Forum Pages Analysis Extra Credit Assignment

Alex Schlack

Chris Werry

RWS100

November 17, 2014

Forum Posts Analysis’s Extra Credit Assignment

 

The first response to Carr, “Why Abundance Is Good”, written by Clay Shirky, is a really good analysis of Carr’s claims.  Overall, Shirky agrees with Carr’s main claim that these changes are significant enough to make us do something about the issue, however he does argue what it is that we need to be doing. Shirky talks a little about when Carr states that we are reading more today due to the internet, and says that its true but Carr doesn’t mention how this increase in reading form the internet has created a historical shift away from our culture.  Even as the television came to dominate culture, we continued to reassure one another that War and Peace or A La Recherche du Temps Perdu were very important.   It’s important that everyone realizes that there is a cultural sacrifice in the transformation of the media landscape, and the main question is it worth it?  Shirky gives credit to Carr for being of the most knowledgeable people when it comes to the Internet, but questions why he doesn’t propose the next step in the process. Carr lists all these thinks that the Internet has brought upon us, yet he doesn’t propose a solution to the problem. 

The second response to Carr was Why Abundance Should Breed Optimism.  Shirky starts out by pointing out that every past technology that has increased consumer material have always been beneficial to humanity.  He considers himself an optimists, and he says that everyone should breed optimism when it comes to questioning technology.  People go into too much depth and only look for things to complain about, which is kind of what he accuses Carr of doing with the Internet.  People “worry” too much about things today than we ever had in the past.  Shirky commends Carr on doing a good before and after comparison with the Nietsche case, but he does lack something really important.  Carr mentions how using the typewriter has altered the writers writing style, but what he forgot to state was if it was for the better or the worse.  As for Carr’s overall claim, Shirky happens to differ on a few points.  Shirky thinks that even if the Net did change, would our reading and comprehension go back to the way it used to be when the Net didn’t exist?  Shirky thinks that overall argument of Carr should revolve around the idea that technologies that make writing more abundant also require social structures to accompany them.  The third response to Carr is Where is the Science? Kevin Skeppy understands Carr’s claims and overall argument, but believes that Carr didn’t give enough evidence to back them up.  After reading Carr’s article, Skelly has came up with a defined calim that he asserts to be Carr’s, that surfing the web does alter our brain functions and that we are unable to go back to our old literary ways due to immense amount of reading on the Internet. Skelly says he gets the worry in all this, he gets the anecdotes and expert opinion that Carr implements into his argument, but he has not seen any scientific evidence to prove it.  Words are words and anybody can say anything, but factual evidence and numbers are the most convincing. Skelly challenges Carr to use some sufficiently and precise evidence that can be tested to prove his point more. 

The most promising response to Carr’s article was Why Abundance Should Breed Optimism by Shirky.  Shirky did a good job of challenging Carr and bringing up some really good points.  Obviously everything that Carr brings up is open for debate and doubt, but it shows how much you know about the issue when you argue something, state your own opinion and why. Shirky thinks that all major technological advancements are going to cause worry, and people are always going to be skeptic.  But the big technological innovations that work to increase reading and other consumer materials, have always been beneficial to humanity in way and bettered society. Shirky also proposes some really good questions for Carr, such as asking him if the changes toward Nietsche were actually positive, asking if the Net magically disappeared if our reading and comprehending styles were return to the way he thinks it should be.  Shirky in my opinion doesn’t agree or disagree with CArr, but challenges him a way and pointing out some of the flaws that Carr lacked in the article.

Carr Writing Assignment Final Draft

Alex Schlack

Chris Werry

RWS100

November 9, 2014

“Is Google Making Us Stupid”

            In the late 1960’s, there was an invention that is debatably considered to be the best technological innovation ever to be created in history, the Internet. The Internet has developed by becoming more advanced and complex over the years, and has become one the soul aspects of our society today. It is the most convenient virtual system, possessing infinite amounts of information and available at anytime for people to access and learn anything they want.  And Google is the most popular and most visited specialized search engine in the world.  But recently, there has been a stirring debate over the negative effects of the Internet due to people questioning how it’s modifying our brain and our thinking process. In the article, “’Is Google Making Us Stupid,” Nicholas Carr engages in the worldwide discrepancy of people outweighing the positive and negative effects of the Net, and shares his belief that the Internet does indeed change our world more than just simply opening up information. Carr’s overall claim is that technology, quick browsing and having Google instantly generate answers, has altered our way of critical thinking and focusing on detail by creating a “skimming habit” in our style of reading.  In this paper, I will analyze the rhetoric strategies exemplification, ethos, and prolepsis utilized by Carr to demonstrate his main argument and argue that Carr creates a very persuasive point even though his views go against the majority of the public.

