ASHLEY.

# 1A
Hi. I’m Ashley. My perceptive major is International Business with specifics in East Asia/Pacific. I have used “claims” and “evidence” in my AP English classes at my high school, mainly the last two years. I used those writing utensils when analyzing articles or stories and writing essays about my analysis. I do not do outside of school writing activities very much. Although when I do, I mainly write text messages and take notes summarizing notes for school. I feel that I am a somewhat a strong writer. It takes many drafts to write a well-done paper but eventually I get it. I am very successful with writing research papers, yet lack in argumentative ones. I have a hard time supporting my claims when writing.
#1B

Kristof’s main claims state that our political leaders have failed America in regulating the use of guns and problems that have came up from the low supervision of firearms. Kristof uses facts and ethos to show the harmful effects of gun use. With a reliable source at Harvard University, specifically the center of Public Health, its revealed that “Children in America are 13 times as likely to be murdered as children in other countries” and that “one life every 20 minutes” is taken. Kristof also compares the safety regulations given by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to the rules given by “feckless politicians who won’t stand up to the N.R.A.”. He forces you think about the difference of deaths due to the injuries caused by different factors. The number of deaths between the use of ladders and guns is 100 innocent lives. Towards the end, he refutes the opposing arguments. He exclaims the typical argument a pro-gun person would say, like, regulations won’t change a thing “because crazies will always be able to get a gun “and “people who carry guns, would deter shooters or interrupt them”; he rebuts their statements with statistics, comparisons and the hard truth about the higher number of deaths that will continue to occur if some changes aren’t made with limiting gun control. At the end, solutions are proposed. Kristof gives examples like, “limiting gun purchases to one a month, or making serial numbers more difficult to erase” to help solve the current problem that America is facing, similar to what rules we enforced to reduce deaths by cars in our past years. He gives examples of what other countries like Canada and Australia did to help reduce deaths and outbreaks due to guns. It is very effective because he makes valid points and uses strong evidence to support his position.

# 2

In the piece, “A Change of Heart about Animals”, the author claims that animals should be, but aren’t given the basic rights, we, humans are gifted with. The author compares how much animals have contributed to our society to how much we, humans, have contributed to improving the lives of those animals. By giving examples of what other countries are doing, like “Germany who has guaranteed animal rights in their constitution”, it makes the reader feel inquired to take a further step to help animals gain their unspoken freedoms as well. I feel that this tactic is very effective because it makes the reader feel a sense of social responsibility.

The author also points out how naturally smart animals, in general, are. Historical experiments, such as the “Betty and Abel bent hook vs. straight hook” experiment and the “300-pound gorilla that was taught sign language”, are given to illustrate the animals’ first-hand intelligence and the possibilities to further their knowledge with more extensive hard work. It is very effective for the reader because it gives substantial evidence to the instinctive intelligence animals are born with.

The author does state the other side’s strongest argument, “that animals have no sense of mortality and are unable to comprehend the concept of their own death” and that they “have different brain anatomy and chemistry”. Although he quickly gives specific examples proving their theory wrong, such as “mother elephants who stand next to their dead kin for days” and “the excitement and pleasure rats feel when they play” due to an excess of dopamine. This is also very effective because it appeals to pathos and relates an animal life to a human one.
#3

To Write or To Not

“We do not write in order to be understood; we write in order to understand” (Public Thinking 51). Writing, whatsoever it might be, has been the part of our daily day-to-day lives for generations. The way we write has changed significantly with each discovery and advancement in technology. Although, writing has slowly became less common, people tend to focus on “reading, not writing; consumption, not production” (Public Thinking 50). The author makes the reader think, what role is writing going to play in our daily lives as the years go on and we develop more technology based and skew away from the importance of inscribing our thoughts and feelings out into the world.. The author makes a respectable argument that no matter how advanced we get, writing will always be there. Without writing, we all would be lost.

People write everyday without even realizing that they are writing. Most just generalize it as an ordinary task. A strong point is constructed by giving statistics and facts to prove how pungent writing is to our each day. For example, we “compose at least 3.6 trillion words daily” (that’s corresponding to 36 million books a day). To give the reader an idea of how much words that it, the 36 million books a day is compared to the US Congress library which “holds around about 35 million books total” (Public Thinking 47). To connect to the audience more, normal everyday tasks are given to illustrate the things that we commonly write on/to. Specific examples of the amount of words either typed or written daily is “154 billion e-mails, more than 500 million tweets on Twitter, and over 1 million blog posts and 1.3 million blog comments on WordPress alone and on Facebook, about 16 billion words per day” (Public Thinking 47). Now that the audience thinks about, writing actually does play a immensely huge part of their lives.

To show how little importance people put on words, the author gives a personal experience from his mother. She is the “pre-internet age” woman. To make the reader feel more connected to him, he chooses someone that most people look up to—their mothers. He asked her how much she wrote weekly. As it turns out, she barley does, besides a signature every once an a awhile. Now, compared to what she was writing before—letters to family members twenty or thirty years ago—her signature here and there is nothing! The fact that since high school she “has generated enough writing to fit in a single file folder” (Public Opinion 50) illustrates what our country has come to with the importance of words.

The author exemplifies the importance and effect writing can have on people by telling a story about a Blogger from Kenya who writes to give her readers hope and light when its needed most. Ory Okolloh is a highly known blogger who writes about the “battles against Kenyan corruption” (Public Opinion 45). Her story adds humor to the piece, such as “joking about childhood memories of the packed lunch trauma” (Public Opinion 46) and sadness when talking about the “2007 election gone wrong (Public Thinking 46). The technique the author uses to connect with his readers by talking about Ory’s piece is to appeal to pathos. Her blogging kept her audience feel somewhat safe, and not alone during the media blackout that the president imposed. She even states herself that she got “this sense of obligation” to her readers (Public Opinion 46).

Although out of everything we write, “ninety percent of it is crap” (Public Opinion 48), it is all just as valuable.
#4

1. List two questions you would like to ask Thompson about his text.

· What made him think to start off his piece the way he did, with the Kenyan story?

· Where exactly did he get all his statistics?

2. Describe two elements of Thompson's argument you found most persuasive and one you found less/least persuasive, and say why.

