Compare And Contrast Magness And Brennan

Not Suckered Afterall The purpose of this paper is to refute an argument made by Magness and Brennan’s from their paper Gen Eds: Sucker U. In Magness and Brennan’s paper they argue through a variety of means that colleges requiring students to take general education classes are immoral; the means that they use are empirical data and deductive reasoning. In this essay I will initially lay out Magness and Brennan’s argument to my own understanding from their paper; after which I will consider some consequences if the argument is sound then following that the last half of the paper will be my objections to Magness and Brennan’s argument along with some concluding thoughts.

Before I get to deep into things one must understand that in this paper

Since it is an elimination argument there are a multitude of reasons. For instance instead of the reason for premise one being rent seeking or human capital theory it could be the spread the joy theory. The spread the joy theory is pretty straightforward being that the reason why colleges require students to take and satisfy gen ed requirements is for the professors. The professors love their subject so much they want to share it with others and them others being the students. So what do the professors do? They beg and beg the high officials of the college to make requirements such that students will be required to take their classes so they may experience the joy of said subject. So this makes the argument

The grounds given for the premise were that it cost X a lot of money which could lead to debt and that it takes a lot of Xs time up which could be contributed to something more meaningful and valuable to X which makes it such that colleges requiring students to take and satisfy general education requirements for rent seeking purposes immoral. I would argue that these are good grounds for character development. Doing something that you hate or dislike that takes up a lot of your time challenges you as a person, hence making you a better person who you get across the river. The same thing is applicable to the case about money. Getting into circumstances where you have to make hard decisions about money and then getting through them make you smarter with money and how to deal with it, so even if X got into debt I would not see that as a bad thing. So saying that the rent seeking theory is immoral does not work in my view because the grounds are actually positive as opposed to the negative view of them by Magness and