Response in Tandem with Summary

The answer to the preliminary question is obvious. As we move forwards, our writing assignments will increase in complexity and depth. Effective summarization will clearly be a vital skill for the journey ahead of us, considering the scope of the course. 

The next question posed is much more interesting. Considering my scholastic and post-academia goals, being able to think critically as an involved member in society is paramount for my success. For instance, I highly doubt myself or anyone else can graduate with a degree without the capacity to exceed unintelligible thought. Personally though as a student of physics and philosophy, any work I do in a future career will utilize critical thinking and/or writing 100% of the time. I will not be worth very much as a philosopher if I have not carefully reflected upon the views of others, or able to sufficiently back up my own premises. More so, I will not be able to contribute much to scientific advancement if I do not analyze my findings and present them in a clear and understandable format.

Considering texts from various perspectives has expanded upon my understanding of being an author. Writing is very much a means to an end. It can be crude and blunt, or beautiful and poetic. By carefully adjusting the ratio and variety of pathos, ethos, and logos anyone can be an effective social engineer. The approximate ratios and varieties can be determined by considering your planned audience, and their likely impressions of you as an author. Depending upon purpose, an author is very much an embodiment of a double edged sword. One can either be honorable and just, or cunning and manipulative. However, critical reading grants us insight into an author’s motives. This can be seen in a recent reading of ours, by Kirkham, on for-profit schools. I think it is better to sum that up first, and then explain further. Yes, part 2 is in part 1.

In Senate Legislation Targets Aggressive Recruiting of Veterans by For-Profit Colleges, Chris Kirkham starts by stating for-profit colleges are “aggressively recruiting” (182) veterans in order to access their federal benefits. The author continues to add how federal benefits are desirable to for-profit schools for more than just financial gain. Mr. Kirkham explains that for-profit schools legally cannot earn more than 90% of their revenue from federal sources. The writer then indicates a technicality, that veteran GI bill student benefits are not considered federal funds. Because of this detail Chris Kirkham shows that these veteran benefits do not count toward the 90% law for for-profit schools. Referencing a senator, the author presents how a proposed bill could remove that technicality, rendering GI funds as federal funds to for-profit schools. Kirkham follows this up with quotes from other authors discussing the same conversation to add further detail. The writer then addresses the relationship between veterans and for-profit schools, claiming it is not mutually beneficial. The author elaborates that not only are for-profits schools more expensive, but that those who graduate from for-profit schools have a higher rate of unemployment than public school graduates. Kirkham transitions to explain how these for-profit schools are intentionally gaming the system, and are not secretive about doing so. The author concludes his article saying how despite being a problem, the for-profit school industry is lobbying against the bill proposed to continue to secure their large revenue streams. 

Considering the rhetorical elements of this piece we can see that the author’s goal is to inform and convince the reader that the situation is unjust, and should be against what the for-profit industry is doing. Not all social engineering is immoral.