Cruz and Moores Arguments - Essay Example

Text Analysis Essay The current United s government proposes rating s for higher education through a system. This rating framework will apparently get billions of taxpayer funds yearly in the form of loans and scholarships from federal organizations. Although some opinions in support of the rating system are fairly justified, it is still a dismal strategy with more limitations than benefits. The following paper analyzes the views of four New York Times debaters on whether the government should grade colleges. Cruz and Moore’s argument hinges on logos because of the logical argument they present, against Bastedo and Vedder’s argument that presents an ethical argument (ethos) on the weaknesses of the rating system. Thesis statement: The government should grade rate colleges because its bases are not clear. Bastedo’s argument is most effective among the four authors because it touches on quality of education against the rating policy. Ethos Joseph B. Moore advances his credibility by thrusting an ethically correct argument. According to Moore, higher learning institutes have different rates of graduation and graduation success. After pointing this fact out, Moore fails to question this difference. This question is crucial for an administration attempting to rate colleges and universities and connected them to federal aid (Moore 2014). Richard Vedder says the Obama administration does not deserve the people’s attention since graduation and performance outcomes of higher learning institutes are problems caused by Obamacare. However, this is an unethical approach to the problem since Vedder implies state governments should determine rating systems of colleges and universities. Vedder does not consider the fact that state authorities have no experience in handling rating systems for the education sector (Vedder 2014). Michael Bastedo argues for the exchange of student assessment for government assessment. One finds that the ethics of this approach are not new. The government tried this approach nearly a decade ago and the quality of education dropped. Afterwards, the government institutionalizes this deteriorated nature of education slowly because of the implementation of Bastedo’s argument (Bastedo 2014). Lastly, Jose L. Cruz points out the heterogeneous nature of higher learning and skills grasped by alumni in a given discipline. There is poor understanding by accrediting powers that led to higher learning institutes releasing immense numbers of students unqualified for high-grossing jobs (Cruz 2014). Pathos Cruz uses the fear that higher learning institutions operate with the motive of returning investments, including the government (Cruz 2014). Similarly, Bastedo implies that the unintentional effects of a rating system can render certain colleges worthless. Bastedo further uses high school rating systems as an example (Bastedo 2014). Vedder does not employ much emotion to argue other than saying “bad news” overshadows “good news” when it comes to education rating systems (Vedder 2014). Lastly, Moore’s argument is calm because it simply shows the good certain colleges and universities have been to minorities and the poor. Rating systems will mostly likely ruin such colleges (Moore 2014). Logos Cruz’s argument of an “outcomes-based funding system” applies little logic. This is because such a system would depend on a possible flawed “outcomes” evaluation campaign (Cruz 2014). Similarly, Moore’s argument lacks substance because rating systems rarely give any real information about particular institutes for higher learning (Moore 2014). Vedder’s logic is that colleges and universities will impose a “one-size-fits-all set of bureaucratic criteria” because of the pressure they receive from the current government (Vedder 2014). Bastedo’s logic is different because he sets the limitations of an assessment system. In turn, Bastedo says these limits pose consequences by promoting the manipulation of statistics in favor of those responsible (Bastedo 2014). In its persistence that institutions of higher learning provide measurable student performance, Cruz’s logic of outcomes evaluation campaign will diminish the quality of the American system of education. In addition, all related protocols for measuring student “success” depend highly on issues of quality and imprecise opinions. This logic needs the consideration of an ever increasingly unequal American community, particularly in terms of income. This inequality eventually affects the rate of admission to high learning institutions, which also affects the performance of colleges. In such cases, performance becomes an element in the government’s outcome assessment. As a result, the element makes an unequal contribution to the overall evaluation, which in turn affects the institution unfairly (Cruz 2014). Similarly, Moore’s argument that the Obama administration presents will give higher learning institutes that perform poorly a bad rating. These bases will certainly lower the admission of new students to institutes in both arguments. This argument settles on the notion that a rating system for colleges will certainly ruin them, especially institutions that cater to students who cannot afford higher education (Moore 2014). Cruz’s reasoning is closer to Moore’s argument. Cruz’s logic of “expand[ing] access” can be interpreted easily as radically lowering access to higher education. A truth about this type of interpretation is that numerous bureaucrats today support such a rating system (Cruz 2014). Vedder and Bastedo’s logics are far away. According to Vedder, an administration even fails to “deliver the mail” should certainly not begin rating any schools for that matter (Vedder 2014). One can use Bastedo’s stance to claim Vedder’s argument is rightwing falsehood. Bastedo says the same way “teaching to the test” lowers education quality the same way manipulating rating numbers decreases overall learning (Bastedo 2014). I believe Bastedo’s argument has the most effect because it addresses the implications of the rating system proposal. These implications show that previous education policies like the No Child Left Behind act and Race to the Top only appear promising. However, the government, public, and higher learning institutions should reflect on their unintentional effects before continuing with it. Such a point of view is likely to be accepted by its target readers considering the question of grading systems demands the review of its effects. The only consequence Bastedo’s argument may have for its target audience is the deterioration of confidence in teachers and school administration (Bastedo 2014). Conclusion The government should grade rate colleges because its bases are not clear. Rhetoric certainly affects one’s ability to persuade readers or any audience. Arguments presented by the New York Times debaters did a good job combining all ethos, pathos, and logos elements. However, the levels of these elements in all four arguments varied. This variation affected readers’ levels of persuasion, as well as the legitimacy of the arguments. The credibility and effectiveness of a rating system is questionable considering its bases are not clear. Whether the government bases this system on college and university outcomes and performances or their respective financial abilities should be clear. Otherwise, the Obama administration should come up with approaches for holding colleges and universities responsible when dealing with reduced rates of graduation, escalating student debts, and inaccessibility for the underprivileged and minorities. Works Cited Bastedo, Michael. Government College Ratings Could Have Unintended Consequences. 2014. New York Times. Web. 2014, July 26. Cruz, Jose L. College Rating System Might Lead to Needed Reforms. 2014. New York Times. Web. 2014, July 26. Moore, Joseph B. Government College Ratings System Is a Distraction. 2014. New York Times. Web. 2014, July 26. Vedder, Richard. No Need to Centralize Education. 2014. New York Times. Web. 2014, July 26. Read More