Analysis Of Are Too Many People Going To College

Have you ever heard the saying “stop and smell the roses”? It can often be used when someone overlooks the true meaning of something. Author of the article “What Is College For?”, Gary Gutting, feels very strongly about this concept as it pertains to college and the experience it offers. Gutting received a doctorate from St. Louis University and enjoys studying the philosophy of religion and science. He feels as though students are lacking academic engagement, and do not enjoy college because they are there for the wrong reasons. In his article, “What Is College For?”, Gutting effectively convinces his audience that college is a haven for knowledge and new perspectives. Through his use of surveys and analyzation of perspectives and his statistical knowledge based on former studies he is able to persuade his readers that college is the right path. [This is a good start, but you want to get a little more specific—how is Gutting using ethos, pathos, and logos? What specific uses of it make his argument strong?]

In his Essay “Are too many people going to college,” first published in a 2008 issue of AEI, Charles Murray explores many insights onto the topic of furthering education as well as exploring various other options to pursue after high school. Who exactly would think that too many people are going to college? Well with more and more students flooding campuses at the end of every school year and less and less going into trade schools, a shift in the job market is just beginning to be seen on the horizon. Charles Murray’s essay “Are too many people going to college” shows that not only are there other avenues to pursue a potential life long career, but that much of the time pursuing these avenues may offer better results for some wanting to go to college.

In the essay “Are Too Many People Going to College,” writer Charles Murray explains that not everyone is in need of going to college for three main reasons: a liberal education should be gained in elementary and middle school, many people already have knowledge and skills necessary for a technical career, and many students are in college to “buy an admission ticket-the B.A.” (246) and ensure employers consider their resume. Murray does not argue anything against college itself but more against society and especially the education system. Murray also accuses guidance counselors and parents of “automatically encouraging young people to go to college straight out of high school being thoughtless about the best interests of young people” (249).

I have been asked to give my professional opinion on which article to publish in this week 's edition. The two articles I have to choose from are “Are too many people going to college?” by Charles Murray and “Should everyone go to college?” by Stephanie Owen and Isabel Sawhill. In short, Murray’s article explains throughout the article that the basic knowledge essential to a being an American can be learned in k-8. Murray explains that high school can be the place where students learn about their career paths and there would be no need for college. Murray believes college is not a necessity in today 's society if we can teach more in elementary, middle, and high school. Owen and Sawhill’s article can be summarized, in short, with their theses, “While the average return to obtaining a college degree is positive, we emphasize that it is not universally so. For certain schools, majors, occupations, and individuals, a college may not be a smart investment. By telling all young people that they should go to college no matter what, we are actually doing some of them a disservice” (Owen and Sawhill PG#). Both articles use rhetorical strategies to convey the purpose of their article to the reader. Charles Murray uses interesting anecdotes, understandable logical reasoning, and relevant statistics to facilitate his non-traditional ideas clearly to the reader. On the other hand, through the use of credibility Stephanie Owen and Isabel Sawhill uses assertions, logical reasoning, and

He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Yale College, and during his time there he was in various political organizations. He also received a degree in government at Harvard University. He wrote this essay to convince the American people that a more general education such as liberal arts has more productive outcomes. He is trying to reach the American population, so that they can change the educational system. He tries to connect to them by giving examples such as Mark Zuckerberg’s success through liberal arts and statistics on countries with a liberal arts education versus those with a skill-based education.

He suggests in order to reverse these trends of colleges, and help restore the freedom in society, the audience should actively come together and require that Congress outlaw discrimination based on college degrees. College cannot truly make all people equal as many people face barriers of achieving a higher education, which then creates a division of class due to a lack of opportunity. Banning the use of degrees to evaluate skill and talent will go a long way toward opening up more genuinely equal opportunities. This amendment would help create more fair opportunities to those who don’t have a degree but do have certain skills. As Blank states “there are far more too many people who “take” French than who “talk” French. There are far too many people who “pass” history than understand it” (Blank 265). This suggests that most college courses don’t really help students actually learn and retain the skills they “master” because students mainly worry about actually “passing” rather than “learning”. Blank argues that this issue is becoming more and more of a problem as it is “converting the educational system into a training facility” (265). In trying to become multi-purpose, dispersed, and culturally aware, colleges are becoming the opposite as they lose the essence of compulsory schooling and become more curriculum based

The first chapter introduced the reader to the art of rhetoric. He describes how rhetoric works through real life examples. He demonstrates ways that rhetoric persuades us like, argument from strength, and seduction. He tells the reader that the sole purpose of arguing is to persuade the audience. He showed that the chief purpose of arguing is to also achieve consensus, a shared faith in a choice.

