Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Misrepresentation in advertising
Misrepresentation in advertising
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
What stands out about American universities today? Is it the academic opportunities offered to students, experienced faculty, or strong sense of community? Or...perhaps they have lost their focus. It is not uncommon for universities to focus their efforts and budgets elsewhere; by building state of the art gyms, for example, remodeling luxury dorms, grooming campuses, or creating more management positions. College students and professors alike are subject to the nationally occurring changes in higher level education. Colleges are becoming commercialized and tuition is rising, but is the quality of education improving? In “Why We Should Fear University, Inc.”, Fredrik DeBoer is able to provide a personal take on the issue of corporate domination …show more content…
in English and taught as a part time instructor. It’s a garden that he describes as “overgrown and seemingly unmanaged...perhaps the only place left at the university that is not meticulously landscaped and stage-managed for tour groups and the website”. While the “aesthetic conformity” of the school is not the only issue, DeBoer’s portrayal of the campus sets the mood of his statement. The juxtaposed descriptions of the natural versus managed spaces on campus reflect the bigger picture; namely universities are more focused on marketability than education. He backs this up with other information, but it is this personal example that will likely stick with the audience. The garden might seem like a trivial issue, but it represents DeBoer’s personal stake in the subject. “That’s precisely why I love the garden: It’s one of the last little wild places left at Purdue”, he says, “Naturally, it’s slated for demolition”. This particular statement is a powerful ending to his introduction because it depicts the weakness of campus culture and freedom against university …show more content…
He recognizes the counter argument by stating, “It’s hard to blame people within a system-particularly people so young- who take advantage of structures they’ve been told exist to help them”. By this, he means that students are responding naturally by trying to help themselves. They play along with the rules that school CEO’s put in place. When they voice their opinions it is through organizations under their university’s control. These organizations formed to promote student politics actually limit student activism. Student government, for example, is more censored than student initiated movements and
This shift in university life has caused the emergence of a more focused and hard-working student body. There are those from past generations who will look at the happenings of colleges today and ridicule this change. And even after moving through the nostalgic haze that surrounds the memories of the past, the differences can still be seen, but it should be known that today's students are just adapting to the system that has already been established for them. This systematic change is to be expected. Considering that the world is not the same as it was in the 1960s, why would we assume that an institution would be exactly the same as it was
Colleges and community colleges have their share of faults, and these three writers express what should be done to repair the broken system; if Carey were to attempt upholding his view that for-profits have their place in education, the result would be complete annihilation. Yes, for-profits benefit those who reap gains from the system, but Hacker and Dreifus and Addison would tear apart this view with the true meaning of education. Educated graduates with jobs that help create a better society are essential to the function of societies all over the world; therefore, colleges exist for the purpose of producing these graduates capable of making a difference. Students need education—students are the purpose of education. Although Carey’s claim—the government should not interfere with the success of for-profit owners—has integrity, Hacker, Dreifus, and Addison all believe that it is not in the right place. In their view, for-profits have no value to anyone but the owners. In sum, Carey would be shut down with the reality that an education system with the central purpose of earning profit does not value providing an education that benefits both students and society—the main focus is money. In turn, what is available could hardly be considered an education, according to Hacker, Dreifus, and Addison. However, the marketing scheme of for-profits still successfully entices people to enroll by offering accessibility with quick and easy degrees, which would infuriate Ungar and
College is marketed towards students as an essential part of building a successful future. The United States “sells college” to those who are willing to buy into the business (Lee 671). With the massive amounts of student debts acquired every year, and the rising costs of
Dale Stephens argues that college isn’t right for everyone. He acknowledges that he left college because he believed that higher education isn’t everything. Dale clarifies that college is expensive. He refers to College Board Policy Center because tuition is about 3.6 times higher today than it was 30 years ago. He brings up good points but bases his ideas off his own opinions not facts. This is a strong argument because when the tuition is higher, it will be harder for and more people to pay for it. This encourages others to look for an alternative path to follow.
