Essay 4

Brett Stinson
Professor Werry
RWS 100
11/20/14

Essay 4 

The evolution of the internet has brought so many new revolutionary aspects into what we think of writing and reading. It has opened up so many new forms of writing, such as social media and instant messaging, and even advance previous forms or writing to make them more appealing by allowing easy access to a larger audience.  Ever since the creation of the first web page there has been such a large leap for the evolution of the internet. Although the internet has become such a revolution in technology, there has been a debate as to whether the Internet has brought more good or more bad. Clive Thompson and Nicholas Carr wrote the articles “Public Thinking” and “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” respectively, where the both discuss the argument of whether the internet has had an impact on our brains ability to function correctly. Both authors take very different sides in this argument as one discusses how the internet is an overall beneficial resource for reading and writing, while the other takes the side that the internet is an overall harmful resource for reading and writing. Despite both authors presenting very strong cases for the argument, I believe that the internet has become harmful to the way humans read and write. I came into the world as the massive internet landslide was reaching its peak and I have been immersed in the world of technology ever since. From this perspective I will present my own ideas on why the internet is so harmful to the way humans read and write and I will support my ideas with other texts and evidence.

Although the Internet has brought along a massive surge of new technology with it, many negative side effects have started to be noticed by many and have stirred up a very large debate. In 2008 an article was published onto The Atlantic webpage by writer Nicholas Carr entitled “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, Carr examines how the internet has created a decline in our everyday cognitive functions and has damaged our skills in reading and writing. He discusses mainly how the internet has deteriorated our mind and our level of concentration, this is a side effect from the constant jumping from page to page on the internet. While discussing this side effect of prolonged internet use, he brings up this comparison to the past and how media has retained the same negative side effects even before the internet has come into existence,

As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles (Carr 2).

By comparing how the deteriorated concentration has been a side effect long before the internet became a large everyday tool, Carr has developed a case that even though media has always had this effect on the mind, the new constant role of the internet in our everyday lives has intensified the effects on the brain. Carr has experienced these very effects first hand in his anecdote at the beginning of his article where he makes a comparison of how the internet is “tinkering with [his] brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory”(Carr 1), he compares this the the film 2001: A Space Odyssey, where the supercomputer HAL is having his brain destroyed by the main character David Bowman. Carr is supported by a British writer by the name of Sarah Harris in her article “Too much internet use 'can damage teenagers' brains”, where she analyzes how prolonged use of the internet has created an increase in the amount of grey matter in our brains and how this “could affect their concentration and memory, as well as their ability to make decisions and set goals. It could also reduce their inhibitions and lead to ‘inappropriate’ behaviour”(Harris 1). She supports this claim with a study conducted by neuroscientists where they MRI’s to look at the difference in brain matter between those who use the internet very frequently compared to those who rarely use the internet. The teenagers that use the internet less had a substantial drop in the amount of grey matter evident in the brain while those who use it frequently have a large amount that could be the cause of the deteriorated level of concentration found by many avid internet users.

Although the internet has created a decline in our ability to concentrate, the internet also has some positive contributions to our sense of focus and concentration. In the chapter “Public Thinking” by Clive Thompson in his book Smarter Than You Think, he discusses how the internet has brought along more good than bad and the internet has provoked many to partake in actively writing in a community and discussing everyday topics over writing. One main topic he discusses in his text is what is known as the “Audience Effect”, this is the effect where the presentation of a larger audience will drive the writer to produce a more quality piece of work than if they had not had an audience at all, and this large audience is easily established in the forms of blogs and forums on web pages. Later on in his article he goes on to discuss how increased writing can improve the quality of memory with a early cognitive study,

“Early evidence came in 1978, when two psychologists tested people to see how well they remembered words that they’d written down compared to words they’d merely read. Writing won out. The people who wrote words remembered them better than those who’d only read them- probably because generating text yourself “requires more cognitive effort than does reading and effort increases memorability.”(Thompson 57)

With this study, you can conclude that from Thompsons text the positive effects of writing on memory and the increased amount of writing in our everyday lives due to the internet, the internet proves to have a positive impact on our memory. Despite the fact that the internet has such a large negative effect on our sense of concentration and focus, it has the potential to have a positive effect on our sense of memory through the deeper writing found in blogs and forums. In an article written by Howard Rheingold titled “Attention Literacy”, he addresses how the internet has had a negative correlation on the brain, but he states how our attention is something that can always be improved and with the correct discipline, the internet could potentially be a vital resource. He discusses how “Multitasking, or "continuous partial attention"... are not necessarily bad alternatives to focused attention”(Rheingold 1), this is the case as long as our attention is in the right place and not distracted by social media sites.

Beginning in the early 1990’s the Internet has been making constant improvements to fix glitches, bugs and to overall improve its performance, with this came social media and a wide variety of websites for our own amusement and entertainment. In recent years many people debate whether or not the Internet has more positive or negative effects on human cognitive functions. As a student living in the golden age of technology and the Internet, I find myself using the Internet more often as I have to do homework, write papers and research online. Although I do the majority of my schoolwork online, it is not the primary use of my computer. Since the 7th grade I have been a semi-active user of the internet and have always had the social media accounts for the newest websites. For the majority of my life I have been using the internet for both business and pleasure and with this I feel as though I am not at the top of my mental capacity. Just as the Internet has ads and popups, my brain constantly has new ideas and thoughts coming up that it is nearly impossible to focus on one thing sometimes. This can make doing homework challenging when I am one tab away from seeing what parties are going or go and watch funny videos on Youtube.

