College Isn T For Everyone By W. J. Reeves

Education has always been a current issue due to the fact that it is seen as an economic cure-all. However, the perception of college is ill-conceived and there are multiple debates on how to improve it. College universities believe that having open admissions will increase the amount of matriculations, but the fact is the amount of students being enrolled into a four-year university has no relationship to the amount of students with academic aspirations. W.J. Reeves, an English professor at Brooklyn College of The City University of New York, gives a few examples of how open admissions has changed education methods and student abilities. Reeves wrote this opinion piece to convince everyone, especially parents, that schools are in need of reform

Reeves argues that open admissions are unacceptable and four-year universities should require higher standards for access. He believes these higher standards will increase student work ethic in pursuit of a higher education. Reeves states that the younger generation is expected to attend college; therefore, colleges are allowing open admissions which can be catastrophic to the intellectual growth of America’s youth. He says that student attitudes toward education are ill-mannered and is influencing a lack of attendance, cheating, and grade inflation. Reeves claims that the student ability is questionable, due to the fact that college students lack literacy and the educators are expected to give undeserving grades. He also believes that diversity within college is damaging the overall performance record and it is increasing the amount of illiterate students. Reeves says that the solution to making college access harder is to get rid of open admissions and to persuade more students into the “more-practical solution” such as a “secure enrollment in a community college” or training in

The examples used to support Reeves argument are great, but he could have provided more exciting scenarios. Reeves did an excellent job at describing the other solutions outside of four-year universities such as job studies, community college enrollment, and raising the standard for admissions. Although he made many great examples and arguments, he also had noticeable flaws. Reeves’s tone and use of emotionally charged words; for example, referring to ESL students as “homegrown function illiterates,” can distract the reader from his argument. The reader may feel offended by his voice, while others might say that he is using specific language to convey his own emotions about his job and the future of education being in danger. Another flaw within his article is the paragraph that includes “the college years are a moment in time that will never return.” That sentence is completely absurd! Rebecca Mead, a staff writer for the New Yorker, would completely disagree with Reeves due to the fact that in Meads article “Learning by Degrees,” she argues that college should be used for intellectual enrichment. Mead would claim that college should be available at any time to anybody who is open to expanding their knowledge. Outside of those flaws, Reeves did an