He seems to force what he says, rather than having a natural tone, causing the reader of the article to be left with a feeling of discontent. Although he only focuses on the negatives that those of the past have done, his argument is direct. No matter what generation you are from, it seems one always suspects the other of either ignorance or reckless abandon. It is easy for someone of the younger generation to point fingers at those who raised them, while taking no responsibility to take control of their lives. He does leave the reader with more awareness of a problem students face upon leaving school. This article is a persuasive piece due to the usage of Brooks principle message and literary
Since the 1980’s the cost of attending colleges have increased rapidly. Rising costs of for Medicare, highways and prisons have caused many states to reduce a percentage of their budget for higher education. Colleges and Universities currently face a very serious challenge:
In the essay, “College Consumerism Run Amok” authored by Kevin Carey describe how colleges are careless with their money. Throughout the essay, Kevin Carey explains why normal people think the average price of college tuition has risen across the United States. People believe college tuition is rising because students demand colleges to have “creature comforts”, such as luxury dorms, a fully operational gym, and a climbing wall. Also, that the creation for “creature comforts” in colleges has caused academic standards to decline. Yet, colleges market to students with these amenities instead of showing students comparable statistics: the quality of teaching, scholarships, and academic environment. Kevin Carey, in the end, sums up his idea with
History professor 's Ken Coates and Bill Morrison, in their article, ' 'The uses and abuses of university, ' ' emphasize the mismatch between what students are learning in university, and what the economy truly needs. Coates and Morrison 's purpose is to impress upon readers the idea that post secondary graduates are often bombarded with unexpected difficulties such as struggling to find paid employment, and accepting unskilled, low paying jobs. They adopt a candid approach in order to convey to their readers the idea that our education is not parallel with our ever changing Canadian economy. The article is concluded with an engaging statement addressing the extreme disconnect between what universities are producing, and what the students need in order to bridge the unemployment gap, and that if universities are unable to accept the truth behind why people attend universities, the graduates and the economy will continue to suffer. Through their use of a strong personal story, statistics, and then and now comparisons, they are able to effectively defend their bold thesis.
This makes the paper very ineffective because to parents and other adults, these facts would not apply to them. His article has the potential to become much more effective if he also targets parents, teachers, and counselors because those adults are major influences in a student’s life. If he targets the teachers and counselors, they can start teaching the students that it is okay not to go to college. By integrating this idea into the school systems, the social norm would begin to change and many employers would possibly start looking more closely into the individual potential employees, not just their
The biggests explain I can think of is University Of michigan. They are famous for their football team. But do you know what else they are famous for? There science department. University Of Michigan get peoples attention only for football of science department what about other major? The major that could matter but don't get enough attention. This world of education is turning to only science majors and math or the football team. There classes like writing, speech, art and etc is turning into basic classes that supports science and math. The high the test score in these subject the better the rating for universities. What about the success rate of students? No college wants to rate themselves by the number of murders, suicides, failures, or dropouts. They all hide the negative side to attract the students to come to their college. Colleges are turning education into a business. They do this by adding classes that are not a part of their major, increasing the prices of books, and high tuitions that cause students to pile up with student
Instead, Sanford J. Ungar presents the arguments that all higher education is expensive and needs to be reevaluated for Americans. He attempts to divert the argument of a liberal arts education tuition by stating “ The cost of American higher education is spiraling out id control, and liberal-arts colleges are becoming irrelevant because they are unable to register gains i productivity or to find innovative ways of doing things” (Ungar 661). The author completely ignores the aspects of paying for a liberal arts degree or even the cost comparison to a public university. Rather, Ungar leads the reader down a “slippery slope” of how public universities attain more funding and grants from the government, while liberal arts colleges are seemingly left behind. The author increasingly becomes tangent to the initial arguments he presented by explaining that students have a more interactive and personal relationship with their professors and other students. Sanford J. Ungar did not address one aspect of the cost to attend a liberal arts college or how it could be affordable for students who are not in the upper class.
The advertisements are everywhere -- on local television stations it is Everest Institute, or Brown Mackie College. On South Florida highway billboards, it is the University of Phoenix. All are selling a quick, convenient college education, and the dream of a better life. In this economy, people are buying, and in the process the schools -- built to make a profit -- are thriving. What is less clear, though, is how much students actually benefit. For-profit colleges, many with night classes and entire degree programs available online, are built to fit seamlessly into the busy life of a working adult.
In his article “A Rational Optimist’s View of American Higher Education”, Dr Lane A. Glenn discusses his vision concerning higher education in America. Inside the article, he explains and also re-futes the principal reasons why today, some people doubt of the importance of higher education such as colleges and universities in America. Glenn is writing to an academic and public audience in order to in-form them about what is happening to the education. His main claim is that receiving a higher education is still valuable.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, some 20.5 million students are expected to attend American colleges and universities, constituting an increase of about 5.2 million since fall 2000. In addition to this increase of incoming college students, the constant question of “why” does as well. You have one side that says yes! They believe that college is the answer to America’s problems, while the other hand, says that college is not necessarily the answer. Although both of these sides seem to be on the opposite spectrum of everything; they both agree on a few common themes. One being that they both desire for America to be greater and that the quality of everyone 's lives to be the best they can possibly be.
Dazey, Josh. “Campus puts students at undue risk: while restricting “basic natural rights”. Ifeminists. Feb 12, 2002. http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2002/0212b.html