Carr's Intro and Body Paragraph Revised

In recent discussions of the benefits and disadvantages of the Internet and its search engines, a controversial issue has been whether search engines such as Google are of any good to our society. On one hand some argue that Google is a great addition to have because it allows for anyone to find large amounts of information on a certain within seconds. From this perspective, the Internet’s existence is valued. On the other hand, however, others argue that the constant use of search engines is making us less intelligent. Nicholas Carr is an American writer and author of  “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” which goes into detail about how the Internet might be affecting us a humans. Carr is one of this views main proponents, he believes that because the Internet is so accessible the human race is not having to work as much to find a certain piece of information because the Internet does it for them, making us “stupid”. My own view is that, although the Internet might be making us lazier I do not believe that it is making us “stupid”, my intuitive thought is that the Internet can actually improve the way we think because accessibility to knowledge is just a click away. Therefore, in this paper I will examine Carr’s claims and strategies he uses to support his argument, and determine whether or not his argument as a whole is persuasive. 

With all of this debating going on about whether or not the Internet is beneficial to us as humans, the real question is, how exactly is the constant use of the Internet affecting us? In a recent study done by scholars from University College London they tracked the computer logs of two popular research sites, that provide access to things such a journals articles and other types of written information, and documented the activity of its visitors. Carr states, “They found that people using the sites exhibited “a form of skimming activity”…They typically read no more than one or two pages of an article or book before they “bounce” out to another site” (Carr). In other words the Internet is starting to not only change the way we read but also the way we think. We no longer read in the traditional way, we now look for key words in a title or text until we find what we need and then we stop reading. Not only have they found that it affects other people Carr uses himself as an example also. Carr says, “I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading” (Carr). He uses this strategy to advance his claim because it establishes a strong sense of logos. By using the study done by University College London, Carr’s claim suddenly becomes stronger because he is using sources that can be trusted because the reader can then relate to it because he himself has found that he sometimes has trouble concentrating on one topic for long periods of time. The audience then tends to be persuaded easier because Carr uses an example that is more than just “true”, it is real . Logos in this case does a good job at furthering his central claim because the way that it is used shows a plausible example of his claim in real life.

Carr's Second Body Paragraph

Continuous use of the Internet, in Carr’s point of view, can be seen as very dangerous  because distracts us and affects us in the long run. In “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Carr introduces Scott Karp, an avid blogger. Karp states, “I was a lit major in college, and used to be [a] voracious book reader” (Carr).  Due to his constant use of the Internet Karp has had trouble staying focused on long texts, and because of this he has stopped reading books. He believes this happened not because the way he reads has changed but the way he thinks has changed. A story similar to Karp’s is that of Bruce Friedman. Friedman, a faculty member of the University of Michigan Medical School and blogger about the use of computers in medicine, also believes that the Internet has changed his mental habits. Things like reading a blog post longer than three or four paragraphs and reading War and Peace have become a true struggle for him. Friedman has adapted to skimming through large texts and no longer reads the whole thing. Carr uses Karp and Friedman as examples in order to appeal to the readers emotions by the use of pathos. Using pathos in this case works because it shows a true life example of two very intelligent men who now, due to the Internet, can no longer read large texts and have trouble concentrating on one topic. Carr used the strategy of pathos in order to be able to appeal to the reader in a more emotional way. Therefore his audience tends to be persuaded much easier by Carr’s argument since they are emotionally hooked. Including pathos as a strategy in his text does a really good job at extending his central claim because it grabs the readers attention and shows them how the use of the Internet has affected these two scholarly men and in that case can affect anyone.

Carr Draft Intro and Body Paragraph

In recent discussions of the benefits and disadvantages of the Internet and its search engines, a controversial issue has been whether search engines such as Google are of any good to our society. On one hand some argue that Google is a great addition to have because it allows for anyone to find large amounts of information on a certain within seconds. From this perspective, the Internet existence is valued. On the other hand, however, others argue that the constant use of search engines is making us less intelligent. Nicholas Carr is an American writer and author of  “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” which goes into detail about how the internet might be affecting us a humans. Carr is one of this views main proponents, he believes that because the Internet is so accessible the human race is not having to work as much to find a certain piece of information because the internet does it for them, making us “stupid”. My own view is that, although the internet might be making us lazier I do not believe that it is making us “stupid”. In this paper I will examine Carr’s claims and strategies he uses to support his argument, and determine whether or not his argument as a whole is persuasive. 

