The (long) real thing, etc.

["The Writing Center" <wrcenter@irn.pdx.edu>]

Whew!  Y'all are hurting my brain!  But here goes anyway.

The discussion about the differences (and similiarities too for that matter) between the academy and the world of business/corporate/workplace has me unsettled.  I frequently hear this distinction spoken about in terms of the academy and THE REAL WORLD.  IMM, the academy is simply part of real world--a very real part,  with real stressors, real disappointments, real accomplishments, real people, real consequences.  Formal education costs real money--creates real financial and personal hardships.  I'm not sure how this differs from a real world outside the academy anymore than a hospital, a law-firm, a grocery store, or a hot-dog stand differ from the real world.  I used to hear this same distinction made between the military community and the civilian community--but failed to see any substantial differences since both seemed to follow codes of conduct as well as standards of dress (the rules were just more explicit in the military).

Anyway, I wonder whom these distinctions serve and conclude, admittedly a bit hastily, that a power structure of one sort or another is the Culprit, the Designer, the Manipulator (sorry for the caps, just been reading Lamb and Addison and Steele).   And I think of how much classroom time is simply mob management--administration--and logistics.  And wonder how important or essential such control mechanisms are to education.  And suspect that I'm trying to herd cats.  And begin to believe that teaching is an illusion--what arrogance to think I've "taught" anybody anything.  And often  fear I haven't learned a damn thing.  And I think I really need to come back now--sorry for the mental departure.

If the concerns of the world outside the academy aren't being addressed in the academy--why not?  And, if not, how can we possibly justify ourselves to anyone, let alone taxpayers and/or donors/sponsors?  The thread about writing in the workplace begins to get at the rhetorical situations writers can expect to encounter in the workplace (and I'd say the academy is just one kind of workplace).  Two of essential rhetorical components I see coming up in this thread are purpose and audience, the latter being of paramount importance.   For me, the issue of audience embraces both LOCs and HOCs as attested to by the testimonial posts in this thread.  I always warn writers that readers are lazy--they don't want to have to work very hard to understand a piece of writing, whether a memo or a treatise.  And, if you make readers work hard to understand you, there are negative consequences that range from judgements about incompetency to assumptions about inconsideration.   All of this bears directly on the ethos of the writer (much to Aristole's chagrin).

So, grammar is important and so is content and so is handwriting or font and so is the hiearchy of the organization--which is to say, it's all important.  So, it all has to be learned--our task is to figure out how this learning might best be facilitated.

Any thoughts?

Cliff Barnett
PSU Writing Center