            One of the most important strategies and rhetoric tactics that Carr exercises in his article is exemplification.  Exemplification is the process of providing the reader with evidence and credibility through various examples, statistics, anecdotes, and expert opinions from people.  Carr uses exemplification in his writing to support his point that the Net is chipping away at our capacity to concentrate and contemplate normally. He uses an analogy to further explain his claim, when he adds, “Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words, now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.  One piece that Carr uses is a couple of bloggers that Carr follows, who have been talking about this phenomenon.  One of these bloggers is named Bruce Friedman, who is someone who reads and writes daily about computers.  He stated, “I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print,” and then goes on about how instead of thoroughly reading and understanding long passages he now, as he said, “skims it.” This especially is a prime example, and goes to show that even the people who read and write the most, see a natural change occurring from reading from the Net rather than from books. Carr also mentions a study that was done and ran by scholars from the University of London, where they created a five year research program website with access to journals, e-books, and other resource information and evaluated the visitors.  Only did they find that the visitors exhibited a form of skimming activity, and that almost nobody read more than one or two pages of each written passage. This example exemplifies this sort of “laziness” that people are acquiring from googling, and has basically ruined our reading capabilities to read things fully and have our brain comprehend everything. Carr inputs these examples to show the correlation between online reading and this trending skimming less efficient style that people are evolving into. He has the expectation that the people will be convinced from hearing the same point from multiple people, especially expert bloggers were write everyday.  This presentation supports Carr’s claim that quickly finding information on the net, has been a natural substitute for deep reading that we acquire from manual research in books.

            Another route that Carr takes to engrave his claim even more is the classic rhetoric strategy of logos. Logos is the ability of focusing on a more logical approach, in order to appeal to a large audience.  Carr initially starts out his article with an logical standpoint simply comparing the negative downsides of the Net along with the benefits. Even though it is rather difficult to stand in Carr’s position, considering the public’s opinion is and will always be in favor of the internet, Carr does a good job of making “them” ponder.” He delivers a new style of factually persuading the reader into believing that technology truly does affect the way we think.  Carr uses a historical example, the story of Nietzsche and the typewriter. In 1881, Friedrich Nietzsche’s vision was starting to fail, so he bought a typewriter and mastered the keys so he couldn’t continue doing what he loved most, writing.  One of his friends noticed a change in his writing.  “His terse prose had become even tighter, more telegraphic…in his own work, his thoughts in music and language often depend on the quality of pen and paper.”  It’s remarkable to think of how big of an effect the typewriter had on Nietzsche’s life, changing his writing styles and thoughts.  This is a reminder of how technology can configure the way we think. Carr implements this life story to show people that technology modifies our brain and the way we understand things. He also presents credible evidence to back him up.  He also references the Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study at Michigan University, who concluded that brain is infinitely malleable, and is also susceptible to change.  There are millions of neurons inside the brain that can routinely break and form new connections, which is what happens through different reading methods.  “The brain has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.”  .  Carr uses this example to explain to people how vulnerable and susceptible our brain is to changing, and that if we change our reading pattern, our brain and thinking process changes along with it.. Carr uses exemplification to supply the audience with credible evidence from the bloggers to back up his claim, and make his points more believable.  Carr’s use of logos is great, and he does a good job of potentially shifting our perspective on the accouterments of technology.  Carr creates the keystone of his argument and implements his claim real life examples to strengthen his validity in his personal views.

            The third strategy that Carr uses as an important tool for his article is Prolepsis.  This is designed to address any possible arguments that contradict or negate against your position. Prolepsis is something that was a must for Carr to add in his writing, because almost the entire population thinks of the Net of only having a positive impact on society. Carr knew that in order to impose his views, he also had to recognize and address his counter-claim. Carr first does this by pointing out the vast increase in reading and writing today.  It’s because of the internet, the cell phones, the texting and all the social media apps that have made reading a major aspect in our lives, far more than anything in the past.  But then Carr goes along, slowly starting his claim saying, “But it’s a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking-perhaps even a new sense of self.” Telling the readers and talking about his counter claim is essential is showing the population that he doesn’t possess a one-sided argument. It establishes more credibility in his defense as well.  What Carr also inquired was the addition of Goggle’s view, the company that his claims revolve around. “In Google’s view, information is a kind of commodity, a utilitarian resource that can be mined and processed with industrial efficiency. The more pieces of information we can access and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers.” Car brings up the argument of his opponents because he is fully aware of the skepticism of his criticism of the Internet.  Carr uses this to prevent his argument from being countered, and the accusation of being biased. 

Even though there were some flaws I personally think that Carr wrote a complete and profound article, that I found very persuasive in a sense. But there still were some weaknesses that he can improve on.  Carr could have done a more thorough job including more evidence to support his claims and overall argument, rather than going into too much specifics for the evidence and sources he did provide.  Also I think that his structure and organization of his writing could be somewhat cooked.  My opinion is that he should include all his counter argument references in the beginning part of article. He did a good job listing the stereotypical positives and negatives of the Net in the personal anecdote at the start, but he should have added the facts and beliefs of his counter argument then. It is more effective when a writer first states what “others” believe, and then goes on explains what he believes differently, and why.  It’s important to lay out what the views that contradicts yours, so that you can give examples and evidence to demonstrate your own position.  Other than that, I give credit to Carr for strongly utilizing rhetoric strategies, and being extremely persuasive attempting to change the audience’s views. He integrated these tactics extremely well, which helped him persuade the audience even more, and still manages to hold his point, and so I conclude Carr to be a success in this case. 

           

Writing assignment #2 Carr Rough Draft

Alex Schlack

Chris Werry

RWS100

November 9, 2014

“Is Google Making Us Stupid”

            In the late 1960’s, there was an invention, an invention that is debatably considered to be the best technological advancements ever to be created in history, the Internet. The Internet as we know it, has developed drastically over the years and has become one the soul aspects of our society today. It is the most convenient virtual system, possessing infinite amounts of information and available at anytime for people to access and learn anything they want.  And Google is the most popular and most visited specialized search engine in the world.  But recently, there has been a stirring debate over the negative effects of the Internet due to people questioning how it’s modifying our brain and our thinking process. In the article, “’Is Google Making Us Stupid,” Nicholas Carr engages in the worldwide discrepancy and shares his belief that the Internet does indeed change our world more than just simply opening up information. Carr’s overall claim is that technology, quick browsing and having Google spit out answers, has altered our way of critical thinking and focusing on detail.  In this paper, I will analyze the rhetoric strategies utilized by Carr to demonstrate his main argument and argue that Carr creates a very persuasive point even though his views go against the majority of the public.

            One of the most important strategies and rhetoric tactics that Carr exercises in his article is exemplification.  Exemplification is the process of providing the reader with evidence and credibility through various examples, statistics, anecdotes, and other people.  Carr uses exemplification in his writing to support his point that the Net is chipping away at our capacity to concentrate and contemplate normally. He uses an analogy to further explain his claim, when he adds, “Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words, now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.  One piece that Carr uses is a couple of bloggers that Carr follows, who have been talking about this phenomenon.  One of these bloggers is named Bruce Friedman, who is someone who reads and writes daily about computers.  He stated, “I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print,” and then goes on about how instead of thoroughly reading and understanding long passages he now, as he said, “skims it.” This especially is a prime example, and goes to show that even the people who read and write the most, see a natural change occurring from reading from the Net rather than from books. Carr also mentions a study that was done and ran by scholars from the University of London, where they created a five year research program website with access to journals, e-books, and other resource information and evaluated the visitors.  Only did they find that the visitors exhibited a form of skimming activity, and that almost nobody read more than one or two pages of each written passage. This example exemplifies this sort of “laziness” that people are acquiring from googling, and has basically ruined our reading capabilities to read things fully and have our brain comprehend everything.

