Look, the quality of a college is not determined by how popular, exclusive, or rich it is. That's why I think the so called "elite" colleges give you nothing more than a title and a big dent in your future finances.
So, anyways, I think that the most convincing article was O'Connell's "What you do vs. where you go." It made sense, didn't ramble, gave sources for facts, and was able to connect with the reader by challenging the reader to go and do something. I love how she started it off with a description of a demonstration. All of her facts are cited. For that matter, she HAS facts. I'd say this is the most convincing article.
The LEAST convincing article was by Luis Fuentes-Rohwer "Merit and Race." It seemed off-topic, rambling, and downright unsubstantiated when it came to facts. When Fuentes-Rohwer says...
"This is the concern, largely unexpressed yet often at the forefront of our consciousness, of being a racial minority at a predominantly white institution. This point raises the question of who is a racial minority worthy of special consideration. For example, fewer and fewer historically disadvantaged African-American students are being admitted to elite colleges."... he is going completely off-topic, for wasn't the prompt in the first place "will you have a better life if you graduate from an elite school"? Not, "Is race a determining factor in choosing a college" or something like that. Also, I see no (none, nada, zip) evidence or sources for this. So, yes, this is the least convincing of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment