The two different writers seem to be at two very different levels of thinking. Janet seems to be writing to just please whoever she is writing the piece to, and just trying to cover all of her bases to try and put together a good enough paper. That seems to be the logic behind her paper, and that is fine because she is at a very different time in her studies than Roger. When we are fresh out of high school, and even through our undergraduate degree, the way we write seems to just be what we learned throughout our academic life. That is to write the information clearly and obviously for the teacher so you meet all the requirements, and so it is easy for them to grade. Her approach was more traditional as we like to call it, and she just wanted to get the facts to her audience and did not seem to dive too deep in, and she might not have had to for that assignment. I found it very interesting how she wrote was similar to how we all learned to write essays.
Roger is obviously way further in his academic career than Janet, and so his level of critical thinking and challenging the ideas he writes about comes easier to him. His introduction did not even mention what paternalist is or is not, and so his work was already vastly different. As he went on, he went on to evaluate the ideas made by the other authors. As we discussed in class, when you are in your graduate and higher, your job is to challenge the authors you read and not just explain the information. He was comparing, and doing a lot more critical thinking.
Leave a Reply