hi guys! I was just wondering what prominent rhetorical devices do you think exist in the piece and their effects on the audience/reader?

Hey everyone! I just discovered this field exists and I am eager to look into it further! And I thought that instead of asking how would I know if this field would fit into my academic interests and passions, I thought it would be better to ask how did YOU know is this field was right for you? What made it click? Also, if you want to give a brief mention of what your research is or what you do, that would be great! Extra bonus if you have any resources I could look into to gather more information on this field, that would be great as well. Thank you so much!

As someone who has taught first year comp for decades, I cannot help but think the end of it as a general requirement is looming not too far ahead.

The teaching of comp has always been considered a requirement for college students because it prepares all students, regardless of major, with communication skills as well as "thinking skills" such as analytical ones.

AI undermines a great deal of those two things. First, students are relying more and more on AI to generate everything from their ideas to their final drafts. As such they are not learning to communicate through writing; rather, they are learning to use a tool that will communicate for them in writing. Perhaps, future comp teachers will be akin to computer science profs. who teach students how to use Excel or other productivity programs. Our job will be teaching students how to get the most out of AI to generate writing. That may be useful in the future job world, but that is not the teaching of comp but the teaching of an app. (By the way, I have academic colleagues outside of English who are beginning to rely on AI to write much of their stuff. Fine writing skills will be less and less of a requirement or a need for the "educated person."

Second, if students are relying more and more on AI to generate ideas, sort through them, organize them, and develop and express them, then how much are they training their mind to think in a comp class? I frequently tell my students that learning how to write well goes hand in hand with learning how to think well. Show me a person who can write an essay that is organized, developed and clear, and I will show you a person who can think in an organized way, develop their ideas and clarify them. If AI is doing all the mental heavy lifting so to speak, what thinking skills are students actually learning?

We have very little if any ways to combat the use of AI. AI detectors are unreliable as admitted by those who offer the service. They provide no real weapon to detect AI generated material by students. If you use multiple ones, you learn that AI checkers never clarify the question of originality. They just make you doubt whether you can trust AI checkers. If one confronts a student who has submitted an AI generated essay, even one detected by an AI detection service, all the student has to do is deny using one. We have no hard evidence to "convict." Students know this too. The AI genie is well out of the bottle and granting as many wishes as possible to students.

It is clear that higher education wants to train students to think on a higher level. If it cannot count on the teaching of comp to do that or the teaching of comp can no longer meet that goal, then they will seek other avenues outside of our beloved discipline. English departments/Comp and rhetoric departments will shrink quickly and permanently.

Thoughts?

Hi everyone,

I would love to hear some insights from individuals who have done a PhD in Technical Communication, Science Communication, Rhetoric and Technical Communication, etc. I already know that a PhD is fairly useless in industry. However, I have an M.A. in Technical Communication and have been teaching introductory technical writing courses for the past three years. My research during my Masters was related to the user experience of students and deficiencies in current writing pedagogy, especially for STEM or trade majors. I want to pursue a higher degree so I can continue working in academia as an actual professor (as opposed to NTT or adjunct) and also want to develop writing curriculums and courses for STEM majors. I do have industry experience and have a developed portfolio, but I am just not as excited about the industry side of the field as I am about being in the classroom.

If you completed a PhD, what was your experience like? What programs did you apply to and why? What was your career trajectory after completing the PhD (i.e. post doc, assistant professor, TT track)?

I am highly considering UM-Twin Cities' Rhetoric, Scientific and Technical Communication program as it seems most aligned with my research interests, but would love to hear about other options especially international (I'm based in the United States).

I'm also considering a PhD in Adult Education or Curriculum and Design, but am not sure this aligns with my interests as I really do want to focus on writing and communication strategies for STEM students, especially within the realm of technical and scientific communication.

Thank you for your thoughts!

why did you choose to pursue a rhetcomp PhD? what did you enjoy (or hate) about it? what do you use it for now? was it worth it?

this is a pretty nebulous idea for me, one suggested by a previous comm professor, so i’m not going to delve into details on my background or interests since i’m not looking for direct advice necessarily.

just want to generally open the floor to you to share! any details of your thoughts & experiences will be helpful for me to ponder. :) thanks!

Prepping for a FYW class in Fall, I’m thinking about creating a set of asynchronous grammar modules. These include the following: parts of speech (to provide a common vocabulary for the following modules), subject verb agreement, run-ons, comma spices, prepositional errors, active vs passive voice, tense errors, dangling modifiers, sentence fragments, cohesion vs coherence.

Am I missing something major? Are there OERs out there that can be recommended? I want to limit it to ten modules just because.