· The most persuasive element I found was the facts and statistics. All the numbers really made me think and connect to how much I actually write everyday. I never thought about it until he actually read the numbers out to me. For his least persuasive technique, I would say it was his mothers’ personal experience with writing. Compared to rest of his claims and evidence, this example doesn’t really prove much or make a strong statement.

3. Thompson opens his text with an account of the experiences of a Kenyan blogger. Why do you think he does this - how does this example connect with his claims?

· Thompson opens up his text with an account of the experiences of a Kenyan blogger because it connects all the inputs of writing. By that I mean, the idea to start writing your thoughts out into the world, the nervousness that comes along with that, the hard work and obligation that follows. This example connects with his claims by tying all his evidence stated later in the text, in a personal example of young Kenyan women. Its an introduction into the piece.
#5 ROUGH DRAFT 1

As Thompson says, “we do not write to be understood, we write in order to understand”. Thompson is a well-known blogger; some call him a technology writer. This man goes against the norms. While everyone bashed on how much of a bad influence technology was on society, he shed a new light on the topic. Pointing out how much writing has grown because of all the new advancements giving people more opportunities to express themselves. Thompson gives specific comparisons to the old age writing to today’s current writing, astonishing statistics, and narrative illustrations of a heart-changing story.

Do you ever think about how much you write? Could you come up with an estimate if I asked? You would probably say not too much. Thompson gives relatable statistics to illustrate to his audience how much people write without even really thinking about it. There’s blogs, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, comments, WordPress, Tindr, emails, and many more. On Facebook alone, we compose “16 billion words daily”. If you tried to put these numbers in perspective, that would be about 36 million books—“U.S. Library of Congress holds about 35 million”. Words are a way to express yourself and get your ideas out in the open. We learn, build and prosper because of their use.
#5 rough draft 2

As the prominent revolutionist, Thompson puts it, “we do not write to be understood, we write in order to understand.” Thompson is a well-known blogger and revolutionist; some consider him a strongly sided technology writer. This man goes against the norms. While everyone bashed on how much of a bad influence technology is on society, he shed a new opposing light on the topic. By pointing out how much writing has grown because of all the new advancements there are, giving people more opportunities to express themselves, he makes his claim. The essence of Thompson argument is that technology has assisted writing instead of deferring from it. . Thompson gives specific comparisons to the old-age writing to today’s current writing, astonishing statistics, and a narrative illustration of a heart-changing story, to illustrate how the use of writing has significantly improved.

He claims that instead of harming our time spent writing, technology has actually helped advance it, and I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I agree that we know can get our voice out to a larger amount of people because of our use of technology. On the other hand, I still insist that technology cant be 100% helpful with writing. In recent discussions of tech vs. writing, a controversial issue has been whether they hurt or abettor each other. On one hand some argue that people feel less obligated to write now. From this perspective, it seems to do more harm than not. On the other hand, however, others argue that it gives us a better aid to write by giving us more opportunities and a larger possibility of readers. In the words of Thompson, one of his main proponents, “90% of everything we write is crap” yet we still have more of a chance to do so. According to this view, technology has better society and the writing world. In sum, then, the issue is whether technology is useful or not. My own view is that it does more good than bad. Though I concede that it can’t be all-good, I still maintain that it helps more than harms. Although some might object that, I would reply that just look at the facts. .

The standard way of thinking about technology and writing together is that they both have a negative effect on each other. Many people assume that the current advancement in technology reduces the amount we write. Thomson’s surely right about writing and technology going hand n hand because, as he may not be aware, recent studies have shown that people actually have more opportunities to write than ever before. His argument that technology has further increased the interest in writing is supported by new research showing that people have more resources to write on such as Facebook, twitter, blogs, Instagram, comments, WordPress, Tindr, emails, and many more. On Facebook alone, we compose “16 billion words daily”. If these numbers were tried to put in perspective, that would be about 36 million books. According to Thompson, the “U.S. Library of Congress holds about 35 million”. Words are a way to express yourself and get your ideas out in the open. We learn, build and prosper because from their use.

It has become common today to dismiss that writing and technology go hand n hand. Who needs to when we can do things electronically? No more hand written letters!

#^6 rd

It has become common today to dismiss that writing and technology go hand n hand. Who needs to when we can do things electronically? No more hand written letters! Conventional wisdom has it that America is slowly going on a down roll spiral. . Although does not say so directly, there are many statistics proving that wrong. Thompson makes the point with a study of college students. He tells of research proving that over centuries, people have “written more frequently and more complex as generations have passed”. (54)
final rough

Ashley Marx

Werry RWS

9/18/14

Writing Vs Tech

As the prominent revolutionist, Thompson puts it, “we do not write to be understood, we write in order to understand.” Thompson is a well-known blogger and revolutionist; some consider him a strongly sided technology writer. This man goes against the norms. While everyone bashes on how much of a bad influence technology is on society, he sheds a new light on the topic. By pointing out how much writing has grown because of all the new advancements there are, giving people more opportunities to express themselves, he makes his claim of how influential they are. The essence of Thompson argument is that technology has assisted writing instead of deferring from it. . Thompson gives specific research studies, astonishing statistics, and a narrative of a heart-changing story, to illustrate how the use of writing has significantly improved due to technology.

He claims that instead of harming our time spent writing, technology has helped advance it, and I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I agree that we know can get our voice out to a larger amount of people because of our use of technology. On the other hand, I still insist that technology cant be 100% helpful with writing. In recent discussions of tech vs. writing, a controversial issue has been whether they hurt or abettor each other. On one hand some argue that people feel less obligated to write now. From this perspective, it seems to do more harm than not. On the other hand, however, others argue that it gives us a better aid to write by giving us more opportunities and a larger possibility of readers. In the words of Thompson, one of his main proponents, “90% of everything we write is crap” yet we still have more of a chance to do so. According to this view, technology has better society and the writing world. In sum, then, the issue is whether technology is useful or not. My own view is that it does more good than bad. Though I concede that it can’t be all beneficial, I still maintain that it helps more than harms. Although some might object that, I would reply just look at the facts. It has become common today to dismiss that writing and technology go hand n hand. Conventional wisdom has it that America is slowly going on a down roll spiral. Although its not said so directly, there are many statistics proving that wrong. Thompson tells of research proving that over centuries, people have “written more frequently and more complex as generations have passed”. (54)

Thompson tells of the “audience effect” most people have when writing or explaining something. He explains a study, which showed that children actually do better when explaining in person how to do something. For example, in this study, there were three groups of children each given a puzzle to solve: one group, that solved it by themselves, one group, that solved it while being recorded, and another group, that explained the puzzle to their mothers. The study showed that group with the bigger of an audience did better. This research was also reflected when analyzing essays written by adults and older kids. Thompson showed that by having more opportunities for people to publish their writing and get it out in the world, their writing actually significantly improved. Due to the audience effect, people worked harder on a piece of writing, making it as well as they can be. No one wants to submit a piece of writing to the world, knowing anyone can read it, if it isn’t their absolute best piece of work.

