The rising question of whether everyone should attend college is examined by Stephanie Owen and Isabel Sawhill in "Should Everyone Go to College?" According to Owen and Sawhill, “For the past few decades, it has been widely argued that a college degree is a pre-requisite to entering the middle in the US”. By this quote, the author means that in today's world a college degree does not always mean that you will become rich and get a successful job. The authors examine numerous studies to identify the factors that lead people to be picky while selecting the correct college. For instance, the authors indicate that an extra year of education raises earnings by about $3,000 per year. They stress that while college graduates do have higher earnings, …show more content…
He asserts that, “Universities are not intended to teach the knowledge required to fit men for some special mode of gaining their livelihood.” By this the author means that four-year colleges are no longer as essential as they were when they were first established because most jobs now require more on-the-job training. He furthers his argument by noting that the importance of physical libraries and the close proximity of students and teachers has diminished as a result of the development of the internet. He thinks that people should attend college, but not for a liberal degree. When referring to a liberal degree, the author is referring to degrees such as History, Art, or English. He believes that degrees like this are not necessary to go to college for because these are topics that you should have mastered in high school. More precisely, Murray makes the case that college-bound students should have obtained the fundamental knowledge that is used in college while they were in high school. In this text, Murray makes the argument that it is preferable to start teaching the fundamentals in elementary school and continue through high school rather than devoting more resources and time to college. For graduates of high school going to college, getting a Bachelor of Arts, or a B.A, feels like the correct choice, but Murray believes it's a poor economic choice. This is because of the rising cost of college and the low return rate. He appears to think that attending college is not vital based on this line of
They mention on page 209, paragraph 1, that not all college degrees or college graduates are equal and that for certain schools, majors, and occupations, college may not be a smart investment.
The first point Murray brings up is that a liberal education can and should be gained in elementary and middle school rather than college. He also believes that there are many people going to college who don't need to because they already have the knowledge and skills necessary for a career. Murray also thinks that many students arc going to college solely to get their ticket for employers to consider their resume:
People go to college to get a good paying job, have job security, and get a degree. Well at least that’s what it should be about. That’s what Charles Murray believes in his essay “Are Too Many People Going to College.” Murray counters the argument of Sanford Ungar who believes colleges should have a more liberal approach towards its classes and have students actually learn a broad range of real life skills instead of just going into a career just because it pays well. In Ungar’s essay he explains the misperception that Americans have on obtaining a liberal-arts degree and how they believe it doesn’t translate well to the real world.
In the articled titled “The New Liberal Arts” author Sanford J. Ungar states the importance of a liberal arts education and offers his critique on the common misconceptions surrounding them. Ungar offers his viewpoints on a variety of issues surrounding liberal arts educations including, the cost of the education, the usefulness of the degree, and the advantages of a post secondary education. While many people think liberal arts degrees are not worth the cost, Ungar suggests they can end up being less expensive than other larger public universities. He even claims they may be a better investment in the long run because a liberal arts education prepares you with a wide breadth of knowledge compared to a “Career Education.” Ungar also emphasizes
Ungar has put this misconception to rest by saying the difficulty in the job market has nothing to do with a specific degree. A survey for the Association of American colleges and universities discovered that more than three-quarters of the nation's employers recommend that college-bound students pursue a liberal education. Misperception number three states that the liberal arts are a relevant for low income and first-generation college students. This misperception troubles Ungar and he says it is “ condescending to imply that those who have less cannot understand and appreciate the finer elements of knowledge”. He says this is a form or prejudice and makes very little sense.
It wasn’t until after reading this piece several times that I began encountering flaws within her reasoning. Although I agree with Bird that college is a waste of all these for some students, I also believe that Bird does not provide strong enough evidence to persuade her readers into thinking this. First off, when choosing the material to include in her essay, Bird should have used evidence that contained more certainty in order to solidify her claim. For example, “it is difficult to assess how many students are in college reluctantly. The conservative Carnegie Commission estimates
Many people feel it is beneficial to invest money on a college education. In most cases, earning more money depends on the field one chooses to enter after graduating from college. Most employers today want to see an applicant have some sort of higher education when applying for jobs as this has changed from the past. As there are many paths one can take to be successful a college education is the most traditional idea of how to live the “American Dream”. Dreams of attending college, getting married, and starting a family are the typical persons aspirations.
