Summary Of Should Everyone Go To College By Stephanie Owen And Sawhill

“Should Everyone Go to College?” by Stephanie Owen and Isabel Sawhill discusses the popular opinion about going to college if possible. The authors don’t explicitly state their opinions, but are implied. The authors do an excellent job of representing opposing arguments, however, they seem to react in a predictable way every time. The authors also tend to shy away from using emotionally-loaded words. The authors also do a poor job of stating what exactly they want the audience to know. An article about going to college would generally be intended for high schoolers or others looking to decide on whether to go to college; the tone, diction, and evidence of the article, however, seem to apply more to parents or people with influence on others.

The authors do a fantastic job of presenting these opinions fairly. The authors always present data or figures supporting college degree benefits. They also never undermine the quality or credibility of the data. However, the authors do a poor job of reacting to the opposing evidence. The authors usually react by stating that “for a given individual, the benefits [of going to college] may not outweigh the costs” (212). This reaction seems obvious and very minor, because there is never something that is always 100% good. And, the authors don’t generally provide data to support their counterclaim. Similarly, the authors “take a rather narrow view of the value of a college degree, focusing on the earnings premium” (210). Because, they seem to present some of the “non-monetary benefits of schooling which are harder to measure but no less important” (210), but provide no counter arguments against them. Overall, I believe that the authors don’t do a great job of providing evidence, but do a great job of stating opposing

However, they do a poor job of staying on that task. The authors jump around from side topic to side topic. They talk about how “there is also room for improvement in the financial aid system” (221), why “colleges need to do more to ensure that their students graduate” (221), and more topics that are not related to the stated purpose. These mini rants distract the audience from the main stated purpose. This prevents the audience from focusing on the main purpose and pursue a side topic instead. This also hurts the ethical appeal, because of not effectively accomplishing the stated purpose. This made me feel as if the authors had a weak claim to begin with and are now trying to find more side topics to fill