With all of this debating going on about whether or not the internet is beneficial to us as humans, the real question is, how exactly is the constant use of the internet affecting us? In a recent study done by scholars from University College London they tracked the computer logs of two popular research sites, that provide access to things such a journals articles and other types of written information, and documented the activity of its visitors. Carr states, “They found that people using the sites exhibited “a form of skimming activity”…They typically read no more than one or two pages of an article or book before they “bounce” out to another site” (Carr). In other words the Internet is starting to not only change the way we read but also the way we think. We no longer read in the traditional way, we now look for key words in a title or text until we find what we need and then we stop reading. Carr uses this strategy to advance his claim because it establishes a strong sense of logos. By using the study done by University College London, Carr’s claim suddenly becomes stronger because he is using sources that can be trusted because the reader can then relate to it because he himself has found that he sometimes has trouble concentrating on one topic for long periods of time. The audience then tends to be persuaded easier because Carr uses an example that is more than just “true”, it is real . Logos in this case does a good job at furthering his central claim because the way that it is used shows a plausible example of his claim in real life.

Carr Homework

In Nicholas Carr’s text “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” his over all argument is that, having Google as a tool is affecting the way us humans perform in certain aspects of our lives. Some of the main types of evidence he uses are studies, blog posts, and books. In order for him to persuade his audience he established a strong sense of ethos, some pathos, and logos.

Strategy Response to Perry & Rifkin

In reading Jeremy Rifkin’s “A Change of Heart About Animals” one strategy that interest me the most is how he uses pathos in his text. He really tries to get his audience to feel for these animals in order to persuade them that animals really do have feelings just like us humans. An example of this is when he writes, “Animals, it appears, experience grief. Elephants will often stand next to their dead kin for days, occasionally touching their bodies with their trunks”. In Vince Perry’s text “The Art of Branding A Condition” the strategy that stood out the most to me was that he uses a lot of exemplification. This stood out to me because as he throws out big brand names such as Zantac, Viagra, and Listerine it really helps the reader understand that not only is there one example to support his claim but there are many.

For-Profit Draft

Karina Torres

Professor Christopher Werry

RWS 100

16 October 2014

For-Profit Essay Draft

College, a place where many young students and even adults aspire to go to in order to further their studies. What many people do not know is there are two types of colleges, for-profit and non-profit (traditional colleges). For-profit colleges, which have been receiving a lot of attention over the years, operate as a business and include schools such as the University of Phoenix, Grand Canyon University, Corinthian, and many more. On the other hand non-profits are the opposite and include schools such as California Baptist University, New York University, Stanford University, along with many others. Knowing the difference between these types of colleges is important because it can help a prospective student make the right decision based on the information that will be provided. Kevin Carey is an American higher education writer, policy analyst, and author of “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges?”. In his text Carey looks at both sides of the argument, which is whether or not for-profit colleges are beneficial or not. In my analysis of Carey’s text I will examine the pros and cons of for-profit colleges and argue whether traditional colleges or for-profit colleges are a better option for those whom are either going back to school or recent high school graduates. 

In his text, Carey says that although for-profit colleges often get a bad reputation they are actually a great addition to our society. For-profit colleges actually help fill the void that is often left by traditional colleges. For example, a student that is underprivileged who does not have a great SAT score or GPA gets rejected by a university then turns to a for-profit college and is accepted. Carey states, “For-profits exist in large part to fix educational market failures left by traditional institutions and they profit by serving students that public and private nonprofit institutions often ignore” (Carey). In other words, because these students do not stand out to the regular colleges/universities they turn to the schools which will pay attention to them and allow them to further their studies.  Kevin Lang a professor of Economics at Boston University and Russell Weinstein an Assistant Professor of Economics wrote “Evaluating Student Outcomes at For-Profit Colleges”. Some of the information in this text written by Lang and Weinstein extends Carey’s claim that for-profits fill the need that traditional colleges leave behind. Lang and Weinstein write, “…students starting in certificate programs at for- profit institutions are much more likely to be Black, Hispanic, female, younger, and single at the time they enter college… Furthermore, income…and expected family contribution to college are much lower.” (Evaluating Student Outcomes at For-Profit Colleges 10). Lang and Weinstein’s text help extend Carey’s claim because it is more specific on which types of people are admitted into these for-profit universities and why. Not only is it just students who are underprivileged, don't have good grades, and a poor SAT score, for-profits are taking in those who might not have enough money to attend regular colleges.