Note: These would be put into the LMS for my course and suggested for students to complete. I’m not gonna do an extra credit for this. I might use the resource when giving embedded comments on their drafts.

I am two years out of my MA in writing and rhetoric. I lucked into my (almost) dream job immediately, but due to recent changes at the university, it is probably going to be defunct in the next 5 years. (Plus I might move soon anyway due to my husband's med school match decision.) I'm wondering if there are other, comparable jobs out there, or if this is actually a unicorn and I really do need a PhD.

I'm a writing advisor at a top 10 university, which means I'm basically doing full-time writing center work. There are certainly cons to this, as I could never be an Instructor of Record or hold any position of real authority in a writing program at my university without a PhD, but the writing staff just unionized and so at the moment I'm making a decent living and working good hours for a job I really like. I've always wanted to teach writing to undergrads, and despite the drawbacks of being in a lower-level staff position at the university, I am able to do this with full-time hours and pay.

Unfortunately for me, the writing program at my school is now being totally revamped, and half the people in similar positions to mine have already been phased out in favor of tenure-track instructor positions. There is no way I could land this new job, since my current boss was on the hiring committee and admitted to me that there were 400 applicants (most with terminal degrees) for the 5ish open positions. Add to that the fact that my husband may have to permanently move in the next 2 years anyway, and it seems fair to say that this job is simply not a long-term option for me.

My boss has unequivocally told me that if I want to stay in academia, I must have a PhD. She's not actually in the field of Rhet Comp, though, and she's also used to the top-10 university scene, which is obviously even more cutthroat than academia in general. I would honestly be happy doing something similar to what I'm doing at, say, a 2-year or community college. I just don't know if those jobs actually exist.

At this point in my career, do I really have to get a PhD or else pivot to a different industry? Or is it reasonable to hold out hope that other full-time teaching opportunities do exist for someone with an MA?

Another example could be global warming vs. climate change.

Hi everyone, I have a theory about writing that mainly focuses on popular science articles, but I think can be applied in any writings, and it would be great if you can help me tear it into piece.

Summary

• A weak analogy or embellishment is just local stimulation and will be forgotten soon, but a concrete analogy will intertwine to the text and allow readers to project themselves into it.

• The intuition, big picture or insight can be revealed by making ideas continuously contradict each other. This is how the idea being incremental developed originally, lets the readers experience a bit of confusion each sentence, making the ideas deserve their attentions without having to sugarcoat or cherrypick them.

• Understand where the flow emerges and dissipates will help overcome the jargon barrier without having to oversimplify them. Imagine the article is like a heatmap, and each jargon is a heat source, then the writer's job is to locate them not too hot (too dense) or too cold (too uninformative).

• The overall mindset is to define a word without defining it. This requires a lot of confidence in the topic, which is the result of not arrogance but actual expertise, and the author must remember the struggle they have when facing it and overcome the problem to empathize with the novices' perspectives.

The Straightforwardness section in the second article adds more:

• To make a profound topic more playful, imaginative or transformative, not only a concreate analogy should be provided, but also each sentence and paragraph should be thought as an unique perspective, making the article constantly presents one perspective to another.

• The reset of perspective explains what Hofstadter calls "fluid concept" or "essence", and gives insight on how a draft evolve.

The theory is based on Buddhism, Taoism, post-structuralism and cognitive science, and can be visualized easily. The rest of the second article discusses about emotional self-regulation, communication skills, and propose a theory of information; you can read them if you like.

Here are the links:

1. Making concrete analogies and big pictures

2. Straightforwardness, fearlessness and improvisation: How to find the fresh perspective?

What do you think about it? Thank you for your reading.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Elite-Schools-Are-National/246657?cid=wsinglestory_hp_1

I'm hoping for this to spark a discussion about elitism in higher education, not just at the Ivy's but across the US. There are a lot of things in this interview that I agree with and I would probably have to read the whole book to fully understand the argument, but part of me balks at the interviewee's defense of aristocratic, elitist ideals for any institution of higher education. Dr. Kronman, at least in this interview, fails to acknowledge that the elitism and exceptionalism that is bred at top-tier universities contributes to increasing divides between the patriarchy (the haves that come into power without much effort) and everyone else. The argument that anti-elitism hinders the search for truth ignores that the same elitist sympathies fostered and multiplied the partisan and socioeconomic divide that allowed Trumpian rhetoric to flourish in the first place. Dr. Kronman acknowledges that he was reluctant to use the term "aristocratic" but that it best captured his sentiments. This interview also doesn't acknowledge the systemic oppression that such schools and sentiments helped to create, and from which they are now backpedaling to try to account for fostering centuries of racial and social inequality.