Although  the Internet has brought so many forms of distractions it has also brought with it more knowledge than any one human can retain. The age of the internet has brought an idea of constant knowledge of what is going on around the world, you can now open up your phone and find out what your friends are doing or even learn about what is going on in any country around the world via news websites and even on social media. There is one tool that has proven to be most useful part of the internet, the power of everlasting knowledge. Despite one of the main forms of pleasure on the internet is social media, websites such as Wikipedia has introduced the ability to nearly instantly find out information about essentially anything you want to know. I find myself going on wikipedia for elongated periods of time just reading about people, places and events in history. This has mainly only shown benefits in normal conversation as I have the ability to recall odd facts that happen to relate to the topic of the conversation.

With my own observations of how the Internet has impacted my life and how it is connected to my skills in reading and writing, I have come to believe that the internet has more negatives than it has positives. Despite the Internet providing the tools to learn about practically anything, with this great power comes great responsibility. Responsibility being the ability to retain your sense of focus and not fall to the depths of social media. Social Media has brought misuse to the internet by plaguing the good intentions that Robert Kahn and Vint Cerf had in mind when birthing the internet.
Just by observing how I manage my time while on the internet doing schoolwork compared to my time management while doing work on paper. Although the Internet is predominantly composed of informative sites, online shopping to save time in your everyday life and educational sites to help users of all ages in assisting them comprehend practically any task, the power of social media blankets the shine of the useful resources of the internet.

Through analyzing the works of both Clive Thompson and Nicholas Carr in great depth and with my own personal experiences, the internet has had a large unfavorable effect on the way we read and write. This unfavorable effect is due to the internet being filled with distractions and it presents the information in a new way that is much different than the traditional way of learning as the internet gives information as fast as you can process it. While information is being presented in this way it causes the brain to work in that way while reading and this causes complications and leads to attention deficiency. Despite the internet bringing up many negative aspects, the internet shows much promise and with the precise discipline and attention the internet could potentially be a very valuable resource as it is basically the largest book of information in the world.



Works Cited:

Harris, Sarah. "Too Much Internet Use 'Can Damage Teenagers' Brains'" Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2015196/Too-internet-use-damage-teenagers-brains.html

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 01 July 2008. Web. 02 Dec. 2014.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/

Thompson, Clive. "Public Thinking." Smarter than You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds for the Better. N.p.: Penguin Group, 2013. 45-69. Print.

Rheingold, Howard. "Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media Literacies (EDUCAUSE Review) | EDUCAUSE.edu." Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media Literacies. Educause Review Online, n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2014.

http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/attention-and-other-21st-century-social-media-literacies&gt

