Is Google Making Us Stupid? intro to analysis

Nicholas Carr’s overall argument is that Google is changing the way we used to think for the worse. His main evidence is historical accounts, studies that have taken place and his own personal opinions based off of the evidence he provides. He mainly draws the reader in through his ambiguity. He lets the reader ultimately make a decision for him or herself. His information is kind of scattered to in a sense, which keeps the reader on top of what Carr is trying to convey.

comparing Rifkin to Parry

As I was reading Rifkin’s “A Change Of Heart About Animals” and Vince Parry’s “Branding a Condition”, I couldn’t help but find a similarity in one particular aspect of both of their works. It’s almost as if both writers anticipate questions and clarifications their audience may have and then addresses them beforehand in their work. This I think is a very effective way write because it puts the author more into the shoes of the reader.

The Looking Glass into For-Profit Universities

It is true that having a college education is becoming more and more necessary in order to be successful in our current society. Employers who are looking to hire automatically put the people who have a college degree before those who don’t. For this very reason, it is extremely desired to go on to further education in order to have a well paying job; and colleges like for-profit universities know this. For-profit schools used to be extremely popular just a few decades ago. Students found them convenient because the courses provided a more direct line guiding them to their desired major. They didn’t have to go to school for as long as other universities which was preferred for parents and those who work long hours already. However, some suspicions about the way these for-profit colleges truly work began to arise. These colleges are said to pull students into massive amounts of debt that they will never be able to recuperate from as well as having a much greater drop out rate than other universities. In addition, a large number of graduates are having a surprisingly hard time finding good jobs as opposed to those who are graduated from a public college. People like Kevin Carey in “Why do you Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges?” have researched the attributes that keep these schools profitable as well as how they really work. Carey additionally illustrates one specific entrepreneur, Michael Clifford, who helps pick up deteriorating non-profit colleges and turns them into “money-making machines” (Carey 53). He believes for-profit universities are here to stay. They help the people often forgotten by non-profit colleges get an education and prepare them for their desired career.

In this essay, I will compare the claims that Carey provides his readers to the evidence provided by other sources regarding the pros and cons of for-profit universities. I will initially analyze findings from the GAO report in “FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaging in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices”. The US senate initiated this report because they wanted to get a better idea of how these universities were run. It complicates claims that Carey examines in his article. I will then continue by comparing statistics at both San Diego State University and the American Public University system to Carey’s work and how it complicates his claim. Lastly, I will use a book review of The Changing Landscape of the Academic Profession: The Culture of Faculty at For-Profit Colleges and Universities and how it also complicates what Carey states in his writing.

Carey’s work and one of his claims correlates well to a government testing on for-profit universities conducted a few years ago. This investigation is a key text that I am utilizing because its results are rather noteworthy. Carey mentions briefly in his writing that students who attended for-profit universities are having an extremely hard time paying back their loans. “The for-profit Corinthian Colleges (as of mid-July, market cap: $923-million) estimated in official documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that more than half the loans it makes to its own students will go bad” (Carey 54). Carey extends this idea farther by educating us that Corinthian and other for-profit colleges still make a profit because of the money “Uncle Sam” guarantees them. However, this government study of various undercover officials looking to see how different for-profits would react to certain situations they were put in complicates Carey’s work and makes it seem that he only brushed the surface of a much greater problem. These government officials had 2 goals: to see if they engaged in fraudulent practices, and to compare their tuition to than public universities. What they found would change how they viewed these for-profit schools forever. They found that 27% of the 15 universities they assessed “encouraged fraudulent practices and that all 15 made deceptive or otherwise questionable statements to GAO's undercover applicants” (FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges…). In addition to this discovery, they found out that for-profit colleges are much more expensive to attend than other alternative colleges. A personal account of a student who got their massage therapy license from a for-profit university for only 14,000 dollars was astonished when she heard she could have gotten the same license at her local community college for only 520 dollars.  These findings showed the GAO’s and others involved in the undercover study that all of the stories and opinions regarding these for-profit universities being deceptive were far from a lie. Carey does a fine job introducing this defining aspect of for-profit education by elevating the claim that “large debt plus small income equals high risk of default” (Carey 54). The GAO report accurately complicates Carey, extending the idea that fraudulent and deceptive practices are the reason for these high statistics of students falling into unforgiving debt. These fraudulent colleges will go through drastic measures to make their income. They treat their students as if they were a commodity, lying to them in order to make a profit off of their students’ tight income and government subsidies.