Thompson tells a story of a Kenyan women who went from a girl who didn’t speak her mind to the public, to a small time blogger, to someone who many people relayed on to get through their week. Ory Ollohoh wrote about “the battle against Kenyan corruption—luxurious vehicle’s being bought by bureaucrats, the Anglo-leasing scandal, etc.” (45) She first started out with some posts here and there, but overtime as she got more involved in her writing, she had a large audience pool. She had built a “devoted readership” that knew she couldn’t let down (46). Writing out to her peers became a part of her life, not just a hobby anymore. With knowing she had so many loyal readers, she felt obligated to support her claims better and to prove that what she was saying was accurate. She wanted to be a credible source. Thompson adds her story in, as a introduction to it all. Her story clearly shows how technology has helped get her ideas out to the public, such as having many places to go to post her ideas, as well as the audience effect, where her writing significantly improved when she got enough readers where she wanted to be credible to them.

Does technology have its harmful effects? Sure, everything has something bad about it. Has it done more harm than it has helped us? After reading Thomson’s paper, I would have to agree with his side of the story. Technologies have helped aid and improve daily writing across the globe. Without it, where would we be today? How would we get our ideas out to the world?
FINAL

According to you

As the prominent idealist, Clive Thompson puts it, we “do not write to be understood, we write in order to understand.” Clive Thompson is a well-known blogger, writer, columnist, critic, and fundamentalist “that gets beyond headlines and harness the insights of science, literature, history and philosophy”(http://smarterthanyouthink.net/b io). Thompson currently writes for Wired and the New York Times Magazine as well as for his popular tech blog, Collision Detection. Thompson, like many others, was originally pessimistic when it came to manufactured intelligence. Could computers, cell phones, iPads, and other modern electronics take us to new lengths and boundaries?

In his novel, Smarter Than you Think, Thompson gives “current examples of how human-computer symbiosis is enlarging our intellect” (Gain1). His writing on “public thinking” and its influences on societies intelligence has become more recognized as this hot topic continuously rises up. Whether or not technology is a suitable source of assistance for humans has been questioned with every advancement we have made in bettering our ““artificial intelligence”. While everyone continuously bashed on how of a bad influence technology is on society, he shed a new light on the topic. By recognizing the growth in societies writing, due to the advancements in technology, one can defer the benefits given to our civilization by even something as simple as a Safari Bowser.

Marx2

Thompson presents jaw-dropping statistics, specific research studies, and a narrative of a heart-changing story, to illustrate how writing has significantly improved because of technology’s help.

The norm states that the current advancement in technology has greatly reduced the amount we write. A common argument made by the opposing side is that people do not have the need to write letters to each other since the creation of emailing. Although it is true that letter writing has significantly reduced, it is not true that how much we write has decreased because of it; people are writing just as much in emails and also communicating between each other within a shorter time span. Not only do people have the opportunity to write more through email, they also have more chances to get their voice out through the million of sites on the web, which we wouldn’t have today if it wasn’t for the modern day computer. Thompson’s argument that writing and technology go hand n hand reflects the recent studies confirming the positives with our on-going developments in the tech world. Thompson claims that technology has further increased the interest in writing, the ability to, and the reasons to.

Today, people have more places to get their words out to the public than they ever have before, with sites such as Facebook, twitter, blogs, Instagram, comments, WordPress, Tindr, emails, Yik Yak and many more, the opportunities are endless. On a daily basis, we compose 16 billion words on Facebook, by email we write 154 billion, and with blog posts (specifically WordPress) over one million-that’s not including the 1.3 million comments on that blog alone. Those numbers are just daily; imagine if they were observed over the span of a year or two. The Hunger Games novel in itself has 3.2

Marx3

million words in it. If the total number of words written per day, were put in perspective, that would be about 36 million books. According to Thompson, the “U.S. Library of Congress holds about 35 million”(PublicThinking52). Words are a way to express oneself and to get ones ideas out in the open. With practice, comes perfect. We learn, build and prosper because of technologies use.

Not only is there a larger pool to write in due to technology, people also develop into better writers because of a larger audience open to them. This is known as the “audience effect”. Thompson tells of an experimental study, which illustrated the effectiveness of different sized audiences to how well the given subject did on their task. In this study, there were three groups of children, each given a puzzle to solve: one group, that solved it by themselves silently, a different group, that solved it explaining it to a tape recorder, and another group, that explained the puzzle to their mothers as solving it. By the end, the study showed that the group with the bigger of an audience did better. Therefore, the children explaining it to their mothers did the best. This is the audience effect in play; the bigger the audience, the more pressure the writer (or in this case, the speaker) feels, making them think more precise and connect deeper. This research was also reflected when analyzing essays written by adults and older kids. Thompson showed that by having more opportunities for people to publish their writing and get it out in the world, their writing actually significantly improved. Due to the audience effect, people worked harder on a piece of writing. No one wants to submit a piece of writing to the world, knowing anyone can read it, if it is not their absolute best piece of work.

