According to the article, the critical difference between high school and college is that "high school education is designed to be standardized and quantifiable," while "college education is designed to be theoretical" (Fanetti 78). However, the authors do not lay the blame with either the high school or college writing instructors. Instead, the blame lies with standardized testing in high school curriculum. To meet standards, high school instructors must sacrifice certain types of writing for 'test writing', even though standardized test writing virtually disappears after high school. Thus, the skills needed for standardized test writing must be untaught in college. This seems wasteful for high school and college instructors. The article compares high school to a factory, in which the student is the product and standardized testing is quality control. Through the process, students become "mass-produced and measured everywhere by the same instrument" (Fanetti 80). To close the gap between high school and college, the authors' suggest that the purpose of high school should be redesigned completely. High school curriculum should view all students as college bound, whether they truly are or not. This will great better writing skills for all students and prevent extra work for secondary and post-secondary instructors. Also, we need to get rid of standardized testing completely since it does more damage than good, especially in the writing skills of students.

The title of the article, Understanding the College First-year Experience, basically explains the focus of the article. Kirk Kidwell summarizes the typical first year development of a freshman student as a time of purgatory. Successful students are able to go through four phases; dualism, multiplicity, relativism, and commitment to relativism. Through the phases, students lean to change from a passive style of learning to an active style of learning, as well as learn the "game: of college academia. In the game of college writing, Kidwell believes if students pass through the "academic hazing" or purgatory of the first year, they will learn the following two lessons. First, "College is not high school; one cannot just coast through" (Kidwell 253). Second, "The successful college student takes responsibility for his or her education" (Kidwell 254). These lessons are a good idea, but I feel they are too simple. Of course college is not high school. Stating such an obvious observation seems condescending towards freshmen students, regardless if they do or do not realize the fact. Also, the article summarizes the first year well, but it leaves out the more intricate parts of changing the issues freshmen students face. The missing issues include; how can teachers make the freshmen year less of a purgatory, is it possible to prepare high school students better through a change of curriculum, how do we help students to stay in college instead of dropping out, and how can we create awareness of college "is not high school"? These are crucial points that are completely missing from the article, thus the article is better for a basic understanding of what freshmen endure their first year of college.

"Understanding the Gap Between High School and College Writing" compares the different levels of writing between high school student and college students. The article found that the two groups of teachers, high school and college, have extremely different views of the students' level of writing. While 36 percent of the high school teachers believed their students were well prepared, only 6 percent of college faculty thought the students were well prepared. The article examines how first year writing courses can be organized to help the incoming students more by surveying the students' writing history and getting a detailed account of the common or not common assignments from their senior year of high school. Often, the assignments and skills expected in college were not yet developed in high school students, including criticizing a written argument, providing peer feedback, and turning in drafts. The article concludes with ways in which first year writing classes may be improved, as well as examples of the different types of needs that have to be met.

"The Shadow Scholar" article exposes a fascinating hidden industry, which seems to be doing very well. The man who was interviewed for the article (his identity has been kept secret) has literally written thousands of papers for students whose writing ability is not up to standards of basic college requirements. The industry is thriving and the unknown individual will make roughly 66,000 this year. In fact, the standard price for these types of assignments is $2000. What I found amazing is that there seems to be three groups who seek this type of service successfully: "The English-as-second language, the deficient student, and the lazy rick kid". The article brings the idea of: what allows the final two types of students to slip through the cracks of the college education system and become so desperate for help? How can we, as part of a college community, and others change this problem so students do not have to go to this extreme? A perfect example of this problem was the shocking and slightly sickening ending comment of the article. After the ghost writer completed a 160-page graduate thesis on business ethics (which is a bit ironic), the graduate student sent an email stating "thanx so much for uhelp ican going to graduate to now."

The study, "Prospective Teachers' Insights towards Scaffolding Students' Writing Processes through Teacher-Student Role Reversal in an Online System", researches how teachers may better understand the difficulties faced by students and how to facilitate student writing in a classroom. To do this, fourteen prospective teachers enrolled in a three week long, online, computer-supported environment where they would switch into roles as students instead of teachers. The prospective teachers were a group of second year graduate students in a Master's program in English teaching and had been studying English as a foreign language for ten years. Every week, the prospective teachers took on a different role; first as a student writer, then as a student editor, and finally as a student commentator. As student writers, they wrote and posted first drafts of their essays. Then, as student editors, they revised their peers' drafts and provided suggestions. Next, the prospective teachers evaluated their peer editors' suggestions. Finally the prospective students rewrote and posted their final essays. The prospective teachers perceived the role reversal as "a valuable experience through which they were able to understand their students' actual needs and difficulties in writing" (365). The prospective teachers also learned how to empathize with their future students' possible difficulties and will now reflect constantly on their own roles as English as a foreign language teachers and as students.