Final Paper Rough Draft

Brett Stinson
Professor Werry
RWS 100
12/4/14

Final Paper

The evolution of the internet has brought so many new revolutionary aspects into what we think of writing and reading. It has opened up so many new forms of writing, such as social media and instant messaging, and even advance previous forms or writing to make them more appealing by allowing easy access to a larger audience.  Ever since the creation of the first web page there has been such a large leap for the evolution of the internet. Although the internet has become such a revolution in technology, there has been a debate as to whether the Internet has brought more good or more bad. Clive Thompson and Nicholas Carr wrote the articles “Public Thinking” and “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” respectively, where the both discuss the argument of whether the internet has had an impact on our brains ability to function correctly. Both authors take very different sides in this argument as one discusses how the internet is an overall beneficial resource for reading and writing, while the other takes the side that the internet is an overall harmful resource for reading and writing. Despite both authors presenting very strong cases for the argument, I believe that the internet has become harmful to the way humans read and write. I came into the world as the massive internet landslide was reaching its peak and I have been immersed in the world of technology ever since. From this perspective I will present my own ideas on why the internet is so harmful to the way humans read and write and I will support my ideas with other texts and evidence.
Although the Internet has brought along a massive surge of new technology with it, many negative side effects have started to be noticed by many and have stirred up a very large debate. In 2008 an article was published onto The Atlantic webpage by writer Nicholas Carr entitled “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, Carr examines how the internet has created a decline in our everyday cognitive functions and has damaged our skills in reading and writing. He discusses mainly how the internet has deteriorated our mind and our level of concentration, this is a side effect from the constant jumping from page to page on the internet. While discussing this side effect of prolonged internet use, he brings up this comparison to the past and how media has retained the same negative side effects even before the internet has come into existence,
As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles (Carr 2).
By comparing how the deteriorated concentration has been a side effect long before the internet became a large everyday tool, Carr has developed a case that even though media has always had this effect on the mind, the new constant role of the internet in our everyday lives has intensified the effects on the brain. Carr has experienced these very effects first hand in his anecdote at the beginning of his article where he makes a comparison of how the internet is “tinkering with [his] brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory”(Carr 1), he compares this the the film 2001: A Space Odyssey, where the supercomputer HAL is having his brain destroyed by the main character David Bowman. Carr is supported by a British writer by the name of Sarah Harris in her article “Too much internet use 'can damage teenagers' brains”, where she analyzes how prolonged use of the internet has created an increase in the amount of grey matter in our brains and how this “could affect their concentration and memory, as well as their ability to make decisions and set goals. It could also reduce their inhibitions and lead to ‘inappropriate’ behaviour”(Harris 1). She supports this claim with a study conducted by neuroscientists where they MRI’s to look at the difference in brain matter between those who use the internet very frequently compared to those who rarely use the internet. The teenagers that use the internet less had a substantial drop in the amount of grey matter evident in the brain while those who use it frequently have a large amount that could be the cause of the deteriorated level of concentration found by many avid internet users.
Although the internet has created a decline in our ability to concentrate, the internet also has some positive contributions to our sense of focus and concentration. In the chapter “Public Thinking” by Clive Thompson in his book Smarter Than You Think, he discusses how the internet has brought along more good than bad and the internet has provoked many to partake in actively writing in a community and discussing everyday topics over writing. One main topic he discusses in his text is what is known as the “Audience Effect”, this is the effect where the presentation of a larger audience will drive the writer to produce a more quality piece of work than if they had not had an audience at all, and this large audience is easily established in the forms of blogs and forums on web pages. Later on in his article he goes on to discuss how increased writing can improve the quality of memory with a early cognitive study,
“Early evidence came in 1978, when two psychologists tested people to see how well they remembered words that they’d written down compared to words they’d merely read. Writing won out. The people who wrote words remembered them better than those who’d only read them- probably because generating text yourself “requires more cognitive effort than does reading and effort increases memorability.”(Thompson 57)
With this study, you can conclude that from Thompsons text the positive effects of writing on memory and the increased amount of writing in our everyday lives due to the internet, the internet proves to have a positive impact on our memory. Despite the fact that the internet has such a large negative effect on our sense of concentration and focus, it has the potential to have a positive effect on our sense of memory through the deeper writing found in blogs and forums. In an article written by Howard Rheingold titled “Attention Literacy”, he addresses how the internet has had a negative correlation on the brain, but he states how our attention is something that can always be improved and with the correct discipline, the internet could potentially be a vital resource. He discusses how “Multitasking, or "continuous partial attention"... are not necessarily bad alternatives to focused attention”(Rheingold 1), this is the case as long as our attention is in the right place and not distracted by social media sites.
Beginning in the early 1990’s the Internet has been making constant improvements to fix glitches, bugs and to overall improve its performance, with this came social media and a wide variety of websites for our own amusement and entertainment. In recent years many people debate whether or not the Internet has more positive or negative effects on human cognitive functions. As a student living in the golden age of technology and the Internet, I find myself using the Internet more often as I have to do homework, write papers and research online. Although I do the majority of my schoolwork online, it is not the primary use of my computer. Since the 7th grade I have been a semi-active user of the internet and have always had the social media accounts for the newest websites. For the majority of my life I have been using the internet for both business and pleasure and with this I feel as though I am not at the top of my mental capacity. Just as the Internet has ads and popups, my brain constantly has new ideas and thoughts coming up that it is nearly impossible to focus on one thing sometimes. This can make doing homework challenging when I am one tab away from seeing what parties are going or go and watch funny videos on Youtube.
Although  the Internet has brought so many forms of distractions it has also brought with it more knowledge than any one human can retain. The age of the internet has brought an idea of constant knowledge of what is going on around the world, you can now open up your phone and find out what your friends are doing or even learn about what is going on in any country around the world via news websites and even on social media. There is one tool that has proven to be most useful part of the internet, the power of everlasting knowledge. Despite one of the main forms of pleasure on the internet is social media, websites such as Wikipedia has introduced the ability to nearly instantly find out information about essentially anything you want to know. I find myself going on wikipedia for elongated periods of time just reading about people, places and events in history. This has mainly only shown benefits in normal conversation as I have the ability to recall odd facts that happen to relate to the topic of the conversation.
With my own observations of how the Internet has impacted my life and how it is connected to my skills in reading and writing, I have come to believe that the internet has more negatives than it has positives. Despite the Internet providing the tools to learn about practically anything, with this great power comes great responsibility. Responsibility being the ability to retain your sense of focus and not fall to the depths of social media. Social Media has brought misuse to the internet by plaguing the good intentions that Robert Kahn and Vint Cerf had in mind when birthing the internet. Just by observing how I manage my time while on the internet doing schoolwork compared to my time management while doing work on paper. Although the Internet is predominantly composed of informative sites, online shopping to save time in your everyday life and educational sites to help users of all ages in assisting them comprehend practically any task, the power of social media blankets the shine of the useful resources of the internet.
Through analyzing the works of both Clive Thompson and Nicholas Carr in great depth and with my own personal experiences, the internet has had a large unfavorable effect on the way we read and write. This unfavorable effect is due to the internet being filled with distractions and it presents the information in a new way that is much different than the traditional way of learning as the internet gives information as fast as you can process it. While information is being presented in this way it causes the brain to work in that way while reading and this causes complications and leads to attention deficiency. Despite the internet bringing up many negative aspects, the internet shows much promise and with the precise discipline and attention the internet could potentially be a very valuable resource as it is basically the largest book of information in the world.

Final Paper Outline Reviewed

Brett Stinson

Professor Werry

RWS 100

11/20/14

Essay 4 Outline

Intro:

Discusses the debate of whether the internet has more benefits or disadvantages and introduces my own viewpoint on how the internet is a hinderance to humankind. I also give a brief introduction of myself to establish credibility for my anecdote later on.

Body Paragraph 1:

This first body paragraph establishes the claim that the internet has negative side effects on the brain by providing a text from Nicholas Carr and supporting it with a text by Sarah Harris.I organize my text by providing my own side first, then go into the counteragrument so that I leave no error in my argument.

Claim 1:

“As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles”(Carr 2)

Subclaim 1:

Nicholas Carr addresses how even in the 1960s before the internet was in existence, media had the same effect as it does today in spite of the major evolution of media. He states that it deteriorates your concentration and contemplation which is one of the worst side effects of prolonged Internet use.

