College students giving the impression of being no longer interested in debates is the inspiration for the article, "Debate? Dissent? Discussion? Oh, Don 't Go There!" by Mickiko Kakutani. Kakutani argues that students would rather debate. The audience intended for this argument are for teachers or anyone who is concerned about the students ' desire to debate in a classroom. She found that today 's students "are interested in hearing another person 's point of view, but not interested in engaging it, in challenging it or being challenged..." (59-60) Kakutani 's argument that students prefer to not debate is not effective because she used the wrong data pool, used an insufficient amount of data, and used outdated data to support her argument, …show more content…
She only uses secondary sources which are stated in the previous paragraph. Her argument was generalizing all college students, however, she only used a survey that questioned one particular college. She also only used statements from a dean of undergraduate education and a professor at Princeton. Those few reasons cannot account for all college students. In other words, Kakutani did not use enough data to support her argument. Kakutani analyzed a survey that only accounts for students who were born in the early 1980 's making this data outdated. Her essay "Debate? Dissent? Discussion? Oh, Don 't Go There!" was published in 2002 which does not consider students who are in college from 2003 to now. With that being said, she also used an article about a survey in a specific college which was from 2001 meaning her argument about college students excluded any new college students that attended …show more content…
However, her essay is flawed with the wrong data pool, an insufficient amount of data, and outdated data. She used secondary sources from her analysis on surveys. In addition, she used only statements from professors and administrators which only gives an outside perspective of college students. Lastly, she used sources that do not account for all college students from 2003 to now. From my perspective as a college student, I was able to relate to her argument and agree with it. Despite this, her argument that college students prefer to not debate was
As students we are taught that in order to have an effective argument, we need a claim, reasoning, and evidence. When comparing, “Two Years Are Better than Four” by Liz Addison, and “Colleges Prepare People for Life” by Freeman Hrabowski it was made obvious that the passage written by Addison had a more effective argument because of the passages claim that was clear to the readers, great reasoning and evidence that backed up her claim.
At first I thought this was an essay trying to inform us on the issue of college students. As I have read deeper into it I have thought it out to be more of a persuasive essay. The whole essay examples are given in which students and parents whine for better grades. There were five or ten situations brought up where someone would get a B but thought they worked hard enough. By repeatedly giving us visualizations of this she is trying to get a point across. She makes this the main argument in the essay. She is trying to get the point across that kids are ridiculous to ask for a better grade. If the teacher gives them a grade of a B, she clearly means it. Then to add on to that the teachers give in to the child. The main part of school is to learn. If
This is important because, this gives the readers a since of real life examples so that they themselves are able to relate to the content. If the readers are given graphs, maps, and grids, then they are forced to see Owens and Sawhill 's argument through real life examples and demonstrations. They state that, "Study after study reminds us that higher education is one of the best investments we can make, and President Obama has called it " an economic imperative" (Page. 208 Para. 1). Sawhill and Owens are showing emphasis of the ethical approach by stating that President Obama says that it is extremely crucial to the economy that higher education is the best investment we can make, when they used President Obama it really makes a solid connection to the reader because then they are able to relate to this statement because President Obama is an important leader of the country. They also use research accomplish their purpose of their argument in "Should Everyone go to College?", "Research suggests that additional education improves overall wellbeing by affecting things like job satisfaction, health, marriage, parenting, trust, and social interaction. Additionally there are social benefits to education, such as reduced crime rates and higher political participation" (Page. 210 Para. 3). This really makes the readers think about how much
If the article was written to people who had already completed college and were well into their careers, it would be a pointless essay. Same goes for if the essay was written for people who had no plans on ever attending college. This essay was specifically written for those who are either about to enter college or have opportunities to transfer still. The author wants the audience to make the best decisions on what kind of institution is best for receiving and retaining knowledge. He also wants future prospects to see that so much more happens in college than just learning and the overall experience as a whole is what shapes one into an intellectual person. This is seen through his comment when he communicates that while some “working adults pursuing clearly defined vocational programs” (Neem 93) may learn wonderfully in an online environment, overall “we must deepen our commitment to those institutions that cultivate a love for learning in their students” (Neem 94). He wants an audience that sees the importance of furthering their education in the right environment like he does. This audience along with an intellectual appeal complement each other well in this argument and lead to an overall good
Americans have embraced debate since before we were a country. The idea that we would provide reasoned support for any position that we took is what made us different from the English king. Our love of debate came from the old country, and embedded itself in our culture as a defining value. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that the affinity for debate is still strong, and finds itself as a regular feature of the mainstream media. However, if Deborah Tannen of the New York Times is correct, our understanding of what it means to argue may be very different from what it once was; a “culture of critique” has developed within our media, and it relies on the exclusive opposition of two conflicting positions (Tannen). In her 1994 editorial, titled “The Triumph of the Yell”, Tannen claims that journalists, politicians and academics treat public discourse as an argument. Furthermore, she attempts to persuade her readers that this posturing of argument as a conflict leads to a battle, not a debate, and that we would be able to communicate the truth if this culture were not interfering. This paper will discuss the rhetorical strategies that Tannen utilizes, outline the support given in her editorial, and why her argument is less convincing than it should be.