            Another route that Carr takes to engrave his claim even more is the classic rhetoric strategy of logos. Logos is the ability of focusing on a more logical approach, in order to appeal to a large audience.  Carr initially starts out his article with an emotional standpoint simply comparing the negative downsides of the Net along with the benefits. Even though it is rather difficult to stand in Carr’s position, considering the public’s opinion is and will always be in favor of the internet, Carr does a good job of making “them” ponder.” He delivers a new style of factually persuading the reader into believing that technology truly does affect the way we think.  Carr uses a historical example, the story of Nietzsche and the typewriter. In 1881, Friedrich Nietzsche’s vision was starting to fail, so he bought a typewriter and mastered the keys so he couldn’t continue doing what he loved most, writing.  One of his friends noticed a change in his writing.  “His terse prose had become even tighter, more telegraphic…in his own work, his thoughts in music and language often depend on the quality of pen and paper.”  It’s remarkable to think of how big of an effect the typewriter had on Nietzsche’s life, changing his writing styles and thoughts.  This is an amazing reminder of how technology can configure the way we think. Carr implements this life story to show people that technology modifies our brain and the way we understand things. He also presents credible evidence to back him up.  He references the Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study at Michigan University, who concluded that brain is infinitely malleable, and is also susceptible to change.  There are millions of neurons inside the brain that can routinely break and form new connections, which is what happens through different reading methods.  “The brain has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.”  Carr’s use of logos is great, and he does a good job of potentially shifting our perspective on the accouterments of technology.  Carr creates the keystone of his argument and implements his claim real life examples to strengthen his validity in his personal views.

            The third strategy that Carr uses as an important tool for his article is Prolepsis.  This is designed to address any possible arguments that contradict or negate against your position. Prolepsis is something that was a must for Carr to add in his writing, because almost the entire population thinks of the Net of only having a positive impact on society. Carr knew that in order to impose his views, he also had to recognize and address his counter-claim. Carr first does this by pointing out the vast increase in reading and writing today.  It’s because of the internet, the cell phones, the texting and all the social media apps that have made reading a major aspect in our lives, far more than anything in the past.  But then Carr goes along, slowly starting his claim saying, “But it’s a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking-perhaps even a new sense of self.” Telling the readers and talking about his counter claim is essential is showing the population that he doesn’t possess a one-sided argument. It establishes more credibility in his defense as well.  What Carr also inquired was the addition of Goggle’s view, the company that his claims revolve around. “In Google’s view, information is a kind of commodity, a utilitarian resource that can be mined and processed with industrial efficiency. The more pieces of information we can access and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers.”  Carr uses this to prevent his argument from being countered, and protect him from being criticized by others for being biased. 

            Even though there were some flaws I personally think that Carr wrote a complete and profound article, that I found very persuasive in a sense. But there still were some weaknesses that he can improve on.  Carr could have done a more thorough job including more evidence to support his claims and overall argument, rather than going into too much specifics for the evidence and sources he did provide.  Also I think that his structure and organization of his writing could be somewhat cooked.  My opinion is that he should include all his counter argument references in the beginning part of article. He did a good job listing the stereotypical positives and negatives of the Net in the personal anecdote at the start, but he should have added the facts and beliefs of his counter argument then. It is more effective when a writer first states what “others” believe, and then goes on explains what he believes differently, and why.  It’s important to lay out what the views that contradicts yours, so that you can give examples and evidence to demonstrate your own position.  Other than that, I give credit to Carr for strongly utilizing rhetoric strategies.  He integrated these tactics extremely well, which helped him persuade the audience even more, and still manages to hold his point, and so concluding Carr is a success in his argument.  

           

Writing Assignment #2 For Profits Final Draft

Alex Schlack

Chris Werry

RWS100

October 17 2014

“Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges”

            Out of all the immense educational opportunities after High School, why have for-profit colleges been stirring up so much debate? For-profit colleges are public institutions managed and operated by private, money seeking businesses and corporations.  For-profit colleges have always existed in the past, but they were always referred to as career or trade schools that only offered certificates and associate degrees to people who lacked the money or couldn’t get accepted into the traditional universities. And since these huge universities have been getting more challenging to get into due to lower acceptance rates, and the community colleges reach or exceed their enrollment capacities, these for-profits have been receiving loads of attention from students whom this is their only option. You can see their mass increase their enrollment numbers, which have increased by 225 percent. Now a lot of people didn’t see this upcoming exponential growth except for a couple people. Some geniuses took these once dying non-profit organizations and revolutionized them into moneymaking machines.  A lot of the money that these for-profits make is actually from loans and grants form the government. However, people are skeptic about the fact that these for-profit colleges are receiving such large amounts of money for student aid.  The truth is, all this money isn’t going to a good cause.  That’s why people are questioning for-profit’s suspiciously large student debt, recruitment tactics, and misleading information.  All these viable concerns about for-profit colleges are discussed, clarified and complicated in Kevin Carey’s article, “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges.”  Carey’s overall argument states that even though there are some problems and shady activity with for-profit colleges, they still play an important role within our society.  I will personally observe and analyze Carey’s work and how he presents the pros and cons of For-Profit Colleges. In his writing, Carey introduces various claims about main questions associated with these famous for-profit colleges but there are only three main ones that he talks about the most.

            Carey first claims that for-profits have a higher rate of default in loans than needed, since a majority of the students are from low-income backgrounds. Carey states in his article, “Many students come form low-income backgrounds. You don’t need a college degree to know that large debt plus small income equals high risk of default.” In this Carey is pointing out how obvious it is to know that people with low-income backgrounds are not going to be able to pay of their debt from student loans, causing high amounts of default. Carey doesn’t consider for-profit colleges as “bad”, but he clearly implies that is wrong for them to set up these students so that when they graduate or if they even graduate, they will have mass amounts of student debt. Carey backs up his argument by saying, “Even the for-profit Corinthian Colleges estimated in official documents filed with Securities and Exchange Commission that more than half the loans it makes to its own students will go bad. Corinthian still makes a profit, because it gets most of its money form loans guaranteed by Uncle Sam.”  In this he gives a valid example of a for-profit college that obtains a profit from loans of students who cant pay them off because they don’t have the money to do so.  It is sad I think that these for-profit schools are admitting these students knowing that they will be inept to paying off the loans in the future.   In addition to illustrating Carey’s argument, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) actually did a study and created a report on for-profit colleges that ultimately extends Carey’s claim. The GAO is an independent agency that provides to the United States, audit, evaluation, and investigative services that makes reports and recommendations looking to greater economy and efficiency.  They wrote, “When students do not make payments on their federal loans and the loans are in default, the federal government and taxpayers assume nearly all the risk and are left with the costs.  For example, in the Direct Loan program, the federal government and taxpayers pick up 100 percent of the unpaid principal on defaulted loans. In addition, students who default are also at risk of facing a number of personal and financial burdens.”  While Carey’s claim is general and mainly opinionated, the GAO provides concrete detail and evidence that builds off Carey’s viewpoint that for-profits do make tons of money by claiming 100 percent of the student default loans.  Carey knows that some students will not be able to pay their loans due to their low-income backgrounds, that is expected.  And since their debt cannot be repaid, they become ineligible for assistance under federal loan programs and cant receive any financial aid until the loan is repaid fully.   This shows how for-profit’s high default rates affect the students after they graduate, and this is why lots of people doubt the purpose of these schools and question why the government hasn’t reformed them. It also exemplifies why there is such a high rate of default from the students as long as the consequences that come along with it. This leads us to Carey’s second claim, in which he talks about the benefits of for-profit colleges.

            In Carey’s second claim he talks about the pros of for-profit colleges and how they have contributed and fulfilled needs that other traditional universities have ignored. Carey gives various examples of for-profit colleges that have come up with new ideas or innovations to make their reputation better. He does this by saying, “While old-line research universities were gliding 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.” Carey argues that that for-profits are showing efforts to make differences that focus on public interest. Carey presents another example, “The for-profit Kaplan University recently struck a deal with the California community-college system to provide course that the bankrupt public colleges cannot.”  This is a prime demonstration exemplifying the little steps these for-profit colleges are taking to better themselves and attract more students.  They are giving students alternative opportunities that traditional universities and community colleges aren’t.  Another element that Carey mentions is that the for-profit sector possesses regional accreditation, meaning that their practices are ethical and acceptable, employing suitable quality assurance. Michael J. Seiden, a former faculty member and administrator for some of these for-profit colleges, surprisingly lists the main weaknesses and downsides of for-profit schools that he has recognized from his personal experience of being associated with them. Seiden both supports and contradicts Carey’s claim when he mentions the for profit’s aggressive marketing tactics and poor admissions criteria as well as their lack of business incorporation in classes.  He lists some benefits and some negatives of for-profits since he actually worked for them.  One point he argues, “Some for-profit institutions have been sanctioned in the past for overly aggressive marketing and enrollment tactics. In addition, they have been criticized for marketing to any and all potential students, regardless of their ability to handle college-level work.”  This is a big weakness that for profit schools seem to have; they have such weak admission policies so they tend to take many students who aren’t ready for college courses because of their money, which is why more academically students typically don’t apply.  Seiden also states, “For-profit universities view their students as customers, and to attract and retain those customers, degree programs and curricula must be market-driven. Students are motivated to earn their degrees because they aspire to upward mobility in their careers.”  The purpose of him saying this, is to stress the importance of professors teaching the students the right way and providing them with the correct curricula that best supports their career needs. Because a lot of the teachers for these for-profit colleges base most of their teaching methods of academics rather than motivating them and preparing them for employers demand in their field.  While Seiden was a former employer at these for-profit colleges, his overall argument agrees and contradicts that of Carey’s view that for-profits have lots of benefits, and possess qualities that traditional universities don’t have.  Seiden believes that for-profit colleges contain flaws and negative aspects as well as some positive effects seen from him first hand.