 My second source complicates one particular key point Carey discusses in his writing. The data I have is an interesting piece of evidence being that it provides real statistics created in order to compare different types of colleges. Carey explains, “[Clifford] denies that colleges have any responsibilities whatsoever for how much students borrow and whether they can pay it back.” (Carey 54). This quote is very peculiar based on the results from the 2012 census of San Diego State University and for-profits in the American Public University system. It is truly baffling to see how many people do attend for-profit universities based off of the evidence I am providing. It would be interesting to know if students from schools in the American Public system would have chosen a different path to take for their education if they would have known that only 21.4 percent of everyone that enrolls will obtain a degree in six years (College Results Online). That low statistic is most definitely because of underlying flaws in the for-profit system. However, Carey would rebuttal by saying that how much the students put into their education is how much they are going to get out. More than half of a university’s students not being able to graduate on time if at all would be a definite red flag for most people who are looking for a college to  attend to. For perspective, 66 percent of students who attend SDSU will graduate by the six-year mark (College Results Online). Not being able to graduate in a timely manner if at all is generating more income for the for-profit colleges, another one of their moneymaking schemes. I would ask Clifford: “why would this problem not be put on the shoulders of for-profit schools if more than half of the students they enroll can’t even obtain their desired major in a timely manner much less afford another semester at these overpriced colleges?” One can agree from this data more than half of the students at for-profit universities will drop out due to other circumstances. These circumstances may include finding no benefit in the education they provide, not wanting to sink further into debt, or even teaching that doesn’t prepare students well enough to succeed in their career of choice. Additionally, most of the students who attend for-profit universities are minority and more Pell grants are taken out in order for the students to pay for their education. An astonishing 89 percent of those attending schools in the American Public system use this method of payment where as only 30 percent of those attending SDSU do. The increasing interest rates on the grants make paying off loans virtually impossible which is the last thing low income citizens should be worrying about.

Another behind the scenes study that I am utilizing is one from the professors who work at these for-profit institutions. The book review of The Changing Landscape of the Academic Profession: The Culture of Faculty at For-Profit Colleges and Universities is an extremely accurate way of depicting how life is like in the shoes of the professors working there. It ties into the work of Carey by complicating what he introduces in his text. On page 55 of the RWS Course Reader, he begins to mention a deal that was not “favorable to faculty” where the community colleges would begin to offer classes that the bankrupt public colleges could not. He claims that the initial cause of this derived from the “feckless voters and incompetent politicians who have driven California to ruin” (Carey 55). The thought to hold that law back because it wasn’t fair to the professors elevates questions of what for-profit schools are all about. The teachers at these institutions are not trained to teach broad ideas to their students. They stick to what students will concretely need to know in their specific careers. That is not the fault of the voters and politicians; that is the result of malpractices within the doors of these universities. Further complicating Carey is this specific book review on The Changing Landscape of the Academic Profession: The Culture of Faculty at For-Profit Colleges and Universities. The purpose of Carole J. Bland in her book is to inform the reader about what happens behind the doors of these institutions rather than persuading them to think one way over another. Because of this method of approach, she is a very credible source to have in my research. Overall, the faculty members at for-profit universities “are redefining the academy by treating education as a commodity, offering programs that focus specifically on job training, and exclusively employing contingent faculty members” (The Changing Landscape…8). This actual quote from the book itself allows the reader to understand the current values of these universities. Professors who are hired at these institutions are trained to speed up the education process for the students who attend. However, Carey ignores that what is left out in teaching is the most important part of all: classes that make students well-rounded individuals who obtain critical thinking abilities and problem solving skills. These skills are two of the key abilities people lack in this developing time period that significantly helps employees to prosper in their jobs.

