Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Nicholas Carr’s overall argument is that Google is affecting the way we operate in our everyday lives. It is affecting us by giving us a sense of relief and laziness. Some of the types of evidence he uses to support his claims are, blog posts, his studies and books. He uses pathos, logos, and ethos in his text to connect with the audience.

"Introduction to Rhetorical Strategies"

In Rifkin's "A Change of Heart About Animals", I really enjoy the way the writer made the text personal and used pathos. Rifkin connected the animals to humans and tried to give the readers a feeling of sadness. The text showed us how similar human and animals really are and that made me rethink a lot of things towards animals. As for Vince Parry's "Branding a Condition.", I found the strategy of exemplification very interesting. He uses exemplification to strongly support his claims with very powerful evidence.  

Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing - Final Draft

Lawrence Besong

Professor Christopher Werry

RWS 100

27 October 2014

Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

            Many people may have heard the popular idiom, “A wolf in sheep’s clothing.”  The meaning of this idiom is a person or thing that disguises its evil nature or intentions beneath a kind or innocent exterior.  For-profit colleges can be compared to wolves in sheep’s clothing.  For-profit schools are owned by private organizations or corporations, and tend to operate in such a way.  In his article for Forbes Magazine, Robert Farrington states, “for-profit colleges are schools that are in business to make money off students and tuition” (Farrington).  As with any other business, the main goal is to earn revenue.  Forbes magazine advises students to check the Better Business Bureau on reviews on for-profit colleges.  The National Association for College Admission Counseling provides information on the various college categories, such as private non-profit, public non-profit and for-profit colleges.  They describe for-profit schools as proprietary institutions and “companies that operate under the demands of investors and stockholders” (NACAC).  Beneath their promises of a quality education remain deception, dishonesty, and defeat.  In “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges?,” a 2010 commentary published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Kevin Carey claims that problems and abuses exist in the for-profit sector, and these institutions are refusing to accept responsibility for them.  For-profit colleges have been becoming more prevalent across the United States, with the popularity of schools such as the University of Phoenix.  These schools market themselves to students from “moderate- and low-income backgrounds” (Carey).  Knowing the population of their students, for-profits still typically charge a higher tuition than public colleges and universities.  In order for these students to attend and pay their tuition, they are encouraged to take out student loans.  Operators of these colleges refuse to see and acknowledge that their high tuition results in student loan defaults.  For-profits receive enormous amounts of money, “most of that money comes from the federal government, in the form of Pell Grants and subsidized loans” (Carey). Upon graduating from a for-profit college, students are having difficulty paying back their loans, because “large debt plus small income equals high risk of default” (Carey).  Although the article discusses negative aspects of for-profit colleges, he does mention some positive qualities that these colleges may have when compared to public non-profit higher education schools.  I feel that these positive qualities are only mentioned in order to mask the true nature of these for-profit schools.  In my analysis of Carey’s text, I will examine the deceit and dishonesty of for-profit colleges and the negative effects that the students and graduates of these establishments endure and argue the unwarranted popularity of these proprietary schools.