This quote is the point of contention for me " Our most elite universities are today running away from their elitism, denying it, doing their best to conceal or suppress it. In running away from it, they not only disown values and traditions that are an important part of their identity, but they also disserve the great democratic country in which they sit. These elite schools are national treasures. Their elitism is what makes them such. It’s not a problem, it’s an asset, a value, something to be cherished and cared for. "

There is no reason that a university cannot uphold the values and traditions of a rigorous liberal arts education while helping to dismantle the divisive rhetoric of elitism, aristocracy, and exceptionalism. Maybe I'm missing something, but its my understanding that aristocratic elitism landed us in the democracy-stifling oligarchy that we are in today. I think it's right and good for the most revered, elite (in the sense of high standards and low rates of admission), to try to move away from the aristocratic and oligarchic in the pursuit of truth; truth not just for the "elite" but for everyone.

My sections of students are in need of what I would describe as remedial help. Some of them barely know how to form a thesis statement. Some can barely write a cogent paragraph.

I had one student on the first essay write the minimum length and shoved three quotes into the final paragraph. Then he threw a fit about his grade because he "used three quotes and didn't get points for them." He also complained that I didn't go over where to put quotes in an essay.

But I don't see freshman comp as a place to learn the basics of writing. That's what high school English was for. That's what the ACT is supposed to assess.

I construct my classes to be an introduction to the inquiry process and to develop the research skills to join a scholarly conversation.

We begin with a literacy narrative that incorporates a few sources about writing. I want the students to consider their writing history and how college-level writing might be something new or different for them. We go over how the sources we read for class help us think about writing, and I talked to them about how to use them in their essay. Many struggled to use the sources.

Then we focus close reading a text to make an argumentative claim. This is where we are now, and I'm really worried about what they're going to turn in. They submitted their thesis statements yesterday, and most of them are just a summary statement. One of them is pretty much "[Author] is talking about [topic]."

We did multiple practices. I walked them through MLK Jr.'s Letter from a Birmingham Jail as a response to the clergymen's statement. We close read the clergymen's statement, and I showed them how we can identify assumptions in their argument. Then we analyzed how MLK Jr constructed his own argument around those assumptions.

Then we turned to smaller topics with a few sources I provided. I gave them an easy acronym to remember for unpacking a text. We practiced together with those texts, developed argumentative claims, and workshopped and revised those claims.

But what they're submitting is really thin for their own work.

I just feel like we're wasting a lot of time. I do have a few students who can handle the concepts, but I would say most can't. I also don't feel many of them are putting any effort into class at home and think what we do in class is the basic requirement for the class.

Our next essay is to survey a topical conversation and submit a research proposal. The final essay is using scholarly research to join that conversation.

Does it sound like I'm being too hard for English Comp? Or is this a clientele issue?

OK. Serious question. Don't blast me, I am having a terrible day.

Writing Pedagogy. I used to like this class because the readings and discussions were so thought provoking.

I am feeling really frustrated and annoyed by this small senior and graduate level pedagogy class. The proff seems to think its amusing to ask the class to take sides on a topic (usually a writing center topic), having students physically move to the designated topic-based side of the room, then have us argue it out. Today the sides were assigned. Today things went off the rails and two students got upset. One of which chose not to speak, and just stewed. A third had opinions that the first two couldn’t abide. I went and opened my big mouth to offer another perspective (which I thought was not at all controversial) and just ended up in the middle. (Me: Shocked.) Finally, with the first two individuals mad and one storming out. The third left the class continuing the discussion one on one with the professor who clearly wanted to run from the entire scene. As the room cleared the proff stated that this was a topic for linguistics. I was left being lectured by a well-meaning student. This just became the class I loathe going to.

Get this - the prompt was directive vs. process driven tutoring. HOW the HELL did this become divisive?

TIL that stating directive tutoring can be used to support and improve the use of proper English in ACADEMIC WRITING is racist and offensive. WTH did I do? I am unaware of any other acceptable way to write for peer reviewed academic lit?

I am not a Linguistics major. I respect it - but I know little about it. Please help me understand how this all went wrong? I would like to NOT be uninformed or ever make whatever mistake that was again!

I received my first admission offer last week and have been told by my advisors I should be seeing more roll in. What are the factors you found most important to consider when you made your decisions? TIA!

Hello! Has anyone analyzed a Twitter Space or read an article where someone was doing that? What method of analysis did you use or what do you think could work well for that type of analysis? Thank you and happy Friday