In this research paper, I used three different sources that all primarily complicate or extend what Carey stands for in his work. During my research I found plenty of interesting things that I didn’t know about for-profit universities before. It is thought provoking to know that the people who are given jobs at different for-profit universities are willing to jump through hoops in order to make their employers happy so they can keep their jobs. Even the confirmation that the recruiters at these universities are trying to sign people up who weren’t meant for college and the financial burdens it entails is important to understanding the ethics that for-profits practice. It really does surface just how much they rely on the loans their students take out that are provided by taxpayers. Carey introduces the “90/10 rule” which constitutes for the law that no more than 90 percent of for-profit’s income can come from loans. This seems like an outrageous amount of money, and it is. Laws are in the process of being passed to lower it to the “85/15 rule” which will be the right direction in which we are going to change the negative image for-profit universities have made for themselves. Carey does neglect to go into detail in some of his claims though, making it difficult to work with the meager information he provides. Carey is mostly for the idea of for-profit colleges because he knows that although he knows that some problems do exist, and some new regulation is warranted, these for-profit universities are vital to higher education because they are innovative and help the students who are ignored by traditional institutions. Because of all this, they are here to stay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Sited

1.         "For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices."U.S. GAO -. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.

2.         "Project MUSE - The Changing Landscape of the Academic Profession: The Culture of Faculty at For-Profit Colleges and Universities (review)."Project MUSE - The Changing Landscape of the Academic Profession: The Culture of Faculty at For-Profit Colleges and Universities (review). N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.

3.         "College Results Online." College Results Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.

4.         Carey, Kevin. “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges?” RWS Course Reader. Ed. Department of Rhetoric and Writing Studies. San Diego: Montezuma Publishing, 2014. 53-55. Print.

rough draft for Carey essay!

It is true that having a college education is becoming more and more necessary in order to be successful in our current society. Jobs who are looking to hire automatically put the people who have a college degree before those who don’t. For this very reason, it is extremely desired to go on to further education in order to have a well paying job; and colleges like for-profit universities know this. Trade schools used to be extremely popular just a few decades ago. Students found it convenient because the courses were straight to the point in relationship to their desired major. They didn’t have to go to school for as long as other universities which was preferred for parents and those who work long hours already. However, some suspicions about the way these for-profit colleges truly work began to arise. These Trade schools are said to pull students into massive amounts of debt that they will never be able to recuperate from as well as having a much greater drop out rate than other universities. In addition, graduates are having a surprisingly hard time finding good jobs as opposed to those who are graduated from a public college. People like Kevin Carey in “Why do you Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges?” have researched the key elements holding these schools together as well as how they really work. Carey additionally illustrates one specific entrepreneur, Michael Clifford, who continues to help pick up deteriorating non-profit colleges and turn them into “money-making machines”.

In this essay, I will compare the claims that Carey provides his readers to the evidence provided by other sources regarding the pros and cons of for-profit universities. I will initially analyze findings from a study in “FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaging in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices” and how it clarifies claims that Carey examines in his article. I will then continue by comparing statistics at both San Diego State University and the American Public University system to Carey’s work and how it illustrates his claim. Lastly, I will use a book review of The Changing Landscape of the Academic Profession: The Culture of Faculty at For-Profit Colleges and Universities and how it extends what Carey states in his writing.

Carey’s work and one of his claims correlates well to a government testing on for-profit universities conducted a few years ago. This investigation is a key text that I am utilizing because its results are rather noteworthy. Carey mentions briefly in his writing that students who attended for-profit universities are having an extremely hard time paying back their loans. However, this government study of various undercover officials looking to see how different trade schools would react to certain situations they were put in illustrates Carey’s work and makes it seem that he only brushed the surface of a much greater problem. These government officials had 2 goals: to see if they engaged in fraudulent practices, and to compare their tuition to than public universities. What they found would change how they viewed these trade schools forever. They found that 27% of the 15 universities they assessed “encouraged fraudulent practices and that all 15 made deceptive or otherwise questionable statements to GAO's undercover applicants” (FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges…). In addition to this discovery, they found out that trade schools are much more expensive to attend than other alternative colleges. A personal account of a student who got their massage therapy license from a for-profit university for only 14,000 dollars was astonished when she heard she could have gotten the same license at her local community college for only 520 dollars.  These findings showed the GAO’s and others involved in the undercover study that all of the stories and opinions regarding these for-profit universities being shallow were far from a lie. Although Cary does a fine job introducing this defining aspect of trade schools, this study accurately shows to what extent these fraudulent colleges will go in order to get their income and in the recruiter’s case, keep their jobs, which illustrates the picture Carey already introduced us to.