The authors’ emphasis on “on average” is very effective at showing how their point makes sense and why it should be taken into consideration. I found the way that the authors focused on the minority more than the majority was skillfully effective at showing how some career paths do not require a college education and that the return in investment would not be worth the cost. Throughout their argument I found the writers to mostly use Logos and Ethos in their writing. The Logos is evident by the way they use statistics and the Ethos by how they state telling someone the only way to be successful is to go to college is a disservice. This is effective at making the reader think about how this should affect the decision of going to college and whether they should push someone to go to
Have you ever felt pressured to go to college before knowing what you wanted to do when you are older? Many believe that college can be essential to one's future success depending on their career path; others believe that college is the only way to be successful in life. College is important to one's future success depending on one's career path. Not every successful profession requires a degree from a typical 4-year college, and for someone in this situation, going to college would be a waste of time and money for them. In Robert Reich’s article, “Why Collage Isn’t (And Shouldn’t Have to Be) For Everyone” he writes that a typical 4-year college is not the right choice for everyone.
In Charles Murray’s essay “Are Too Many People Going to College,” he believes that the concept of college has changed over the years. According to him, a four-year college is no longer as necessary as it was when it was first created because most jobs requires more on job training. He also adds to his reasoning by mentioning that because of the advancement of internet, physical libraries and the physical proximity of student and teachers is less important. Because of the changes he noticed he believes that people should go to college but not for liberal education. He makes the claim that the basic core knowledge of liberal education should be learned in elementary and middle school and that only people with high academic abilities should be encouraged to go to college.
In my opinion, I agree with Murray’s claim that four year college is not worth, job satisfaction for intrinsic reward, and the dark side of the Bachelor's degree. In my view, Murray’s is right, because college requires student to take 32 courses in four years or longer and not all courses are relate to the field they study with. More specifically, I believe that four years college will take more time to achieve our goal and knowledges doesn’t teach us how to make a living in our society. Murray described in his article, “More people should be getting the basic of a liberal education. But for most students, the places to provide those basics are elementary and middle school” (235).
“On average, college graduates make significantly more money over their lifetime than those without a degree… What gets less attention is the fact that not all college degrees or college graduates are equal. ”(pg.208 para. 1) Stephanie Owen and Isabel Sawhill are senior researchers at Brookings’ Center on Children and Families, Sawhill is also a senior fellow in economics study at Brookings’. Owen and Sawhill authored the essay, “Should everyone go to College?” The authors use a wide variety of rhetorical devices in the essay, including ethos, pathos, and logos to persuade their audience to take another look at whether college is the right choice for them.
Following his ideas, he lists multiple misperceptions about a liberal arts education. His first misperception is that a “liberal arts degree is a luxury that most families can no longer afford” (657). He points out that because businesses and industries are looking for people with basic skills needed to perform a certain job, shortcuts are created. This shortcut or as he refers to it as a social experiment, will eventually lead to a dead end. This aspect of his article appeals to emotion and the fear most students have that they will end up in a job that is no longer needed.
In Rotherham’s article he says “According to the Bureau of labor Statistics, in 2010, the median weekly earnings for someone with some college but no degree were $712, compared to $1,038 for a college graduate. ”the evidence provided clearly shows that getting a higher education and investing time and money into getting a college degree can result in earning more financially for people to support themselves and their families. The opposing side of this argument might say that “even though begin a college graduate, and having a degree can lead to finding well paying jobs. Graduates are often left drowning in
“Should Everyone Go to College?” article wrote two authors, Stephanie Owen and Isabel Sawhill. They gave many examples of why people should return to college and invest in education. Authors gave statistical data how college investment is better for everyone. They also gave more data on which occupation