Summary Of Charles Murray Are Too Many People Going To College

Nick Smith
Professor Rocha
Intro to College Writing
7 October 2017
Analysis Essay
In The Article "Are Too Many People Going to College?" Charles Murray claims that there are too many people attending college. While this seems like an easily disputable claim, there are three reasons that he believes less people should go to college. The first point Murray brings up is that a liberal education can and should be gained in elementary and middle school rather than college. He also believes that there are many people going to college who don't need to because they already have the knowledge and skills necessary for a career. Murray also thinks that many students arc going to college solely to get their ticket for employers to consider their resume:

He believes that a young man should become an electrician, something he is already good at, rather than go to college to become a manager, something that he doesn't have natural skills for. Murray is comparing the income expectation and says, speaking of the young man, "Realistically, he should be looking at the incomes toward the bottom of the distribution of managers." (p. 2). In this statement Murray is assuming that the man never gets better at the skills needed to be a manager. He assumes that after four years of college the young man is still only average in interpersonal and intrapersonal abilities. This assumption does not play in Murray's favor because most people in his audience have been to college. Most people who go to college feel that it is a growing experience; during college years people learn and develop various new skills and capabilities. Murray is also assuming that the young man will not need above average interpersonal and intrapersonal skills to be a top

He is targeting people in the education field, student, and parents. Many of his arguments against college do not have strong enough evidence to support someone in his audience. His biggest weakness is his assumptions. Many educators would not agree with what he is assuming, therefor foiling his logic. Had he assumed less and provided more facts, he would have won the vote from much of his audience. I Iis argument as a whole also would have been more effective if he had stuck to his claims instead of breaking off on random tangents for paragraphs at a