Marx4

Thompson wraps all his ideas together with the story of a Kenyan law student who started as a normal everyday woman but transformed into a “witty, passionate voice, keyed perfectly to online conversation” (PublicThinking49). Ory Ollohoh wrote about “the battle against Kenyan corruption—luxurious vehicle’s being bought by bureaucrats, the Anglo-leasing scandal, etc” (45) as well as other hot topic events occurring in Kenya. She first started out unsure what to write; she started doing weekly posts here and there, but overtime got more involved and dedicated to her writing. When asked to write a book about her life, she kindly denied it, not knowing, with all her blog posts combined, “it was the size of two telephone books stacked on one another”. As time went on she had built a “devoted readership” that knew she couldn’t let down (46). Writing out to her peers became a part of her life, not just a hobby anymore. With knowing she had so many loyal readers, Ory felt obligated to support her claims better and to have substantial proof to back up herself. She wanted to be a credible source. Her story is added in because it puts all the elements together. Her story clearly shows how technology has helped get her ideas out to her audience all around the world (specifically people in Kenya and the U.S.), and how it has helped her writing significantly improved because she has became more conscious of what she wrote due to the audience effect.

Does technology have its harmful effects? Sure, everything has some bad and good. Has it done more harm than it has helped us? After reading Thomson’s paper, I would have to agree that technology has helped aid and improve daily writing across the globe. His claims and evidence clearly show the benefits technology has provided for us

Marx5

on a daily basis. Evidently, it improves the way we think, talk, absorb new information

and prosper. Without it, where would we be today?

#NEXT LESSON

To be honest, I did not really know anything about for-profit universities. I actually did not know for-profit universities were any different from regular ones. I still do not completely understand their dynamics. I was surprised that for-profits screwed people so badly finically. I had no idea! I am from Arizona, and I have heard of University of Phoenix but not as much as the state schools. I was not aware that it was a for-profit school. I was surprised after hearing people’s stories and realizing how little they knew of what they were getting into. They pretty much got tricked into doing something they thought would benefit them. Those people, like many others, think that by joining a for-profit university they are saving themselves money in the long run, and are getting a good education. But that is not the case. My perspective is that for-profit universities are no good. I did not really have a opinion before that. So therefore, my opinion is biased because I saw a videos bashing on for-profit universities, not saying much positives about them. I would like to investigate more into the pros and cons of for-profit universities so I can make my own justified opinion.
NEXT ASSIGNMENT

1. How does Carey organize his text? Why do you think he organizes his text the way he does?

2. Describe a strategy used by Carey.

3. Do any parts of his text seem particularly persuasive? Do any claims seem unsupported?

In the beginning of Carey’s text, he opens with a heart-felt statement, “Clifford believes that education is the only path to world peace”. He then continues his piece by pointing out the negatives aspects of for-profit universities. As one reads further into his writing, Carey points out that for-profit universities aren’t all bad, some don’t have bad intentions to begin with, yet they still all have the same harmful effects. He also makes it clear that if traditional universities were more open and helpful towards students who can’t afford their school, and then for-profit universities wouldn’t be necessary. He organizes his article this way, so he can make the reader see the negatives about these universities, yet realize that besides them, there’s not much open to students who need a place to go and get an education.

One of Carey’s main strategies is the way he frames his argument. He makes it seem like although, for-profit universities are tremendously responsible for student-debt, fraud, and misleading information, it is not entirely their fault. If traditional and state universities weren’t so closed minded towards people who cant finically afford it, etc., then the need for these other types of universities would be gone. Carey frames it as if it’s the government and other institution’s fault for not stepping in to help. Carey states, “Who else is willing to save them? Not the government, or the church, or the more fortunate colleges with their alumni and endowments that reach the sky”.

I would say overall Carey’s piece is very persuasive. He makes many claims supported, such as when he talks about the “90/10 rule” and when he gives specific examples like the “University of Phoenix on the road to reap $1-billion in Pell Grants this year”. I do feel like he should give more facts and statistics and specific examples when talking about for-profit vs. traditional and state universities. He mentions many specific for-profit schools, yet none traditional ones to compare it to.

LASTEST ASSIGNMENT

1. List the three main claims Carey gives in the first half of the text suggesting there are problems with for-profit universities, and kinds of the evidence provided for each claim (this can be a list, with just a sentence for each  claim and type of evidence).

· “A quarter of all federal aid goes to for-profits, while they enroll only 10 percent of students” (53)-paragraph 4 & 5 (Evidence) facts & historical examples

· Creates “unmanageable debt” for students (53)-paragraph 5 & 8 (Evidence) reasoning & examples

· “Fraud” (54)-paragraph 6 & 7 (Evidence) specific examples

2. List the three main claims Carey gives in the second half of the text suggesting public universities have caused  many of the problems for profits seek to remedy.

· “Old-line research universities were gilding their walled-off academics city-states”- paragraph 12) example of how U. of Phoenix opened up for others-example comparing the two

· Gave people with low-income, etc. a place to go-reasoning

· Easier for some because of “fast-developing methods of teaching students over the internet”-reasoning

  3. List one element of Carey's text you would like to investigate - a claim, some evidence, a strategy, etc.  

· The complete pros and cons of for-profit universities vs. traditional-how much more bad or more good is each

Yay or Nay?

There's elementary school, then it goes junior high, and of course high school, but after that what's next? College? For majority of high school graduates, yes. For the other who don't enroll in a college its because they have others options lined up, have no desire for more schooling, other plans, or its too difficult to manage work while going to school. College tuition on average is ______ per year. And as much as some want to go, it just doesn't seem like a possibility. Traditional school and other institutions don’t accommodate all types. That’s what for-profit universities are here for, to help the ones no one else is willing to.

I have a friend who worked for University of Phoenix a few years ago. She worked for that specific university for 6 years. Her job description was a recruiter for incoming undergraduate prospective students. When asked why she choose to work for U. of Phoenix, she stated that, “they were big employers, they offered good benefits, and knowing she could help so many people live their dream was rewarding. From her involvement working there, she helped potential students find a path right for them, walked them step by step to narrow down their concentration. Leslie also got the honor to motivate and be the emotional support many of the kids weren’t receiving at home, work, or anywhere else.

Marx2

When asked to compare for-profit universities with traditional schools, she stated, ”Although traditional schools are more beneficial with hands on experience, for-profit universities gives the opportunity and education to others who won’t have it otherwise. It honestly depends on how hard the individual works, but that’s with any type of school.” She validates on first hand experience, that for-profit universities, are more beneficial than other more traditional institutions. She started out at Arizona State University, and was lost and alone, with no help explaining financial circumstances. She then went to University of Phoenix where she received help, a plan, and support. The way Leslie sees it, the recruiters understand the situation, give options, and help build a plan. What the student chooses to do from there is on them; it is their responsibility from then on out. If a student fails, it’s on them.