For-profits do good to our society but there are also stories which paint them as a nightmare. Typically for-profits tend to charge their students much more than regular colleges do to be able to obtain the same degree. Because of this many students have to take out loans in order to be able to pay their schooling and after they graduate, paying back those loans is nearly impossible for them. In the words of Carey, “…a large and growing number of graduates of for-profit colleges are having trouble paying those loans back” (Carey). Since these students are having to take out all of this money and are unable to pay that money back it gives for-profits a bad look because it goes on their record. Gregory D. Kutz released a statement called, “For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices”. In his text, Kutz sent a people in undercover to various for-profit universities to find out the truth about them. Kutz’s text helps illustrate Carey’s claim when he writes, “In August 2009, GAO [Government Accountability Office] reported that in the repayment period, students who attended for-profit colleges were more likely to default on federal student loans than were students from other colleges” (Kutz 5). Since these students can not pay back their federal student loans the federal government and taxpayers are left with the cost. Many times they attend these schools and take out loans because it seems like a good investment for their future but in the end their degrees are not valid or they do not have proper training to perform their jobs. It is important for people to be smart and know that for-profit colleges tend to at least charge twenty-five times more than regular colleges and universities do so that when they are making their decisions on what school to attend to they will not be in debt for the rest of their lives.

Traditional schools often try and look down on for-profit universities by saying that they classes that they offer do not count in a traditional college/university. For example, if a person attended for-profit school such as Grand Canyon University and was studying for a degree in computer science all of the classes this person took at GCU would not transfer to a school such as New York University because for-profits are usually nationally accredited and not regionally accredited. Carey refutes this statement by saying, “They’ve [traditional institutions] pointed instead to regional accreditation, which conveniently allows colleges to decide for themselves whether they're doing a good job. But many for-profit institutions have regional accreditation, too” (Carey). Carey points out that an argument that traditional schools once had against for-profit institutions is no longer valid because a lot of them now are equal to traditional schools. Tying this back to his argument, for-profit universities are as good and no different from traditional institutions now so they deserve some respect. Jane Bennett Clark, a Northwestern University alumni, wrote a text called “The Real Deal on For-Profit Colleges” which can complicate Carey’s argument. In her text Clark talks about Justin Logsdon, he attended Westwood College to pursue a career in graphic design and when he failed to find a job in that field he decided to transfer his credits to a four-year public college but they did not count. Clark writes, “Most public and nonprofit colleges, however, are accredited by regional associations, deemed the gold standard by traditional academia. Those colleges typically refuse to accept credits from schools with national accreditation. To go from one to the other, as Logsdon tried to do, you have to start over” (Clark). Like Carey said most for-profit institutions do have regional and national accreditation but not all do. If they all did it would be much easier for students to be able to transfer in between them without having to start all over again.