Sources:

Harris, Sarah. "Too Much Internet Use 'Can Damage Teenagers' Brains'" Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2015196/Too-internet-use-damage-teenagers-brains.html

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 01 July 2008. Web. 02 Dec. 2014.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/

How Sources Support:

Using these sources would help support my argument by providing several cases to support the argument that the Internet is deteriorating the brain and its cognitive functions. The article from Daily Mail, which is a United Kingdom online newspaper, provides a medical study showing that patients that use the internet for long periods of time begin to grow more grey matter in the brain. This matter is shown to cause damage to many cognitive functions. Along with the use of Nicholas Carr’s “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” where he argues various aspects of how the Internet has many negative effects on the brain.

Body Paragraph 2:

This paragraph will serve as my address to the counterargument and I will provide a claim made by Clive Thompson on the possible benefits, then I will respond with a text by Howard Rheingold in which he responds to the claim with a counter argument and  falsify the claim made by Thompson.

Claim 2:

“Early evidence came in 1978, when two psychologists tested people to see how well they remembered words that they’d written down compared to words they’d merely read. Writing won out. The people who wrote words remembered them better than those who’d only read them- probably because generating text yourself “requires more cognitive effort than does reading and effort increases memorability.”(Thompson 57)

Subclaim:

Clive Thompson uses this study to support his statement that the internet has allowed people to write on the internet where people are subject to what is known as the “Audience Effect”. This brings appeal to all who have access to the internet and aspire to get their ideas out where they could potentially viewed by millions.

Sources:

Thompson, Clive. "Public Thinking." Smarter than You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds for the Better. N.p.: Penguin Group, 2013. 45-69. Print.

Rheingold, Howard. "Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media Literacies (EDUCAUSE Review) | EDUCAUSE.edu." Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media Literacies. Educause Review Online, n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2014.
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/attention-and-other-21st-century-social-media-literacies&gt

How Sources Support:

The source of Clive Thomson provides the main claim that the internet improves cognitive functions as you write more than you would if you had not had access to an audience such as the one the Internet provides. The article written by Rheingold will be able to complicate the main claim that Thompson produces. He does this by stating how the Internet is full of positives but we must be able to resist the strong force of distraction, and if we overcome this then we can harness all of the positives of the Internet while escaping the reach of the negatives.

Body Paragraph 3:

This is where I will place my anecdote after I have discussed both sides with the argument being skewed in favor of the internet being a harmful source.

Conclusion:

Here I will revisit the main argument that I was attempting to validate and I will summarize the main points I made and show that the Internet has become a harmful resource to the human mind.

Essay 4 Outline

Brett Stinson
Professor Werry
RWS 100
11/20/14
Essay 4 Outline

Claim 1:

“As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles”(Carr 2)

Subclaim 1:

Nicholas Carr addresses how even in the 1960s before the internet was in existence, media had the same effect as it does today in spite of the major evolution of media. He states that it deteriorates your concentration and contemplation which is one of the worst side effects of prolonged Internet use.

Sources:

Harris, Sarah. "Too Much Internet Use 'can Damage Teenagers' Brains'" Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2015196/Too-internet-use-damage-teenagers-brains.html

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 01 July 2008. Web. 02 Dec. 2014.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/

How Sources Support:

Using these sources would help support my argument by providing several cases to support the argument that the Internet is deteriorating the brain and its cognitive functions. The article from Daily Mail, which is a United Kingdom online newspaper, provides a medical study showing that patients that use the internet for long periods of time begin to grow more grey matter in the brain. This matter is shown to cause damage to many cognitive functions. Along with the use of Nicholas Carr’s “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” where he argues various aspects of how the Internet has many negative effects on the brain.



Claim 2:

“Early evidence came in 1978, when two psychologists tested people to see how well they remembered words that they’d written down compared to words they’d merely read. Writing won out. The people who wrote words remembered them better than those who’d only read them- probably because generating text yourself “requires more cognitive effort than does reading and effort increases memorability.”(Thompson 57)

Subclaim:

Clive Thompson uses this study to support his statement that the internet has allowed people to write on the internet where people are subject to what is known as the “Audience Effect”. This brings appeal to all who have access to the internet and aspire to get their ideas out where they could potentially viewed by millions.

Sources:

Thompson, Clive. "Public Thinking." Smarter than You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds for the Better. N.p.: Penguin Group, 2013. 45-69. Print.

Rheingold, Howard. "Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media Literacies (EDUCAUSE Review) | EDUCAUSE.edu." Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media Literacies. Educause Review Online, n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2014.
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/attention-and-other-21st-century-social-media-literacies&gt

How Sources Support:

The source of Clive Thomson provides the main claim that the internet improves cognitive functions as you write more than you would if you had not had access to an audience such as the one the Internet provides. The article written by Rheingold will be able to complicate the main claim that Thompson produces. He does this by stating how the Internet is full of positives but we must be able to resist the strong force of distraction, and if we overcome this then we can harness all of the positives of the Internet while escaping the reach of the negatives.

Anecdote

Brett Stinson

Professor Werry

RWS 100

11/20/14

Beginning in the early 1990’s the Internet has been making constant improvements to fix glitches, bugs and to overall improve its performance, with this came social media and a wide variety of websites for our own amusement and entertainment. In recent years many people debate whether or not the Internet has more positive or negative effects on human cognitive functions. As a student living in the golden age of technology and the Internet, I find myself using the Internet more often as I have to do homework, write papers and research online. Although I do the majority of my schoolwork online, it is not the primary use of my computer. Since the 7th grade I have been a semi-active user of the internet and have always had the social media accounts for the newest websites. For the majority of my life I have been using the internet for both business and pleasure and with this I feel as though I am not at the top of my mental capacity. Just as the Internet has ads and popups, my brain constantly has new ideas and thoughts coming up that it is nearly impossible to focus on one thing sometimes. This can make doing homework challenging when I am one tab away from seeing what parties are going or go and watch funny videos on Youtube.