She also strongly felt like for-profit universities get a bad rap. The recruiters and other employees in the industry are there to do good for others, although she will agree that not all do it for the right reason. When asked about the regulation change years ago, stating that recruiters could no longer get compensated for the number of students they enroll; that’s potentially 20% of a raise every 6 months. She absolutely thinks that the department of education out rightly created that regulation. She felt that, if a recruiter did a good job working hard to help a student get a start on their future, then they should be compensated. They worked hard for their raise; it’s a reward. When asked, “If traditional schools were more open to accommodate to a more diverse type of student, then for-profit universities wouldn’t be as necessary”, she stated “Yes. If they were more convenient and mindful of other students situations and futures more people would go

Marx3

there.”

I asked for a personal story from working at University of Phoenix. She told me about a lady named Mitzi. She was first generation, with 2 jobs (one was healthcare), and 5 kids between the ages 2-12. With help of U. of Phoenix, she accomplished her dream of earning a school degree and landing a stable, successful job. She was a 4.0 student who was very motivated to show her very best work. She spent 3 years total earning her degree. She is now a very successful entrepreneur who can provide a stable income for her loving family. To this day, Leslie is still in contact with her via Facebook and by phone.

Another source I have that has a personal experience at University of Phoenix is actually a student. Her name is Peggy McKenna. She spent 3 years of schooling there. Her degree was Master of Science & Counseling specifically in Marriage, Family, and Children Therapy. Some of the classes she enrolled in were group counseling, pharmacology, theories of counseling, personality disorders, etc. She was also provided with a list of agencies for her to internship at. Her chosen internship consisted of 20 hours a week providing counseling to kids, adults, cellmates on parole, recently out of jail adults, etc. in addition to that, she had to weekly attend one evening class for 4 hours where she discussed with her clinical supervisor her work with her patients.

When asked about her experience and the education she felt she received. She stated that she thought it was, “Excellent!” It challenged her; she got good grades because she worked her ass off. She received skills with working with groups big and small, better public speaking’s, better writing skills, better presentation skills, and better

Marx4

counseling skills. When asked how the university helped accommodate with her work schedule, she told me that it was very flexible. She could work full time during the day and take classes in the evening. She even took her first year, dropped out for a year and then came back to finish her last two years of the degree. She could easily pick her credits back up when she rejoined the school. Now, finically for her, she did not have to pay anything out of her pocket. Fortunately for her, the company that she worked for at the time, paid for her education. She is still working in child welfare and program specialists (high profile child cases).

For Peggy, going to University of Phoenix was her best option. It gave her the schooling she needed while letting her continue working fulltime. She got her degree while working. Although, she does admit it isn’t always a happy ending for students who graduate from that university. Peggy had a friend who got a PhD at U. of Phoenix and could not find a job because she did not receive her degree from a traditional school where the education is supposedly better.

When asked about the quality of education she received, she told me about her professors. Most were PhD level, or counselors and sociologists from around the community. Therefore, they had first hand knowledge, guidance, good motivation and helped build self esteem in a positive way. Most students, including her, knew their professors well; they were networking opportunities! By the time her degree was finished, she had developed close relationships with them all. It was a overall very rewarding experience and very beneficial for her.

Kevin Carey wrote an article, analyzing for profit universities. He told about how

Marx5

most of the money those types of universities receive is from “Pell Grants and student loans” (53). University of Phoenix itself is on the road to gain “ $1 billion from Pell Grants and $4 billion from federal loans” (53). By convincing many students to enroll in their university (and others like that), it is creating unmanageable debt for kids that are at high risk of default. Although, are for-profit universities all bad? For some people, they’re the light guiding them out of the dark. “While old-line research universities were gilding their walled-off academic city-states, the University of Phoenix was building no-frills campuses near freeway exits so working students could take classes in the evening” (55). For-profit universities open up doors for students that traditional schools close off. Do you see anyone else trying to help these struggling students out? “Not the government, or the church, or the more fortunate colleges with their wealthy alumni and endowments that reach the sky” (55). As Carey states it, they might have their downfalls, but at least they do offer some benefit.

FINAL #2

Marx1

Ashley Marx

Werry

RWS

October 28, 2014

Yay or Nay?

There's elementary school, then it goes junior high, and of course high school, but after that what's next? College? For majority of high school graduates, yes. For the others who do not enroll in a college its because they have others options lined up and have no desire for more schooling or other plans are involved or its just too difficult to manage while working. For example, college tuition at ASU is 38000$ per year (for in state students). And as much as some want to go, it just doesn't seem like a possibility. Traditional school and other institutions don’t accommodate all types. That’s what for-profit universities are there for, to help the ones no one else is willing to.

Kevin Carey wrote a well talked about article called, “Why do you think they’re called for –profits?” where he speaks about for-profit universities influences and compares them to other traditional universities. At New America, Carey is the director of the Education Policy Program there. He is also an expert on “Pre-K-12 and higher education issues”. His research consists of “higher education reform, improving college graduation rates, online education, community colleges, and the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act.” He has published his writing in many high standard places, such as The New York Times, The New Republic, The American Prospect, Washington Monthly, and many more. He has also had his writing ”anthologized in Best American

Marx2

Legal Writing and as well as he had also received two Education Writers Association awards for commentary.” In Carey’s article, “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges”, his overall argument is that for-profits, although might do some damage, is in general more beneficial than not. In my analysis of Carey’s text I will examine, the advantages and disadvantages of for profit universities and argue their importance.