...hat parents want a better and easier way of life for their kids. My parents send me to college so that I could make more money doing an easier job than they have to do, because they lack a college diploma. She feels that eighteen-year-olds should make their own choice whether to go to college or not. I think that when a person is eighteen, they are too young to make their own decisions. I know this from my own experience. If I had a freedom of choice when I was eighteen, I would not be writing this critique, because I would not be in college. But now that I have grown up and did some thinking I want to stay and get my degree. I feel that kids should at least try college, learn and see a couple of things and then decide whether they should stay or go. Generally, parents without a college education are the ones who put the most emphasis on their kids going to college and making something of themselves, in order to have a better life then they had. The author then goes on to challenge her own ideas by saying that college does prepare you for a job that you actually might like doing, and that is what most Americans want. So then would not college be a good choice for most Americans?
In fact, he begins the article by stating that according to the opposite side, concerning the American higher education “Cost are soaring, teaching methods are outdated, not enough students are completing de-grees” and then he agreed with some of those complaints “problems do exist” before refuting them and expressing his claim “higher education in this nation is far from being expired”. This is maybe a way for him to show how he got the need of writing this article to express how positive he feels concerning high-er education in America. Besides, expressing the counterargument will prove to the reader that he made some research to find the main complaints” three chief complaints” before arguing against them. It also makes him more persuasive for the reason that he makes his argument stronger by cutting down the op-posing one. He framed his arguments the same way in the completion and competitiveness section by first expressing the bad news representing the opponent’s view which is that more than half of the peo-ple attending college did not graduate” more than 40% of American student…have not earned a degree after six years” and then he gave a good news justifying his optimism “Degree attainment in the united states according to Lumina, is steadily accelerating”. Dr Glenn by stating the bad news and then the good news, seems to be willing to make the audience be as optimist as he is, by showing them that the situation is changing and that Americans care more about earning a college degree. This mean that the reader may see that he is right when he claims that higher education is still
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
(Owen and Sawhill 208) After all, if our country’s leader is preaching about college being a good thing, it should reflect the views of a majority of people in this country. They then continue to try to make connections with the audience by emphasizing that this is a “we” problem and by recognizing that the decision to go off to college is not an easy one for everybody. These first words in the essay demonstrate a call to the ethos of President Obama and clear cut pathos to bring the authors down to the same level as their audience; However, the rest of the essay is absolutely dominated by
...l from the school or leaves of absence, reducing the sample size to 25,627.” As you can see the information is credible and gives even the littlest detail of why the sample reduced size. In comparison, the “entertaining essay” or non-scientific essay has less of these little details and more opinions such as the same number the authors used throughout the essay which is “140 colleges, 70 percent”. The essay gives no number of students used for the experiment, not exact number of percentile of this “denial” in each college like the scientific essay does.
The author Charles Murray says there are too many people going to college without really saying it. The essay is written in a way that his audience will understand by the time they finish reading that he has many valid points. He Persuades his readers with facts and counters arguments to false stereotypes involving college and success. By questioning whether college is for everyone makes "you" the reader want to rethink if your time spent in college was really worth it in the end.
During the Second Industrial Revolution two philosophies combated each other on a global scale. Laissez-Fair economics had ruled for the last few centuries and had created many prosperous nations but abuses of power by wealthy men had turned public opinion against it. Ever since its creation, Socialism begged to be placed head to head with Capitalism and it had finally gotten its chance. Laissez-Fair economics and Socialism both have their pros and cons when implemented in society. The battle between these two ideological works its way throughout society alternating between the protests and debates in the U.S. today to the great terror of the Cold War.
In the article “Why Go to College At All?” published in the New York Times Magazine, the author
Due to the effects of higher enrolment, teaching methods are now directed towards suiting the masses, thus everything has become less personal, as well as, less educationally in depth. Teaching techniques consist of multiple choice tests, rather than written answer questions which require critical analysis, as Jacobs states “So many papers to mark, relative to numbers and qualities of mentors to mark them, changed the nature of test papers. Some came to consist of “True or False?” and “Which of the following is correct?” types of questions” (Jacobs 49). While teachers also no longer engage in one on one conversations with students, but merely in a lecture hall among masses and everyone is seen as just a student number. Jacobs states a complaint from a student “who claimed they were shortchanged in education. They had expected more personal rapport with teachers” (Jacobs 47). Universities are too much focused on the cost benefit analysis, of the problem of increased enrolment, with the mind set of “quantity trumps quality” (Jacobs 49). The benefit of student education and learning is not being put first, but rather the expansion of the university to benefit financial issues. Taylor states “individualism and the expansion of instrumental reason, have often been accounted for as by-products
Sawhill, Isabel V., and Stephanie Owen. "Why We Still Think College Isn't for Everyone." http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/05/13-college-for-everyone-criticism-response-owen-sawhill. Web blog post. Brookings. The Brooking Institution, 13 May 2013. Web. 02 Dec. 2013.