From the opening paragraph to the closing statement, Murray produces an argument that will hopefully lead the reader to begin developing a better way for people to achieve maximum satisfaction other than being forced to get a college education (PARAGRAPH 50).

Being a first year college student who always figured college crucial, Nemko’s article, “We Send Too Many Students to College” strikes interesting. He directly addresses young adults investigating a college career. Nemko argues against the idea of higher education as a requirement to employ in an empowering career. He insists a multitude of people will find themselves more “[successful in taking] that noncollege road less traveled” and offers alternative options without degrading the college experience all together (Nemko 32). In doing so, he combines stylistic elements such as exemplum, hyperbole and simile, constructing a compelling argument. Nemko’s stylistic choices persuade this young adult audience of the options they have ensuring that not going to college is OK.

Although neither my parents nor my older siblings have college degrees, as a child, I don't remember ever planning my future using the phrase “if I go to college.” From a very young age, it was always “when I go to college.” For me, a postsecondary education is the logical next step in my life, the missing puzzle piece to get me where I want to go. For a long time, I believed that the only reason anyone would choose not to was because they were academically or financially incapable. In “Are Too Many People Going to College?”, Charles Murray refutes this belief, examining the increasing accessibility of a college education and how our culture pushes people who may not need it to attend anyways.

To discuss the value of liberal education, there should be a mutual understanding that investing in college means to invest in oneself. Furthermore, while some consider this investment to be a critical stepping stone to success, others dismiss it, explaining that school simply cannot prepare someone for the “real world.” Sanford J. Ungar and Robert Reich explore both of these subjective values in their essays “The New Liberal Arts” and “College is a Ludicrous Waste of Money.” Ungar, the president of Goucher College in Baltimore, Maryland, discusses why a liberal education should be sought after; he does so by introducing common misconceptions about liberal arts and, using argumentative persuasion, proves their insignificance. On the other hand, Reich, the former secretary of labor, argues against the conventional belief of college being the only road to financial wellbeing; rather, he explains why a two-year education may better accommodate many college students, especially those in need of immediate work or those that simply cannot afford a four-year education. In all, although both Reich and Ungar generally discuss liberal education, their perspectives differ when it comes to its practicality in the current economy. Also, to express their different views about liberal arts, the authors use contrasting tones to present their ideas to different intended audiences.

In Pharinet’s blog posting, she proclaims her beliefs about the pressing modern issue of whether or not everyone should attend college. Due to the controversial nature of the topic, Pharinet makes use some well-executed rhetorical strategies to convince her audience that her argument was credible. In her article, “Is College for Everyone?” She uses many rhetorical strategies like tone, calm, nods to opposition and she made mention of examples to support her arguments.

While the term liberal education is heard from the most prestigious university to an inner city community college, the phrase itself has a hazy definition at best. While educators across America struggle with the definition of the phrase, William Cronon uses purpose, structure, and appeals in his essay "Only Connect: The Goals of Liberal education," to define a liberally educated being and the characteristics that such an education should impart. Cronon capitalizes on inductive structuring to lead the reader along, gently building each new statement upon a foundation of previous ideas. This effectively leads the reader to a strange

In her article “College Is a Waste of Time and Money”, Caroline Bird attempts to pursued her readers that colleges are overflowing with students who don’t belong there. Her article first appeared in Psychology Today (May 1975). Since this material is outdated, I find it hard to believe that most of the responses by students and parents quoted in the article still hold true. The author has set out to pursue the readers that college is a bad and unnecessary choice for today’s youth. Yet the author holds a bachelors and a masters degree from two different universities. I would think that if she thought college was really a bad choice and a waste of time and money, she would not have gone back to get her masters degree.

We use rhetoric every day without even realizing it. Correctly using rhetoric on a specific group of people can drastically increase an arguments’ strength. Benjamin R. Barber wrote an article conveying his research on the failing school systems in the U.S titled America Skips School published in Harper’s Magazine. Barber uses rhetorical elements like ethos, pathos, and logos to build his argument. He establishes his credibility and then emotionally connects with his audience and explains who and what is to blame for the lack of quality education in America. Once he establishes a solid connection using these