We already know a common misconception of the Writers’ Room is that it is for bad students, those who require specific and guided assistance to make up for their “lack of intelligence.” We already know that, when a student walks into the Writers’ Room, he believes his writing can be better, implying it’s not good enough. Yeah, a student with a learning disability has to face up to his situation, (if he hasn’t already in high school or middle school) but will he? I think it’s easier for him to do this compared to, let’s say, someone “who can’t write.” I think it is those strengths that outweigh the difficulties he may have. It is the “…but I am really good at X” he says after pointing out those difficulties.

At the university level, the client should already know what it is (or isn’t) that helps him. This leads us back to what we continue to hear echoing: collaboration. The consultant must ask questions, must provide statements leading a client somewhere, but not telling him where that place is. These are clearly strategies we’ve learned in class and already applied in our practice. We work to the necessities of the client. We individualize.

Today, I met with a freshman who was writing for a biology class. Her paper (filled with subscripts, scientific elements, graphs, long scientific names you can’t pronounce, and all of those cool things we English majors hardly experience) was by far the best-written paper I have seen this semester. She wanted her essay to be proofread for silly mistakes writers often oversee, check for grammar, and to be “polished up.” Constrained by time (go figure) I took the line-by-line approach, an approach I feel most comfortable with and the one I’m probably best at. I, however, find myself wanting to move away from this approach, to try something new, to experience, to modify, to mix, to individualize.

But I continue asking myself in what ways I could have benefitted her without the line-by-line approach, since her essay was well written. Trying to think of another way I could have worked with her, and in attempt to move away from this approach, I find myself returning to it. I find myself returning to the line-by-line approach but not as myself as the “aproacher.” In fact, I’ve flipped it around. I think I could have had her look at her essay, as if it were mine, and follow the line-by-line approach. I would’ve asked specific questions about uncertainties in the essay (transitions, organization, formality, etc.). I think this would have been beneficial for both of us because she was already, in my opinion, a good writer, and because most of her mistakes she caught on her own. If she were to miss something, I could ask non-directive ways for her to see corrections. I also believe this is a good strategy because it allows her to read it critically from a consultant point of view rather than reading it as her paper for BIO 127.