Cadet Peter Chew
Professor Dupal
ERH-102-02
October 20, 2022
Rhetorical analysis of “Learning By Degrees”
Most youths in high school during their junior to senior years’ experience very stressful moments in their lives. The overwhelming decision of which college they are accepted to is almost a determining factor in their life. Which depends solely on what universities the students are accepted or rejected from. The following article serves as a further reading resource to help answer the underlying question of whether college is truly that much of a determinant in terms of bridging that gap of sound employment. What is more, is if that financial commitment for four years of college tuition – pays off in the end or if one is simply better off without a degree, all of which is very subjective. Nevertheless, the article attempts to alleviate this vacillate question.
The author states their credentials and background as evidence of credibility and authority on the subject matter. When reading the article “Learning by Degrees” by Rebecca Mead; the audience may choose what to conclude from the readings, based on the information and context provided by the author. The intended audience is High Schoolers, College students, and prospective Students who may be seeking whether going to college is worth the financial sacrifice. The purpose of the author is to state enough evidence and reason to let the audience determine whether one or not one should go to college and what Major may be the best option in terms of job security after graduation. The genre; is education and life-planning. Mead presents statistical facts for the reader to digest, a persuasion method of Logos. The article was written in the context of the aftermath of the 2008 recession and the side effects encountered by those who had to adapt and re-plan their life in terms of attending college.
The article is specifically tailored for the College industry, that is aspiring college students. For current students enrolled in higher education, the article raises the question of whether the time and financial commitments are truly worth the outcome for a prospective student, and if the presumed standard of living and job market offers will be satisfactory based on that degree. For those who seek employment without a college degree, might not result in an unwanted outcome. The author uses the Times — Appeal to Ethos, as a source for the basis of the claim; “Eight out of ten job categories that will add the most employees during the next decade… can be performed by someone without college degrees.” (Mead). A statement backed by Richard K. Bedder, of Ohio University, the founder of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. With such a statement and occupation, it seems questionable for someone who has a Ph.D. to consider that college is not always needed, despite reaching one of the highest levels of education attainable. Despite this, it is still quite persuasive to the reader. Take into consideration, those who are not very financially secure and may be looking for employment without college as a prospect.
Furthermore, the author added the question raised by Professor Vedder to intrigue the audience to think; “Why fifteen percent of mail carriers have bachelor’s degrees.”(Mead). Financial choices are brought to question. Specifically, that fifteen percent of mail carriers could’ve made a deposit on a mortgage, instead of paying for college. This statement is however questionable since there is no data provided in order to know how many of those mail carriers, had a college scholarship, or financial aid to where such amount was not exactly spent on college but granted to them without loans. That is where skepticism comes into play in regard to the augment being made by Professor Vedder and presented by Mead, which presents statistical facts for the reader to digest, a persuasion method of Logos; However, this becomes a fallacy and makes the persuasion somewhat ineffective, due to the underlying questions of “fifteen percent”.
The overall premise is presented in a neutral fashion by the author. Despite this, the statement of the article is that not all should go to college. In fact, it is better for some to seek blue-collar jobs or non-college white-collar jobs. Because one must still consider the demands of the job market. Not all who have a college degree are needed by the job market, which is why it should be diversified. It should be made appealing to seek employment without college, and not as negative connotation in societal norms to not be in possession of a college diploma. This is why the author appeals to Ethos by making examples of how well-known people such as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, became very successful as college drop-outs. Now, this can be quite dangerous to romanticize because not everyone can achieve such an endeavor, and it may be safer to simply continue in college and receive ad diploma as a guarantee of a higher pay position in the job market.
The author mentions a previous American President: Barrack Obama as a support structure to the argument. An appeal to Ethos and Logos, Obama gained his degrees from prestigious universities, which oddly enough was seen as a negative symbol of elitism to his critics, as evidence of “unfitness for office” (Mead), The author makes a more pragmatic clarification of the belief that a professionally oriented college degree is not enough of a guarantee of a long-lasting job. This connects back to the previous statement, the author continues on the argument made by Professor Vedder (Ph.D., University of Illinois) regarding the economic trade-off of those who attend College. According to Professor Vedder, “Some of them could have bought a house for what they spent on their education.” (Mead). This argument is further backed by Economist Professor Robert I. Lerman of American University (Ph.D., M.I.T.) who informed the newspaper the Times “that high schools should focus on the acquisition of skills appropriate to the workplace.”, (Mead). Elaborated by the need for the ability to “solve problems and make decisions”, to resolve conflict and negotiate, cooperate with others, and listen actively. This is the argument against all going to college because a certain portion of the population is needed in the workforce outside of and before college.
Rebecca Mead expands the views of skepticism about the value of college. To name a few highly successful figures whom have dropout of higher education and achieved success in life, they have unquestionably, exfoliated a certain romance among youthful aspirations for a bet to land a better life, without that four-year commitment. The author makes an appeal to Ethos by describing the case of Steve Jobs, and his counterpart Bill Gates both left College in pursuit of their talents. A persuasive strategy that caught my attention, was when the author mentioned that George W. Bush’s lack of displaying himself as an intellectual figure was seen as a good thing among the critics, for the reason stated that – according to Noonan’s writing in the Wall Street Journal “Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world.” This phrase functions as an appeal to pathos, an attempt to discourage intellectual, highly educated figures, since they seem to present a certain danger due to their desire and further educated understanding of the world. A motive to discredit Collegians from higher positions of power.
All of this, ties to how the author mentions how advocates have the incentive to promote a certain aspect of the population to skip college. The advent of economic downturn, as an appeal to Pathos (emotion and uncertainty) to discredit the viability of a diploma — to be seen as a bad investment. The author presents two arguments to the reader, establishing the potential positives which are gained from attending an institute of higher education. However, staying truthful in argumentation — the negatives and positives of college are mentioned. This is an effective means of argument, which raises the question for the audience to determine the answer. It requires the reader to engage in critical thinking, based on the information provided by the author. Mead does not decide for the reader; rather the style of writing and language is crafted in a tone of neutrality on the subject. What is stated is factual evidence and applicable, and if concerns are raised that is for the audience to determine its significance. Instead, factual examples are made to help the reader decide which major may be the right option, such as “Math majors are more likely than their peers in other majors to find themselves promptly and gainfully employed”, (Mead).
Ultimately it is between two spectrums of thought — the pedagogy of education; is preferable to have more who engage in critical thought enhanced by their overall liberal arts education or to develop in them an ability to listen actively, or cooperation with others, as problem solvers. Favorable are both options, that should be divided into desired paths, in order to form an “engaged citizenry” (mead). That is the people who have use and utility to the overall well-being of society; engaged in the nature of productivity, and achievement of results for the betterment of all. The question of which path offers the most sound-safest option simply does not hold true. Because with neither option is it possible to know what the prospects may be, with or without a diploma one may have greater, less, or if not an equal chance of opportunity of found employment. It is in practice a pragmatic matter which is beneficial to the nation.
Works cited:
Mead, Rebecca. “Learning by Degrees.” The New Yorker. 06 June 2010.