Like every other colleges and universities, for-profits allow their students to have the option of applying for FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid), grants, and different types of loans. Carey states in his text that for-profit institutions make a large sum of their money from the government when he writes, “Most of that money comes from the federal government, in the form of Pell Grants and subsidized student loans. [University of] Phoenix alone is on pace to reap $1-billion from Pell Grants this year, along with $4-billion from federal loans” (Carey). For-profit institutions receive approximately a quarter of all federal aid even though they only enroll ten percent of all students. One way or another for-profit institutions have to make their money but sometimes the way they do it is not legal. Gregory D. Kutz, a Managing Director Forensics Audits and Special Investigations, released a statement called  “For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices” which can complicate Carey’s claim. In this text Kutz performed a sort of investigation by sending people into for profit institutions and made them pose as a person who was interested in applying for their college. What Kutz found out about for profits can make people change their opinions quickly, on whether or no the way they make a large sum of their money is in a moral and most importantly illegal manner. On various occasions some of the colleges encouraged the undercover applicant to falsify their FAFSA in order to be able to receive financial aid. One of the many occasions happened in a privately owned college in California, “Undercover applicant was encouraged by a financial aid representative to change the FAFSA to falsely increase the number of dependents in the household in order to qualify for Pell Grants” (Kutz 8). It is not bad that for-profits get most of their money from the government but it is bad that many times they encourage others lie in order for them to be able to receive more money from the government. 

All in all, there are many benefits in having for-profits as a way to educate those who are deciding to further their studies but there is also a greedy side to them. This text has provided the reader with information on for-profit institutions that can either make them believe that for-profit schools are the way to go or if they should avoid them. After all for-profits take in those who are rejected by regular institutions, and a lot of them are nationally and regionally accredited. But a lot of times students are left with load bearing debts and the way they make their money is not legal most of the time. Carey’s text provided claims which showed the benefits and possible disadvantages that can come with attending those types of institutions. What he failed to do was provide strong solid evidence after each of his claims, he did hint at them but never went into actual data or specific examples. After looking at Carey’s text along with all of the others I now know more about for-profit institutions and how they work and after analyzing them I believe that they are a great addition in providing students with an education but they need to be regulated so that students are not taken advantage of. 

Works Cited

Carey, Kevin. "Why Do You Think They're Called For-Profit Colleges?" The Chronicle of Higher Education. N.p., 25 July 2010. Web. 17 Oct. 2014. <http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Do-You-Think-Theyre/123660/>.

Clark, Jane B. "The Real Deal on For-Profit Colleges-Kiplinger." Www.kiplinger.com. Kiplinger, May 2011. Web. 17 Oct. 2014. <http://www.kiplinger.com/article/college/T012-C000-S002-the-real-deal-on-for-profit-colleges.html>.

Kutz, Gregory D. "For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices." (2010): 27. United States Government Accountability Office. Web. 18 Oct. 2014. <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10948t.pdf>.

Lang, Kevin, and Russell Weinstein. Evaluating Student Outcomes at For-Profit Colleges (2012): 32. June 2012. Web. 18 Oct. 2014. <http://inpathways.net/for_profit_outcomes_2012.pdf>.

Sources

1. “The Real Deal on For-Profit Colleges” by Jane Bennett Clark published on May 2011 on kiplinger.com, pages: 4, http://www.kiplinger.com/article/college/T012-C000-S002-the-real-deal-on-for-profit-colleges.html
2. Augsut 4, 2010. "For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices."  http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10948t.pdf  by Gregory D. Kutz
3. Kevin Lang and Russell Weinstein, “Evaluating Student Outcomes at For-Profit Colleges”, June 2012, http://www.nber.org/papers/w18201.pdf?new_window=1http://www.nber.org/papers/w18201.pdf?new_window=1, pages 32

• Carey’s claim: Students who attend for profits can not pay their loans back. 
• extends: “…our undercover applicant would have paid $13,945 for a certificate in computer aided drafting program…at the for-profit college we visited. To obtain a certificate in computed-aided drafting at a nearby public college would have cost a student $520.”(Gregory D. Kutz)
• This quote by Kutz extends Carey’s claim because it goes into more detail about why students are unable to pay back there loans. Kutz does this by providing evidence that he found by sending in people undercover to get these results. 
• Carey’s claim: For-profits take in students who the public colleges and universities do not want.
• Qualifies: “They [students] are also less likely to have taken the SAT, less likely to have received their high school diploma, and less likely to have had a high school GPA above a 3.0.” (Lang & Weinstein)
• This quote qualifies Carey’s claim because it shows a perfect example of why traditional colleges ignore a lot of applicants. When this happens they look over to for-profits and they help them get into a school and obtain their degree.