            For-profit colleges market their brand to appeal to students from low- to moderate-income backgrounds.  Running just as a business would, these colleges market themselves in order to gain the most profit.  Carey explains that “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 too often ignore” (Carey).  The author is saying that for-profit colleges provide an education to the under-privileged, giving them the opportunity to obtain a higher education.  The University of Phoenix strategically builds their campuses near freeway exits.  This appealed to students who attended night classes and had to quickly get to school after a long day of working.  Online courses allow students to stay home and earn a degree at the same time.  Students can work and complete their schoolwork at their own convenience.  Students with families or children can stay home while learning, without the need of hiring a babysitter or nanny.  Carey is explaining the appeal that for-profit colleges have to the under-privileged, while Deming, Golding and Katz provide a more in-depth analysis at what attracts these types of students to these schools.  “For-Profit Colleges” describes the majority of the students enrolled in for-profit schools.  The authors state “during the past fifteen years, youth from minority and disadvantaged background and those ill-prepared for college increasingly and disproportionately have enrolled in programs at for-profit colleges.  These programs promise much, are often open to those who do not meet traditional college-entry requirements” (Deming, Goldin and Katz 138).  Traditional nonprofit schools may require a high school diploma, passing test scores and prerequisite classes.  Students who choose to attend for-profit colleges may not meet the criteria of traditional school.  This may push them toward enrolling in a for-profit school.  Also, many career-based programs are offered and can be completed in a shorter period of time compared to traditional nonprofit colleges.  Certifications and degrees seem easily attainable by the way they are marketed to those interested in entering a specific career.  “Many for-profit colleges devote considerable resources to advertising, sales, and marketing” (Deming, Goldin and Katz 149).  For-profit colleges set aside money from their earnings in order to advertise their schools and programs to increase student enrollment.  These ads include: billboards, television and radio commercials, and posters on public transportation.  The deliberate placing of these ads can help attract students with a lower income, providing them with the optimism of gaining a postsecondary education.  For-profit schools use this optimism to their advantage.  According to Carey, traditional schools often ignore these types of students.  They will jump at any opportunity that allows them to gain the same education that a nonprofit college would provide them.  “When such institutional incentives are combined with outreach to low-income, first-generation college students who may be financially unsophisticated, the worry is that students may have overly optimistic views of the expected benefits and not fully understand the costs of the educational decisions they are making” (Deming, Goldin and Katz 149).  Relying on the inexperience and hopefulness of this group of people, for-profit colleges are able to influence their decisions to enroll without proper consideration of the negative effects it could possibly have.  These students are often left with a great amount of debt and low-paying jobs.  Just as Carey pointed out that for-profit schools appeal to people with the moderate- to low-income backgrounds, Deming, Golding and Katz provided insight as to why for-profit school enrollment is prevalent within this group.  Businesses, which nonprofit schools are considered, always market themselves to appeal to those who can be easily persuaded.  Like candy advertisements are geared toward children, the promise of a quick certification or degree appeals to those who are in desperate need of money and a job.  Although it may seem like a good decision on the surface, graduates from for-profits have been shown to have a higher rate of unemployment and have lower paying jobs, on top of their greater amount of debt.  For-profit schools deliberately leave out this type of information, which definitely would not appeal to any student, regardless of educational or socioeconomic background.

            For-profit colleges gain a significant amount of their profit through the federal government.  As Carey pointed out, they get their money from Pell Grants and subsidized loans, which are both student financial aids that help low-income students obtain a post-secondary education.  Due to the fact that this is how they make their revenue, for-profit schools will do anything to “help” their students obtain these loans, including fraudulent behavior.  The introduction of “Reining in the Predatory Nature of For-Profit Colleges” tells the story of a fourteen-year-old boy named Bobby Ruffin Jr.  He was searching the Internet for college funding.  He clicked on a link, which was disguised, that led to a for-profit school.  Soon after, a recruiter from Ashford University contacted Ruffin.  This recruiter promised Ruffin that he would “be working toward a degree as a medical doctor, so when [he does] graduate high school, [he will be] almost there” (Schade 318).  The recruiter advised Ruffin not to even discuss the matter with his parents.  The naïve high school student did as he was told.  Ashford University requires a high school diploma for admission, and Ruffin was still only in eighth grade.  The Ashford recruiter told Ruffin to state that he already graduated on his financial aid forms.  Even though he left it blank, Ashford University filled in the form with a false graduation date in order receive the federal student loan money. By retelling this story, Schade shows how the recruiter manipulated a young boy and forged federal government forms in order to receive money for revenue.  Unfortunately, behavior like this is common within the for-profit sector.  “Critics of for-profit colleges, who often refer to such institutions as “predatory lender,” condemn them for unethical recruiting tactics, false promises of high-salary jobs, inaccurately representing institutional information, and charging vastly higher tuition in comparison to public universities” (Schade 321).  Lying and deceit seems to be morally acceptable to these institutions, just as long as they make a profit.  Although they will not admit that is what they are doing, essentially they are committing fraud.  Schade provided a great example of the dishonest behavior of the for-profit colleges that leads to the ability to gain profit from the federal government, through Pell Grants and subsidized loans.  This connects to Carey’s argument that “without oversight, the combination of government subsidies and financially unsophisticated consumers guarantees outright fraud or programs that, while technically legitimate, are so substandard that the distinction of legitimacy has no meaning” (Carey).  Although they make millions of dollars from the federal government and through student loans, for-profit colleges do not use a majority that money toward the education of their students.  Not only do they commit fraud financially, but it also transfers to the illegitimacy of their educational programs. 