            As Carey mentions in his original text, “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges,” he conveys his third claim being that one of the only reasons for-profit schools exist is to “prevent educational market failures.” Universities such as DeVry, Chapman, and Grand Canyon tend to serve students that other students “ignore.” Carey supports his argument by implementing how some of the for-profit colleges, “Provide courses that bankrupt colleges cannot,” such as the American Public University for example, who trains students to become Wall-Mart cashiers.  Some Professors of Harvard University published a study called, “For-Profit Colleges, The Future of Children.” Utilizing statistic as evidence in the article written by Claudia Goldin, Lawrence Katz, and David Demming, they wrote that, “For-Profit colleges were responsible for 30 percent of the total growth in postsecondary enrollment and degrees awarded in the first decade of the twentieth century.”  The professors are emphasizing how significantly for-profit colleges have grown to the point that more than 30 percent of students who attend are graduating, disregarding the mass decrease in state funding. The Harvard professors also build off Carey’s claim even more when they said that for-profit colleges “Enroll a more disadvantaged group of beginning undergraduates than do other postsecondary schools.”  These Harvard professors state the actual numbers describing exactly how many students have been successful from the for-profit system, extending Carey’s argument regarding how for-profits serve a specific population of people that other communities often ignore. This extends Carey’s claim that for-profits do in fact help prevent market failure, because they offer courses for students in certain fields or for specific jobs that other colleges do not.  If they didn’t exist, there would be a large enough population for the individual market per say, and it would eventually fail because college graduates are pursuing other careers. Carey is stressing that these schools are preparing some of their students for maybe lower paying jobs, but are jobs that students form other high end colleges don’t look at and that the Harvard professors give evidence to prove.  By executing Carey’s claim making a valid connection to the views of the Harvard professors, the evidence is factual and backed up with solid credibility. In this article especially, it is overall assumed that these for-profits are needed in society for they serve a certain purpose, and aren’t going anywhere.

            Through my entire analysis of Carey’s various claims, I was able to discover the different meanings of them, and how these outside sources extended, contradicted, challenged each of Carey’s arguments. Even though for-profit colleges contain flaws such as misleading or unethical practices, false advertisement, product liability, and misinterpretation of investment opportunity, they are still needed because of role they play. These educational systems are specialized institutions that are considered as businesses, and the students as consumers.  So these federal regulations provide “consumer protection” to these consumers. That’s why these schools are a crucial and key necessity to education, and the government shouldn’t make laws that fight against them.  There will always be responses concerning the suspicious activity that for-profits undergo or fraudulent acts that they are accused of. But people need so seek the main reason why they exist. Some of Carey’s strengths are his position on the debate, providing opinions and views and supports those views with evidence form opposing sides rather than just being biased. He also did a good job of stating his claims directly about what he believes.  One of the weaknesses includes not containing enough sources. To me, the more sources and factual evidence the better, and the more it helps convince or sway a reader a certain direction. Also Carey should have induced someone into his writing that disagrees with him, so he can verbally states what that person thinks and what he thinks instead of him. You want people to know that you aren’t  just blocking other views, you want to incorporate them and then go on about how yours differ and why. I personally agree with Carey’s second claim that there are benefits from for-profit colleges and that they do some positive things that other traditional universities and community colleges ignore. For-profits could improve in some areas, but they do educate people and steer them in the right direction of their career and get them to graduate. Although some of Carey’s claims are contradicting, his overall argument clearly states that despite the problems that exist, for-profits are innovative and have a special spot in higher education assisting a specific population of students, and are ultimately here to stay.