Although  the Internet has brought so many forms of distractions it has also brought with it more knowledge than any one human can retain. The age of the internet has brought an idea of constant knowledge of what is going on around the world, you can now open up your phone and find out what your friends are doing or even learn about what is going on in any country around the world via news websites and even on social media. There is one tool that has proven to be most useful part of the internet, the power of everlasting knowledge. Despite one of the main forms of pleasure on the internet is social media, websites such as Wikipedia has introduced the ability to nearly instantly find out information about essentially anything you want to know. I find myself going on wikipedia for elongated periods of time just reading about people, places and events in history. This has mainly only shown benefits in normal conversation as I have the ability to recall odd facts that happen to relate to the topic of the conversation.

With my own observations of how the Internet has impacted my life and how it is connected to my skills in reading and writing, I have come to believe that the internet has more negatives than it has positives. Despite the Internet providing the tools to learn about practically anything, with this great power comes great responsibility. Responsibility being the ability to retain your sense of focus and not fall to the depths of social media. Social Media has brought misuse to the internet by plaguing the good intentions that Robert Kahn and Vint Cerf had in mind when birthing the internet. Just by observing how I manage my time while on the internet doing schoolwork compared to my time management while doing work on paper. Although the Internet is predominantly composed of informative sites, online shopping to save time in your everyday life and educational sites to help users of all ages in assisting them comprehend practically any task, the power of social media blankets the shine of the useful resources of the internet.

Attention Literacy

Brett Stinson

Professor Werry

RWS 100

November 18, 2014

Attention Literacy

In the article “Attention Literacy” by Howard Rheingold he presents an argument on the changing internet and how is has emerged as a large force on how society interacts. Although he presents this argument on the internet, he takes neither side and states that it has both positives and negatives and we must take advantage of it as it can turn to be very useful. One of his most important points, which is also included in the title, is the nature of Attention as it has been deteriorated by the newer and faster Internet that is always changing to make itself that much better. Although he discusses how the internet has had a negative impact, it isn’t the most important as attention is something that can be improved and doesn’t always stay the same. So if we are able to control our attention and overcome distractions then it isn’t a major factor. Overall, Rheingold views the internet as a positive and that the negatives are all self controlled and each individual has the power to make the internet a positive.

Carr Final Paper

Brett Stinson 
RWS 100 
Professor Werry

Is Google Making Us Stupid

The past century has provided society with a massive technological landslide in the form of cell phones, radios and what many describe as the leading advancement of our civilization, the Internet. After the initial public release of the Internet, everyday citizens have been provided access to the largest library in the world known as the World Wide Web. Although the Internet started out as a source that rarely provided success with slow and glitchy servers, and very few had a viable source of access, it awed the public audience as it was something that no one could have ever imagined coming into existence. Today the Internet is bustling with unbelievably high speeds and more websites than you could visit in a lifetime.  Sites range from how to bake a cake to how to solve quantum mechanics.  The possibilities of the Internet are endless. Although the internet has created a gold brick road leading to endless answers, it has stirred up great controversy. In 2008 the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” was written by Nicholas Carr, he discusses the worldwide debate on whether the internet is doing more good for the public or is it dimming us down. Carrs main argument is that the internet has created a negative effect on the human brain as it has caused it to be always wanting more information more rapidly and it causes the mind to always become distracted and thinking about other things. He states how as a writer where most of his information that he writes about comes from sources that he reads, using the internet has both had a positive and negative effects but he believes that the negatives far outweigh the positives. In this paper I will explore the rhetorical strategies implemented in Carr's argument and discuss whether he has created a persuasive argument.
One of the most efficient tools implemented by Carr is the usage of Analogies, the main one being the references often made to the film 2001: A Space Odyssey mainly during the scene where David Bowman is disassembling the artificial intelligence known as HAL. He uses this scene as a comparison to how the internet is "tinkering with [his] brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory"(Carr 1). In this analogy, Carr is describing how he is similarly suffering the same cognitive effects as he attempts to immerse himself in longer texts but cannot succeed. This comparison provides a good base for his argument, especially for those who have viewed the film, as it provides pathos as some find themselves in the same predicament that HAL and Carr are in. He uses this strategy in a persuasive manner as he wants his audience to gain a visualization of what the internet is physically doing to our brains and imagining our own brain as some super computer did this precisely. The specific comparison not only provided a stable emotional connection between the reader and the subject Carr is addressing, but it also provided a connection between the movie as a whole. It provides a larger connection as HAL in the film is controlling the passengers on the spacecraft the same way that the internet is controlling and manipulating the users. For those that have seen the film this connection is much stronger but for those who haven’t it is still able to imprint the idea of the internet picking apart at your brain so you will remember. By utilizing the techniques of Analogies that many can compare to allows the reader to immerse themselves in a deeper level of the argument as it provides them with a sense of pathos.
One of the strongest tools used by Carr that gives his argument a chance against those who oppose is the use of prolepsis. Prolepsis is a very strong tool when writing a persuasive piece as it takes the counterarguments and addresses them in his favor before anyone can retaliate against his own work. This is a very important tool also because Carr is arguing against the internet which most people find to be beneficial, such as a professor from Stanford, who conducted a study to see the differences betweens students writing from the 1980’s to her current students in the early 2000’s, who says “They’re writing so much more than students before them ever did. It’s stunning”(Thompson 67). So Carr is holding onto the short end of the stick in his argument and will need to find as many ways to prevent himself from being argued against. One key points in Carr’s article is when he states:
“Most of the arguments made against the printing press were correct, even prescient.” But, again, the doomsayers were unable to imagine the myriad blessings that the printed word would deliver.(Carr 6)
He argues that past intellectuals have criticized the new inventions such as the printing press and the introduction of writing but in the end, these inventions proved to have a positive impact on society. This section of his argument is key as it addresses his audience directly and states that he is a man such as Plato and Squarciafico who criticize these new glorious inventions.  And while they were right about what they had stated, the wonders overcame the worries. This was a very persuasive section as it had turned away his criticizers, he is saying that he doesn’t believe that in the end the internet won't come out to be this glorious innovation, but instead he is just saying that he has many worries about what the internet will do to our civilization in the short run.
Not only does Carr just disassemble all counterarguments to help show that he is aware of what others might counter argue, but he also presents that he is a credible source himself as he uses ethos. Many writers seem to lack any credibility at all in the topic they are writing about and it gives the reader disbelief in what the writer is saying, but Carr shows that he himself has been affected by this inability to read and write the same way. He begins this article with ethos to immediately give himself credibility by stating, “For more than a decade now,I’ve been spending a lot of time online surfing and searching” and he also states the results of this, “Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy” (Carr 1).  By stating this he displays that he has a sense for what he is talking about and the way he states it makes it prevalent that this shorter reading span has only been occurring since his prolonged usage of the internet and that it hasn’t always been a part of his life. In doing this he has also extended his claim by discerning the view that this lack of focus due to technology has only affected the youth and that it is not something that one can be diagnosed with but instead they are born into this new era where technology surrounds them and it is all that is familiar. but it proves that even the elder generations can adopt this symptom and it is harmful. So in this statement he provides the audience with credibility also while extending his claim even farther.
Throughout Carr’s paper he is able to construct the argument that questions whether the Internet is dulling our minds down and in a sense making us “stupid”. He argues this by presenting a claim and then backing it with concrete evidence making it very persuasive in its own sense but he also fills his paper with more persuasive strategies that make it nearly impossible for someone to present him with a counter argument or to challenge his claims. The strategies he uses to do this are prolepsis, pathos and ethos. One strategy that really stood out what prolepsis as it is such a basic tool for persuasive arguments but many writers still neglect it although it is one of the strongest strategies in developing an argument. By using a mixture of these strategies along with presenting a claim backed with solid evidence, Carr has constructed a very persuasive paper

Carr Draft

The past century has provided the earth with a massive technological landslide in the form of cell phones, radios and what many describe as the leading advancement of our civilization, The Internet. After the Internets public release it has provided an everyday citizen with access to the largest library in the world known as the World Wide Web. Although the Internet started out as a source that rarely provided success with slow and glitchy servers, and very few had a viable source of access, it awed the public audience as it was something that no one could have ever imagined coming into existence. Today the internet is bustling with high speeds and more websites than you could visit in a lifetime, ranging from how to bake a cake to how to solve quantum mechanics, the possibilities of the internet are endless. Although the internet has created a golden brick road leading to endless answers, it has stirred up great controversy. In 2008 the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” was written by Nicholas Carr discusses the worldwide debate on whether the internet is doing more good for the public or is it dimming us down. Carrs main argument is that the internet has created a negative effect on the human brain as it has caused it to be always wanting more information more rapidly and it causes the mind to always become distracted and thinking about other things. In this paper I will explore the rhetorical strategies implemented in Carr's argument and discuss whether he has created a persuasive argument.

One of the most efficient tools implemented by Carr is the usage of Big Name comparisons, the main one being the references often made to the film 2001: A Space Odyssey mainly during the scene where David Bowman is disassembling the artificial intelligence known as HAL. He uses this scene as a comparison to how the internet is "tinkering with [his] brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory"(Carr 1). In this comparison Carr is describing how he is similarly suffering the same cognitive effects as he attempts to immerse himself in longer texts but cannot succeed. This comparison provides a good base for his argument, especially for those who have viewed the film, as it provides pathos as some find themselves in the same predicament that HAL and Carr are in. The specific comparison not only provided a stable emotional connection between the reader and the subject Carr is addressing, but it also provided a connection between the movie as a whole. It provides a larger connection as HAL in the film is controlling the passengers on the spacecraft the same way that the internet is controlling and manipulating the users. By utilizing the techniques of comparing Carr’s argument to a Big Name that many can compare to allows the reader to immerse themselves in a deeper level of the argument as it provides them with a sense of pathos.

One of the strongest tools used by Carey that gives his argument a chance against those who oppose it is the use of prolepsis. Prolepsis is a very strong tool when writing a persuasive piece as it takes the counterarguments and addresses them in his favor before anyone can retaliate against his own work. This is a very important tool also because Carr is arguing against the internet which most people find to be beneficial, so Carr is holding onto the short end of the stick in his argument and will need to find as many ways to prevent himself from being argued against. One key points in Carr’s article is when he states:

“Most of the arguments made against the printing press were correct, even prescient.” But, again, the doomsayers were unable to imagine the myriad blessings that the printed word would deliver.(Carr 6)

He argues that past intellectuals have criticized the new inventions such as the printing press and the introduction of writing but in the end, these inventions proved to have a positive impact on society. This section of his argument is key as it addresses his audience directly and states that he is a man such as Plato and Squarciafico who criticize these new glorious inventions, and while they were right about what they had stated, the wonders overcame the worries. This was a very persuasive section as it had turned away his criticizers as he is saying that he doesn’t believe that in the end the internet won't come out to be this glorious innovation, but instead he is just saying that he has many worries about what the internet will do to our civilization in the short run.