            Statistics show that graduates from a for-profit college, compared to those from a four-year public institution, have a higher rate of unemployment, have lower-paying jobs, are hired less often, and have a large amount of debt.  Carey states that “student-debt payments after graduation exceed a certain percentage of the graduates’ income” (Carey) and that these graduates are more likely to default on their loan.  That is just one negative aspect of graduating from a for-profit college.  In the article Subprime Students: For-profit Universities Make a Killing from Poor and Minority Students, Taylor and Appel reveal that, “graduates of for-profit schools generally do not fare well.  Indeed, they rarely find themselves in the kind of work they were promised when they enrolled, the kind of work that might enable them to repay their debts, let alone purchase the commodity-cornerstones of the American dream like a car or a home” (Taylor and Appel).  For-profit colleges claim they provide quick and career-based programs that will help its graduates find employment soon after completion.  More often than not, these students find themselves struggling to find a job, while paying off their student loans and debt.  In the example of Nathan Hornes, who graduated from Everest College in 2014, one can see that a 3.9 GPA and a Business Management degree has not proved to beneficial to him.  Not only does he owe $65,000, but also he was not able to find employment, which was promised to him by Everest.  Now he is forced to work two fast-food jobs in order to begin to pay off his debt.  This is the type of situation that many of the graduates find themselves in upon graduation from a for-profit college.  They are unable to find employment, even though they may have a degree and certificate specific to a certain profession.  Taylor and Appel also state that “for-profit graduates fare little better on the job market than job seekers with high school degrees; their diplomas, that is, are a net loss, offering essentially the same grim job prospects as if they had never gone to college, plus a lifetime debt sentence” (Taylor and Appel).  Employers almost equate a high school diploma to a degree from a for-profit college.  This kind of comparison makes it difficult for for-profit graduates to compete for higher-paying jobs, finding themselves in competition with high school graduates.  As Carey mentioned, students from for-profit colleges are left with a large amount of debt.  This debt accumulates over time, and eventually defaults, due to the fact that they are unable to make payments with their low earning income.

            Although Carey seems to remain neutral in his article, I feel that the undertone brings more focus to the negative aspects of for-profit colleges.  Carey’s claims provide information that others use to connect and prove that for-profits deceive, manipulate and take advantage of their students, leaving them with nothing to show for their hard work and money spent.  These business-like, proprietary schools target low-income customers, manipulate them for their own gain, and making promises that they cannot keep.  As Deming, Golding and Katz point out, for-profit schools spend a large amount of money to market themselves to optimistic students.  These businesses care more about maximizing profit than providing an exceptional education to its students.  They are willing to lie in order to gain as much revenue as possible through federal grants and loans, as mentioned by Schade.  All of these behaviors lead to low-value degrees, unemployment, low-paying jobs and an extraordinary amount of debt.  Taylor and Appel reference specific graduates that are suffering who are having trouble seeking employment and have been forced to default on their loans.  Schools are meant to educate, providing the student with the knowledge and tools to succeed.  In the case of for-profit colleges, they take from its students more than they provide.  They achieve this in a deceitful way, just like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

              

           

Works Cited

Carey, Kevin. "Why Do You Think They're Called For-Profit Colleges?" The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 25 July 2010. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.

Deming, David, Claudia Goldin, and Lawrence Katz. “For-Profit Colleges.” The Future of Children 23.1 (2013): 137-163. Harvard University. 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.

Farrington, Robert. “Be Selective In Choosing A For-Profit College.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 10 Sept. 2014. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.

Schade, Sarah A. “Reining in the Predatory Nature of For-Profit Colleges.” Arizona Law Review 56:317 (n.d.): 317-340. Arizona Law Review. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.

Taylor, Astra and Hannah Appel. “Subprime Students: For-profit Universities Make a Killing from Poor and Minority Students.” Mother Jones. Mother Jones, 23 Sept. 2014. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.

“The Low-Down on For-Profit Colleges.” The Low-Down on For-Profit Colleges. National Association for College Admission Counseling, n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2014.

“Wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Def. 14.  Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com, n.d. Web.  18 Oct. 2014.

Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

Lawrence Besong

Professor Christopher Werry

RWS 100

20 October 2014

Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

            Many people may have heard the popular idiom, “A wolf in sheep’s clothing.”  The meaning of this idiom is a person or thing that disguises its evil nature or intentions beneath a kind or innocent exterior.  For-profit colleges can be compared to wolves in sheep’s clothing.  For-profit schools are owned by private organizations or corporations, and tend to operate in such a way.  Beneath their promises of a quality education remain deception, dishonesty, and defeat.  In “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges?,” a 2010 commentary published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Kevin Carey claims that problems and abuses exist in the for-profit sector, and these institutions are refusing to accept responsibility for them.  For-profit colleges have been becoming more prevalent across the United States, with the popularity of schools such as the University of Phoenix.  These schools market themselves to students from a “moderate- and low-income backgrounds” (Carey).  Knowing the population of their students, for-profits still typically charge a higher tuition than public colleges and universities.  In order for these students to attend and pay their tuition, they are encouraged to take out student loans.  Operators of these colleges refuse to see acknowledge that their high tuition results in student loan defaults.  For-profits receive enormous amounts of money, “most of that money comes from the federal government, in the form of Pell Grants and subsidized loans” (Carey). Upon graduating from a for-profit college, students are having difficulty paying back their loans, because “large debt plus small income equals high risk of default” (Carey).  Although the article discusses negative aspects of for-profit colleges, he does mention some positive qualities that these colleges may have when compared to public non-profit higher education schools.  I feel that these positive qualities are only mentioned in order to mask the true nature of these for-profit schools.  In my analysis of Carey’s text, I will examine the deceit and dishonesty of for-profit colleges and the negative effects that the students and graduates of these establishments endure.

            For-profit colleges market their brand to appeal to students from low- to moderate-income backgrounds.  Running just as a business would, these colleges market themselves in order to gain the most profit.  “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 too often ignore” (Carey).  The author is saying that for-profit colleges provide an education to the under-privileged, giving them the opportunity to obtain a higher education.  The University of Phoenix strategically builds their campuses near freeway exits.  This appealed to students who attended night classes and had to quickly get to school after a day of working.  Online courses allow students to stay home and earn a degree at the same time.  Students can work and complete their schoolwork at their own convenience.  Students with families or children can stay home while learning, without the need of hiring a babysitter or nanny.  Carey is explaining the appeal that for-profit colleges have to the under-privileged, while Deming, Golding and Katz provide a more in-depth analysis at what attracts these types of students to these schools.  “For-Profit Colleges” describes the majority of the students enrolled in for-profit schools.  “During the past fifteen years, youth from minority and disadvantaged background and those ill-prepared for college increasingly and disproportionately have enrolled in programs at for-profit colleges.  These programs promise much, are often open to those who do not meet traditional college-entry requirements” (Deming, Goldin and Katz 138).  Many career-based programs are offered and can be completed in a shorter period of time compared to traditional nonprofit colleges.  Certifications and degrees seem easily attainable by the way they are marketed to those interested in entering a specific career.  “Many for-profit colleges devote considerable resources to advertising, sales, and marketing” (Deming, Goldin and Katz 149).  For-profit colleges set aside money from their earnings in order to advertise their schools and programs in order to increase student enrollment.  These ads include: billboards, television and radio commercials, and posters on public transportation.  The deliberate placing of these ads can help attract students with a lower income, providing them with the optimism of gaining a postsecondary education.  “When such institutional incentives are combined with outreach to low-income, first-generation college students who may be financially unsophisticated, the worry is that students may have overly optimistic views of the expected benefits and not fully understand the costs of the educational decisions they are making” (Deming, Goldin and Katz 149).  Relying on the inexperience and hopefulness of this group of people, for-profit colleges are able to influence their decisions to enroll.  Upon graduating, these students are often left with a great amount of debt and low-paying jobs.  Just as Carey pointed out that for-profit schools appeal to people with the moderate- to low-income backgrounds, Deming, Golding and Katz brought insight as to why they do so.  Businesses market themselves to appeal to those who can be easily persuaded.  Like candy advertisements are geared toward children, the promise of a quick certification or degree appeals to those who are in desperate need of money and a job.  Although it may seem like a good decision on the surface, graduates from for-profits have been shown to have a higher rate of unemployment and have lower paying jobs, on top of their greater amount of debt.