 My second source clarifies one particular key point Carey hits on in his writing. The data I am have is an interesting piece of evidence being that it provides real statistics created in order to compare different types of colleges. Carey mentions, “In such a volatile situation, all kinds of people make their way into the picture” (Carey 55). This quote is very peculiar based on the results from the comparisons of San Diego State University and for-profits in the American Public University system. It is truly baffling to see how many people do attend for-profit universities based off of the evidence I am providing. It would be interesting to know if students from schools in the American Public system would have chosen a different path to take for their education if they would have known that only 21.4 percent of everyone that enrolls will obtain a 6 year masters degree. More than half of a university’s students not making it to a master’s would be a definite red flag for most people who are looking to attend college. To put into perspective, 66 percent of students who attend SDSU will graduate with a master’s degree. One can agree from this data more than half of the students at trade schools will drop out due to different circumstances. These circumstances may include finding no benefit in the education they provide, not wanting to sink further into debt, or even teaching that doesn’t prepare students well enough to succeed in their career of choice. Additionally, most of the students who attend for-profit universities are minority and more Pell grants are taken out in order for the students to pay for their education. An astonishing 89 percent of those attending schools in the American Public system use this method of payment where as only 30 percent of those attending SDSU do. The increasing interest rates on the grants make paying off loans virtually impossible. in other words, attending a local community college could be a much better financial investment especially since it won’t flood adolescents with unnecessary debt when all they should be worrying about is getting a solid education. <perhaps that’s what Carey meant by his quote; he may have been just as shocked that people who learn under these conditions would have the guts to stick around and support their school that they have put so much money into.>

Another behind the scenes study that I am utilizing is one of the faculty who work at these for-profit institutions. The book review of The Changing Landscape of the Academic Profession: The Culture of Faculty at For-Profit Colleges and Universities is an extremely accurate way of depicting how life is like in the shoes of the professors working there. It ties into the work of Carey by extending what he begins to hit in his text. On page 55 of the RWS Course Reader, he begins to mention a deal that was not “favorable to faculty” where the community colleges would begin to offer classes that the bankrupt public colleges could not. The thought to hold that law back because it wasn’t fair to the professors elevates questions of what trade schools are all about. The teachers at these institutions are not trained to teach broad ideas to their students. They stick to what students will concretely need to know in their specific careers. Extending this idea Carey mentions in his writing is this specific book review. The purpose of Carole J. Bland in her book is to inform the reader about what happens behind the doors of these institutions rather than persuading them to think one way over another. Because of this method of approach, she is a very credible source to have in my research. Overall, the faculty members at for-profit universities “are redefining the academy by treating education as a commodity, offering programs that focus specifically on job training, and exclusively employing contingent faculty members” (The Changing Landscape…8). This actual quote from the book itself allows the reader to understand the current values of these universities. Professors who are hired at these institutions are trained to speed up the education process for the students who attend. However, what is left out in teaching is the most important part of all: classes that make students well-rounded individuals who obtain critical thinking abilities and problem solving skills. These two skills are two of the key abilities people lack in this developing time period that guarantee employees to prosper in their selected jobs.

In this research paper, I use three different sources that illustrate, clarify, or extend what Carey stands for in his work. During my research I found plenty of interesting things that I didn’t know about for-profit universities before. It is thought provoking to know that the people who are given jobs at different for-profit universities are willing to jump through hoops in order to make their employers happy so they can keep their jobs. Even the confirmation that the recruiters at these universities are trying to sign people up who weren’t meant for college and the financial burdens it entails is peculiar to understanding the ethics that for-profits practice. It really does come to the surface just how much they rely on the loans that their students take out that are provided by taxpayers. Carey introduces the “90/10 rule” which constitutes for the law that no more than 90 percent of for-profit’s income can come from loans. This seems like an outrageous amount of money, and it is. Laws are trying to be passed to lower it to the “85/15 rule” which will be the right direction in which we are going to change the negative image trade schools have made for themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Sited

1.         "For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices."U.S. GAO -. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.

2.         "Project MUSE - The Changing Landscape of the Academic Profession: The Culture of Faculty at For-Profit Colleges and Universities (review)."Project MUSE - The Changing Landscape of the Academic Profession: The Culture of Faculty at For-Profit Colleges and Universities (review). N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.

3.         "College Results Online." College Results Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.