Not only does Carr just disassemble all counterarguments to help show that he aware of what others might counterargue, but he also presents that he is a credible source himself as he uses ethos. Many writers seem to lack credibility at all in the topic they are writing about and it gives the reader disbelief in what the writer is saying, but Carr shows that he himself has been affected by this inability to read and write the same way. He begins this article with ethos to immediately give himself credibility by stating “For more than a decade now,I’ve been spending a lot of time online surfing and searching” and he also states the results of this “Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy” (Carr 1). By stating this he displays that he has a sense for what he is talking about and the way he states it makes it prevalent that this shorter reading span has only been occurring since his prolonged usage of the internet and that it hasn’t always been a part of his life. In doing this he has also extended his claim by discerning the view that this lack of focus due to technology has only affected the youth and that it is not something that one can be diagnosed with but instead they are born into this new era where technology surrounds them and it is all that is familiar. but it proves that even the elder generations can adopt this symptom and it is harmful. So in this statement he provides the audience with credibility also while extending his claim even farther.

Throughout Carr’s paper he is able to construct the argument that questions whether the Internet is dulling our minds down and in a sense making us “stupid”. He argues this by presenting a claim and then backing it with concrete evidence making it very persuasive in its own sense but he also fills his paper with more persuasive strategies that make it nearly impossible for someone to present him with a counter argument or to challenge his claims, the strategies he uses to do this are prolepsis, pathos and ethos. By using a mixture of these strategies along with presenting a claim backed with solid evidence, Carr has constructed a very persuasive paper.

Is Google Making us Stupid? Part 2

Brett Stinson 

RWS 100 

Professor Werry

The past century has provided the earth with a massive technological landslide in the form of cell phones, radios and what many describe as the leading advancement of our civilization, The Internet. After the Internets public release it has provided an everyday citizen with access to the largest library in the world known as the World Wide Web. Although the Internet started out as a source that rarely provided success with slow and glitchy servers, and very few had a viable source of access, it awed the public audience as it was something that no one could have ever imagined coming into existence. Today the internet is bustling with high speeds and more websites than you could visit in a lifetime, ranging from how to bake a cake to how to solve quantum mechanics, the possibilities of the internet are endless. Although the internet has created a golden brick road leading to endless answers, it has stirred up great controversy. In 2008 the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” was written by Nicholas Carr discusses the worldwide debate on whether the internet is doing more good for the public or is it dimming us down. Carrs main argument is that the internet has created a negative effect on the human brain as it has caused it to be always wanting more information more rapidly and it causes the mind to always become distracted and thinking about other things. In this paper I will explore the rhetorical strategies implemented in Carr's argument and discuss whether he has created a persuasive argument.

One of the most efficient tools implemented by Carr is the usage of Big Name comparisons, the main one being the references often made to the film 2001: A Space Odyssey mainly during the scene where David Bowman is disassembling the artificial intelligence known as HAL. He uses this scene as a comparison to how the internet is "tinkering with [his] brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory"(Carr 1). In this comparison Carr is describing how he is similarly suffering the same cognitive effects as he attempts to immerse himself in longer texts but cannot succeed. This comparison provides a good base for his argument, especially for those who have viewed the film, as it provides pathos as some find themselves in the same predicament that HAL and Carr are in. The specific comparison not only provided a stable emotional connection between the reader and the subject Carr is addressing, but it also provided a connection between the movie as a whole. It provides a larger connection as HAL in the film is controlling the passengers on the spacecraft the same way that the internet is controlling and manipulating the users. By utilizing the techniques of comparing Carr’s argument to a Big Name that many can compare to allows the reader to immerse themselves in a deeper level of the argument as it provides them with a sense of pathos.

One of the strongest tools used by Carey that gives his argument a chance against those who oppose it is the use of prolepsis. Prolepsis is a very strong tool when writing a persuasive piece as it takes the counterarguments and addresses them in his favor before anyone can retaliate against his own work. This is a very important tool also because Carr is arguing against the internet which most people find to be beneficial, so Carr is holding onto the short end of the stick in his argument and will need to find as many ways to prevent himself from being argued against. One key points in Carr’s article is when he states:

“Most of the arguments made against the printing press were correct, even prescient.” But, again, the doomsayers were unable to imagine the myriad blessings that the printed word would deliver.(Carr 6)

He argues that past intellectuals have criticized the new inventions such as the printing press and the introduction of writing but in the end, these inventions proved to have a positive impact on society. This section of his argument is key as it addresses his audience directly and states that he is a man such as Plato and Squarciafico who criticize these new glorious inventions, and while they were right about what they had stated, the wonders overcame the worries. This was a very persuasive section as it had turned away his criticizers as he is saying that he doesn’t believe that in the end the internet won't come out to be this glorious innovation, but instead he is just saying that he has many worries about what the internet will do to our civilization in the short run.