Carey claimed that most of the money for-profit universities receive is from “Pell Grants and student loans” ( Carey53). University of Phoenix itself is on the road to gain “ $1 billion from Pell Grants and $4 billion from federal loans” (Carey53). By convincing many students to enroll in their university, it is creating unmanageable debt for kids that are at high risk of default. For example, Corinthian College, estimated that “more than half of the loans it makes to its own students will go bad” (documented by Securities and Exchange Commission) (Carey 54). In a report conducted on August 4, 2010, there was an undercover assignment testing 15 for-profit universities, specifically their enrollment tactics and influences on prospective students. This article was called, 'For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices’. In their research they found that 4 out of 15 of the colleges “encouraged our undercover applicants to falsify their FAFSA in order to qualify for financial aid” (gao.gov). A specific school found with fraud enrolling students, told his prospective student that if he told he was supporting 3 dependent people he would get more Pell Grants, when in reality he was only in charge of taking care of himself. “In all four situations when college representatives encouraged our undercover

Marx3

applicants to commit fraud, the applicants indicated on their FAFSA, as well as to the for-profit college staff, that they had just come into an inheritance worth approximately $250,000” (gao.gov). As surprising as this might sound, it is a very common ritual that recruiters for for-profit universities. Like Carey pointed out, some for-profit universities show fraud and dishonesty in order to get their paycheck.

As Carey claims “for-profits fill a void left by traditional institutions that once believed their world was constant” (Carey55). I have a friend who worked for University of Phoenix a few years ago. She worked for that specific university for 6 years. Her job description was a recruiter for incoming undergraduate prospective students. When asked why she choose to work for U. of Phoenix, she stated that, “they were big employers, they offered good benefits, and knowing she could help so many people live their dream was rewarding”. From her involvement working there, she helped potential students find a path right for them as well as walked them step-by-step to narrow down their concentration. Leslie also got the honor to motivate and be the emotional support many of the kids weren’t receiving at home, work, or anywhere else.

Marx4

University of Phoenix where she received help, a plan, and support. The way Leslie sees it; the recruiters understand the situation, give options, and help build a plan. What the student chooses to do from there is on them; it is their responsibility from then on out. If a student fails, it’s on them. Although some do agree that for for-profits like U. of Phoenix has a suitable education system, there is “little evidence beyond the real issue of default rates to prove it” (Carey55).

Leslie also strongly felt that for-profit universities get a wordily bad rap. The recruiters and other employees in the industry are there to assist others who need it. Although she will agree that not all recruiters do it for the right reasons, but majority do. When asked about the regulation change years ago, stating that recruiters could no longer get compensated for the number of students they enroll; that’s potentially 20% of a raise every 6 months. She absolutely thinks that the department of education out rightly created that regulation. She felt that, if a recruiter did a respectable job working hard to help a student get a start on their future, then they should be compensated for their work. They worked hard for their raise; it’s a reward. When asked, “If traditional schools were more open to accommodate to a more diverse type of student, then for-profit universities wouldn’t be as necessary”, she stated “Yes. If they were more convenient and mindful of other students situations and futures more people would go there.”

I asked for a personal story from working at University of Phoenix. She told me about a lady named Mitzi. She was a first generation, with 2 jobs (one was healthcare), and 5 kids between the ages 2-12. With the help of U. of Phoenix, she accomplished her dream of earning a school degree and landing a stable, successful job. She was a 4.0

Marx5

student who was very motivated to show her very best work. She spent 3 years total earning her degree. She is now a very successful entrepreneur who can provide a stable income for her loving family. To this day, Leslie is still in contact with her via Facebook and by phone.

Although, are for-profit universities all bad? For some people, they’re the light guiding them out of the dark. “While old-line research universities were gilding their walled-off academic city-states, the University of Phoenix was building no-frills campuses near freeway exits so working students could take classes in the evening” (55). For-profit universities open up doors for students that traditional schools close off. As Carey states it, they might have their downfalls, but at least they do offer some benefit.

Another source I have that has a personal experience at University of Phoenix was actually a student years ago. Her name is Peggy McKenna. She spent 3 years of schooling there. Her degree was Master of Science & Counseling specifically in Marriage, Family, and Children Therapy. A few of the classes she enrolled in were group counseling, pharmacology, theories of counseling, personality disorders, etc. She was also provided with a list of agencies for her to internship at. Her chosen internship consisted of 20 hours a week providing counseling to kids, adults, cellmates on parole, recently out of jail adults, etc. in addition to that, she had to weekly attend one evening class for 4 hours where she discussed with her clinical supervisor her work with her patients. Hers schoolwork at University of Phoenix was not something she could just pass by with half ass effort. She worked hard to get where she is today.

When asked about her experience and the education she felt she received. She

Marx6

stated that she thought it was, “Excellent!” It challenged her; she got good grades because she worked her ass off. She received skills with working with groups big and small, better public speaking’s, better writing skills, better presentation skills, and better counseling skills. When asked how the university helped accommodate with her work schedule, she told me that it was very flexible. She could work full time during the day and take classes in the evening. She even took her first year, dropped out for a year and then came back to finish her last two years of the degree. She could easily pick her credits back up when she rejoined the school. Now, finically for her, she did not have to pay anything out of her pocket. Fortunately for her, the company that she worked for at the time, paid for her education. She is still working in child welfare and program specialists (high profile child cases).

Marx7

finished, she had developed close relationships with them all. It was a overall very rewarding experience and very beneficial for her.

The outside sources and Carey’s piece both show the effectiveness of for-profit universities; as well as, the corruption within the system. Overall Carey’s writing is very convincing. He has a superior way of analyzing the bad and finding the good within it. I started out knowing nothing about for-profit universities; I didn’t even know for-profits were different than other traditional schools. I lived in Phoenix for 18 years, and I never knew GCU or U. of Phoenix were for-profit universities. After doing more research and being exposed to Carey’s piece, I think he dis a excellent job of explaining the corruption within some for-profit universities, but also does a nice job of showing their importance and how they help others. I believe that although, these type of schools may have their unhealthy parts, they are there to help others who feel helpless and just can not manage traditional types of schools in their everyday lives. Do you see anyone else trying to help these struggling students out? “Not the government, or the church, or the more fortunate colleges with their wealthy alumni and endowments that reach the sky” (Carey55).

LAST PAPER

Outline

Internet good or bad?

· Quote-grabber

· Tell of Carr’s article

· Tell of Thompson’s article

· Tell of the video-intelligence squared US

· State my own opinion

Carr-complicates or challenges?