            For-profit colleges gain a significant amount of their profit through the federal government.  As Carey pointed out, they get their money from Pell Grants and subsidized loans, which are both student financial aids that help low-income students obtain a post-secondary education.  Due to the fact that this is how they make their revenue, for-profit schools will do anything to “help” their students obtain these loans, including fraudulent behavior.  The introduction of “Reining in the Predatory Nature of For-Profit Colleges” tells the story of a fourteen-year-old boy named Bobby Ruffin Jr.  He was searching the Internet for college funding.  He clicked on a link, which was disguised, that led to a for-profit school.  Soon after, a recruiter from Ashford University contacted Ruffin.  This recruiter promised Ruffin that he would “be working toward a degree as a medical doctor, so when [he does] graduate high school, [he will be] almost there” (Schade 318).  The recruiter advised Ruffin not to even discuss the matter with his parents.  The naïve high school student did as he was told.  Ashford University requires a high school diploma for admission, and Ruffin was still only in eighth grade.  The Ashford recruiter told Ruffin to state that he already graduated on his financial aid forms.  Even though he left it blank, Ashford University filled in the form with a false graduation date in order receive the federal student loan money. By retelling this story, Schade shows how the recruiter manipulated a young boy and forged federal government forms in order to receive money for revenue.  Unfortunately, behavior like this is common within the for-profit sector.  “Critics of for-profit colleges, who often refer to such institutions as “predatory lender,” condemn them for unethical recruiting tactics, false promises of high-salary jobs, inaccurately representing institutional information, and charging vastly higher tuition in comparison to public universities” (Schade 321).  Lying and deceit seems to be morally acceptable to these institutions, just as long as they make a profit.  Although they will not admit that is what they are doing, essentially they are committing fraud.  Schade provided a great example of the dishonest behavior of the for-profit colleges that leads to the ability to gain profit from the federal government, through Pell Grants and subsidized loans.

            Statistics show that graduates from a for-profit college, compared to those from a four-year public institution, have a higher rate of unemployment, have lower-paying jobs, are hired less often, and have a large amount of debt.  Carey states that “student-debt payments after graduation exceed a certain percentage of the graduates’ income” (Carey) and that these graduates are more likely to default on their loan.  That is just one negative aspect of graduating from a for-profit college.  “Graduates of for-profit schools generally do not fare well.  Indeed, they rarely find themselves in the kind of work they were promised when they enrolled, the kind of work that might enable them to repay their debts, let alone purchase the commodity-cornerstones of the American dream like a car or a home” (Taylor and Appel).  For-profit colleges claim provide quick and career-based programs that will help its graduates find employment soon after completion.  More often than not, theses students find themselves struggling to find a job, while paying off their student loans and debt.  In the example of Nathan Hornes, who graduated from Everest College in 2014, one can see that a 3.9 GPA and a Business Management degree has not proved to beneficial to him.  Not only does he owe $65,000, but he was not able to find employment, which was promised to him by Everest.  Now he is forced to work two fast-food jobs in order to begin to pay off his debt.  “For-profit graduates fare little better on the job market than job seekers with high school degrees; their diplomas, that is, are a net loss, offering essentially the same grim job prospects as if they had never gone to college, plus a lifetime debt sentence” (Taylor and Appel).  Employers almost equate a high school diploma to a degree from a for-profit college.  This kind of comparison makes it difficult for for-profit graduates to compete for higher-paying jobs, finding themselves in competition with high school graduates.  Yet, they are still left with twice as much debt as a graduate from a traditional school.

            For-profit schools target low-income customers, manipulate them for their own gain, and making promises that they cannot keep.  All of these behaviors lead to low-value degrees, unemployment, low-paying jobs and an extraordinary amount of debt.  These businesses care more about maximizing profit than providing an exceptional education to its students.  Schools are meant to educate, providing the student with the knowledge and tools to succeed.  In the case of for-profit colleges, they take from its students more than they provide.  They achieve this in a deceitful way, just like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

              

           

Works Cited

Carey, Kevin. "Why Do You Think They're Called For-Profit Colleges?" The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 25 July 2010. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.

Deming, David, Claudia Goldin, and Lawrence Katz. “For-Profit Colleges.” The Future of Children 23.1 (2013): 137-163. Harvard University. 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.

Schade, Sarah A. “Reining in the Predatory Nature of For-Profit Colleges.” Arizona Law Review 56:317 (n.d.): 317-340. Arizona Law Review. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.

Taylor, Astra and Hannah Appel. “Subprime Students: For-profit Universities Make a Killing from Poor and Minority Students.” Mother Jones. Mother Jones, 23 Sept. 2014. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.

“Wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Def. 14.  Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com, n.d. Web.  18 Oct. 2014.