· His main claims

· Strengths

· Weaknesses

· Compare it to my view

Thompson-extends

· His main claims

· Strengths

· Weaknesses

· Compare to my view

Intelligence squared video-challenges

· Main claims

· Strengths

· Weaknesses

· Compare to my view

Conclusion

· “So what” question

· Restate how all articles are compared to your views

· Make main claims

· END WITH A BANG

Marx1

Ashley Marx

Werry

RWS

December 15, 2014

TITLE

Innocent until proven guilty, that’s the only fair way to somewhat not judge with a biased opinion. Technology and other mechanical advancements have long changed the way life is, whether it is our thought process, the way we act, or the way we absorb information. Think about all the possibilities opened up for human kind because of the unlimited accessibility to information worldwide, due to our technological advances. Imagine a day without your phone, any sort of social media, emails, etc. I bet it would be difficult to get through the days. Although, I am not saying, do not have your skeptics about technology. Everything must come with a price.

I know personally I would hate not having the Internet to answer my every question. Or even my smart phone to keep track of my day and to stay in contact with the world. For example, my mother Google’s everything. Anytime something throughout her day happens, whether it is a word or something she saw that she doesn’t know, she looks it up. When we went to Europe for a family trip, throughout the week she had so many questions she wanted answered just from what she saw while we were out and about. Unfortunately, she couldn’t look any of her questions

Marx2

up because she didn’t have an international plan on her phone. It was torture for her. A little bit funny too I have to admit.

Clive Thompson is a popular blogger, writer, and critic who give “current examples of how human-computer symbiosis is enlarging our intellect” (Gain1). In his novel, Smarter Than you Think, Thompson tells of how “artificial intelligence” greatly benefits human kind. He illustrates how it is a suitable source of assistance for us. By recognizing the progress in societies intelligence because of the on-going advancements in technology, one can say it greatly benefits our civilization with something as simple as a Safari Bowser. People get the answers they need at the click of a button, people have a better opportunity to get their writing out to the rest of the world, and they become more conscious of the quality of their writing. The opportunities are endless, with sites such as Facebook, twitter, blogs, Instagram, comments, WordPress, emails, Yik Yak and many more; people have access to a large spam of information. People also write more often because of these technical advances. For example, The Hunger Games novel has 3.2 million words in it. Now lets compare that number to the total number of words written per day that would be about 36 million books. To put that into perspective, the “U.S. Library of Congress holds about 35 million books”(PublicThinking52). The audience effect also comes into play here. Since people know that anyone could read their publically published work, they put in extra effort. Thompson wrote of a study, testing children’s explanations when put in no public place to the most. Think about it, the bigger the audience, the more pressure the writer (or in this case, the speaker) undergoes, the

Marx3

more the writer feels responsible to create a more precise and deeper connection with the audience.

Nicholas Carr, an admired writer, wrote an article for The Atlantic Online, speaking of how the Internet is “chipping away our capacity for concentration and contemplation”. He compares a “scientific mind” against a “scientific man” (61). Carr argues that the Internet has damaging consequences to our intelligence and mind capacity. Carr claims that although the Internet does have an “incredibly rich store of information that has been widely described and duly applaud” in exchange for that it shapes our thought process” (59). Carr tells of a time when the first mechanical clock was created and how suddenly our brains “began operating like clockwork” (61). Then came the first digital computers years later, which greatly affected our mind process. It became our “map, clock, printing press, typewriter, calculator, TV, telephone, and radio” (61). And now with today, the shortened articles posted on the Internet are filled with ad pops up, and additional text crawls. This causes a scattered attention span as well as diffused concentration. Carr also tells of a man losing his sight and how technology had helped him to continue to writing as if nothing had changed. “Words could once again flow from his mind to the paper” (60). Carr takes this blessing and turns it into something negative. Carr speaks of how the man went from argument and personality to aphorisms and telegraphic style of writing. It may have had some affect on his style of writing, but in the end, that typewriter “rescued him” (60).

Marx4

In an article written by Steven Pinker, called “Mind Over Mass”, he speaks of how technology has been wrongfully blamed for causing violence, changing our mind thought process, and learning skills. In the 1900s comic books and video games were blamed for causing an increase in violent behavior. Even though this type of technology has been wrongfully blamed, people chose to ignore the fact that with each year that passed IQ scores rose increasingly. Another point that Carr makes is that, although, scientists “are never far from emails, rarely touch paper, and cannot lecture without a power point” yet “discoveries are multiplying like fruit flies” (Pinker1). If technology was ”hazardous to intelligence, the quality of science would be plummeting” (Pinker1). Some would say, it’s the same as “you are what you eat” (Pinker2). I would agree “constant arrival of information packets can nbe distracting or addictive” (Pinker2). But an easy solution to that is to “develop self control strategies as we do with every other temptation in life” (Pinker2).

Technology is “far from making us stupid, these technologies are the only things that will keep us smart” (Pinker2). I have the ability to be more knowledgeable because of the unlimited accessibility I’m given because of technology. “The question we need to be asking is whether the sacrifice is worth it or more importantly, what we can do to help makes the sacrifice worth it” (Shirk1).
FINAL PAPER

Obsessed

Innocent until proven guilty: that is the only fair way to somewhat not judge with a biased opinion. Technology and other mechanical advancements have long changed the way life is, whether it is our thought process, the way we act, the way we absorb information, or the way we think. One can argue that society is far more advanced and knowledgeable now then they were decades ago. As generations pass, civilization undergoes a slight modification. For example, libraries have been slowly becoming less used. The demand has dropped sluggishly as people find alternatives. Most people do not go to the library to look up information anymore. Nowadays, they will just walk to their computer at home, hit Safari and within seconds their screen will be lit with multiple links relating to their topic of mind. Think about all the possibilities opened up for human kind because of the unlimited accessibility to information worldwide, due to our technological advances. Imagine life today without a phone, any sort of social media, emails, or any electronics whatsoever. I would guess it would be difficult to get through the days. Although, technology does wonders for the human race, there are skeptics about whether the benefit is worth the harmful affects that may occur from its everyday use. Everything must come with a price. In this paper, I will speak about the significance of technology and justify why even though there are minor drawbacks, it is overall useful

Marx2

and valuable to our daily lives. Then I will present Thompson’s argument addressing the advantages of technology. Next, I will challenge Carr’s main claims using Steven Pinker and myself as resources. Towards the end, I will speak of my own personal experiences with technology and state my opinion on where I fall on the spectrum (whether technology is highly damaging or strongly value).

Clive Thompson is a popular blogger, writer, and critic who provide “current examples of how human-computer symbiosis is enlarging our intellect” (Gain1). In his novel, Smarter Than you Think, Thompson addresses how “artificial intelligence” greatly benefits human kind in more way than one. Thompson illustrates that it is a suitable source of assistance for us by recognizing the progress in societies intelligence because of the on-going advancements in technology; one can say it influences our civilization with something as simple as a Safari Bowser. People get the answers they need at the click of a button, have a better opportunity to get their writing out to the rest of the world, and become more conscious of the quality of their writing. The opportunities are endless, with sites such as Facebook, twitter, blogs, Instagram, comments, WordPress, emails, Yik Yak and many more; people have access to a large span of information.

Citizens are currently writing more often because of these technical advances opening up a larger audience base with an` increased supply of places to write at. For example, The Hunger Games novel has 3.2 million words in it. Now lets compare that number to the total number of words written per day that would be about 36 million books. To put that into perspective, the “U.S. Library of Congress holds about 35 million books”(Thompson 52). Not only do people write more often, they also write more

Marx3

consciously. This is called the audience effect-where one writes with better quality and more knowingly because they are aware of their large pool of readers, their audience. The writer feels a sense of obligation to do above average on their work; they want people to see them putting forth their absolute best. Since people know that anyone could read their publically published work, eminence effort is expected. Thompson composed a study testing children’s explanations when given the same task but different audiences. The kids were split into 3 groups, each given a puzzle to put together. The first group had to solve it themselves, the next group had to explain to a recorder how to solve it, and the last group had to explain to their mothers face to face how to solve it. The results exposed that the third group (ones who explained it to their mothers) displayed the fastest solving time and experienced an easier, calmer time during the experiment. The end outcome demonstrated that the larger and more personal the audience got, the better the kids did because of the pressure they felt while participating. It can be concluded that, the greater the viewers, the more pressure the writer (or in this case, the speaker) undergoes and adversely the more he or she feels responsible to create a more precise and deeper connection with the audience.

On the other hand, Nicholas Carr, an admired writer, wrote an article for The Atlantic Online, speaking of the Internet “chipping away our capacity for concentration and contemplation”. He compares a “scientific mind” against a “scientific man” (Carr61) and argues that the Internet has damaging consequences to our intelligence and mind capacity. Carr extends his argument claiming that although the Internet does have an “incredibly rich store of information that has been widely described and duly applaud”, it

Marx4

also exchanges that “by negatively shaping our thought process” (Carr59). Carr brings up the first mechanical clock, and how suddenly it was created, our brains “began operating like clockwork” (Carr61). He then tells of the first digital computers invented years later, which greatly affected our mind process. It became our “map, clock, printing press, typewriter, calculator, TV, telephone, and radio” (Carr61). And now, today, society is so reliant and influenced by technology on a daily scale. Carr also tells a story of a man, Friedrich Nietzsche, who slowly lost his sight while a middle-aged adult. Carr speaks of the technology had helped him to continue writing as if nothing had changed, as if he could still see. “Words could once again flow from his mind to the paper” (Carr60) because of modern day inventions. Carr takes this blessing and tries to turn it into something negative. Carr speaks the transition the man went through, from argument and personality to aphorisms and a telegraphic style of writing. It may have had some affect on his style of writing, but in the end, that typewriter “rescued him” (Carr60).

In an article written by Steven Pinker, called “Mind Over Mass”, he claims that technology has been wrongfully blamed for causing harmful effects on the way we, humans, behave, think and grow. For example, in the 1900s, comic books and video games were blamed for causing an increase in violent behavior in children and adults worldwide, even though there was no direct evidence linking the two. With all the new technology produced, people had more opportunities to expand their knowledge and grow. The outcome of this was that that year the IQ scores rose increasingly. Although, that year, people chose to spend their time criticize technology instead of applauding it. In addition, Pinker reveals that scientists “are never far from emails, rarely touch paper,

Marx5

and cannot lecture without a power point” yet “discoveries are multiplying like fruit flies” (Pinker1). If technology was ”hazardous to intelligence, the quality of science would be plummeting” (Pinker1). Pinker makes it clear that technology has helped benefit the human mind, not turn the brain into mush. Some would say, it’s the same as “you are what you eat” (Pinker2). I would agree, the “constant arrival of information packets can be distracting or addictive” (Pinker2). But an easy solution to that is to “develop self control strategies as we do with every other temptation in life” (Pinker2).

Personally I would hate not having the Internet to answer my every question. Or even my smart phone to keep track of my day and to stay in contact with the world. I use Google at least once a day, whether its to research for a school project, to answer a question that randomly came to my mind, or for social media. The day I don’t go on Instagram, Facebook, Yik Yak, and Twitter (in that order) will be the day I die. For a personal story, I will talk about my mother. So my mother Google’s everything. Anytime something throughout her day happens, whether it is a word or something she saw and does not know, she Google’s it. When we went to Europe for a family trip, just a week long, she had countless questions she wanted answered, just from what she saw while we were out and about. Unfortunately, she could not look any of her questions up because she did not have an international plan on her phone. It was torture for her. A little bit funny too I have to admit. In my life, and my family’s lives, technology is a blessing.

Technology is “far from making us stupid, these technologies are the only things that will keep us smart” (Pinker2) as Pinker would say. Carr and Thompson both make valid claims about their beliefs. Thompson gives solid evidence to support his claims but

Marx6

is a bit vague in his descriptions. Carr does not give enough supporting facts and evidence yet efficiently connects with the reader. My experiences with technology has helped me momentously with every aspect of my life; I have the ability to be more knowledgeable because of the unlimited accessibility I am given because of technology, therefore I would have to agree with Thompsons point of view. “The question we need to be asking is whether the sacrifice is worth it or more importantly, what we can do to help makes the sacrifice worth it….” (Shirk1).

ASHLEY.

Monday, December 15, 2014

Monday, December 1, 2014

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Monday, August 25, 2014

http://letsfigurethisouttogether123.blogspot.com