Is Google Making Us Stupid? Intro and Body Paragraph

Brett Stinson

RWS 100

Professor Werry

The past century has provided the earth with a massive technological landslide in the form of cell phones, radios and what many describe as the leading advancement of our civilization, The Internet. After the Internets public release it has provided an everyday citizen with access to the largest library in the world known as the World Wide Web. Although the Internet started out as a source that rarely provided success with slow and glitchy servers, and very few had a viable source of access, it awed the public audience as it was something that no one could have ever imagined coming into existence. Today the internet is bustling with high speeds and more websites than you could visit in a lifetime, ranging from how to bake a cake to how to solve quantum mechanics, the possibilities of the internet are endless. Although the internet has created a golden brick road leading to endless answers, it has stirred up great controversy. In 2008 the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” was written by Nicholas Carr discusses the worldwide debate on whether the internet is doing more good for the public or is it dimming us down. Carrs main argument is that the internet has created a negative effect on the human brain as it has caused it to be always wanting more information more rapidly and it causes the mind to always become distracted and thinking about other things. In this paper I will explore the rhetorical strategies implemented in Carr's argument and discuss whether he has created a persuasive argument.

One of the most efficient tools implemented by Carr is the usage of Big Name comparisons, the main one being the references often made to the film 2001: A Space Odyssey mainly during the scene where David Bowman is disassembling the artificial intelligence known as HAL. He uses this scene as a comparison to how the internet is "tinkering with [his] brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory"(Carr 1). In this comparison Carr is describing how he is similarly suffering the same cognitive effects as he attempts to immerse himself in longer texts but cannot succeed. This comparison provides a good base for his argument, especially for those who have viewed the film, as it provides pathos as some find themselves in the same predicament that HAL and Carr are in. The specific comparison not only provided a stable emotional connection between the reader and the subject Carr is addressing, but it also provided a connection between the movie as a whole. It provides a larger connection as HAL in the film is controlling the passengers on the spacecraft the same way that the internet is controlling and manipulating the users. By utilizing the techniques of comparing Carr’s argument to a Big Name that many can compare to allows the reader to immerse themselves in a deeper level of the argument as it provides them with a sense of pathos.

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Nicholas Carr in his article "Is Google Making us Stupid?" he discusses the effects of prolonged internet usage on the humans ability to use critical thinking in everyday life. He includes various types of evidence in his piece such as anecdotes, research, facts and examples. Not only does he use just plain evidence to persuade us but he also goes on to use various rhetorical strategies like precedent, authority and exemplification.

For-Profit Final Draft

Education in the United States has been becoming a larger priority for citizens to have as every new year passes. More employers are looking for people with degrees in the corresponding field of the work they will be doing. Although more employers are looking for a degree and more students are going to college every year, the limit for students that large Universities can take in, both public and private, is reaching its maximum intake of students. With this overflow of students that want a higher education, entrepreneurs like John Sperling and Michael Clifford are stepping in and innovating a branch of higher education known as For-Profit institutions designed for the students that were ignored from a standard university. For-Profit colleges have made a large change in the past decade as they have turned from being mainly “Mom and Pop Trade” Trade schools to being publicly traded giants. With this large growth in the past years it has allowed for many schools such as University of Phoenix and Grand Canyon University to build schools all over the nation for easy access by the United States. With this large uprise up schools they allow more students to attend every year. Although these schools sound like saviors for the rejected students, many have another view on what they really are. Many see the schools as a powerful empire that is out to steal these students money and leave the in the dirt in the end. Kevin Carey wrote an article called “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges”, He goes and reaches out to some of the powerful leaders of this industry such as Michael Clifford, the owner of Grand Canyon University, to find out what these schools are all about. He discusses all of the horrific horror stories of many of the students that went to these schools who feel as though they were scammed and left with nothing but a massive pile of

debt, but in all he is out to defend the For-Profit school system and argues that they are a viable place for education. Carey and many others claim that For-Profit colleges are just looking to make money out of these students and they will take in anyone that is eligible for a loan no matter how underqualified they are or how likely they will be to default on their loan and even if they succeed in the school they are left with a practically worthless degree. In my paper I will discuss Carey’s paper and complicate it and extend the ideas that are made using outside sources from various professionals that view the For-Profit sector as adequate higher education or unsatisfactory.

In Carey’s Article he discusses how the For-Profit schools mainly target low-income families mainly because they are more likely to receive government loans which will help them pay for the hefty tuition that the schools charge, but although they are able to find government aid doesn’t mean that they will be able to pay the loan back in the end. This is why the For-Profit sector has led so many students to default on their loans, because they require low-income students to take on massive amounts of debt to get their degree that many students end up not being able to receive in the end as many students will likely drop out. It is shown that the graduation rate for the University of Phoenix online campus is less than 5% for students that have received a degree in 6 years and only .5% graduate in 4 years.(College Results) With the graduation rate so low for these students it  leaves them in the end with no degree to help them get the job they will need to pay off all of the debt that they have accumulated. As Carey states in his work “Large debt plus small income equals high risk of default”(Carrey 9). He says this because many of the students will end up defaulting on their loans because they didn’t have the funds necessary to pay for the loan they took out and now that they are left with their same previous income and no degree to help them find a better job, they have no other option but to default on their loans. Although Carey believes that it is the schools fault that they end up defaulting but the the Harvard scholars that wrote the article “For-Profit Colleges”(The Future of Children) think otherwise. In their article they state how the students at For-Profits are hurt financially but they don’t believe that it is the schools fault as they state “Students in for-profits tend to be in more precarious financial situations than other students before they enroll. Many of those from for-profits who defaulted on their loans or were unable to find work might have been in the same predicament even if they had attended a public or nonprofit institution”(Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2013). This statement shows that in general even if this student had gone to a regular non-profit university they would have had the same likeliness to default on their loan. Some believe that the reason for the high default rates is that the For-Profit “recruiters” will sign up anyone they can, no matter how likely they are to default on their loans. But the employees of the for-profit schools such as Michael Clifford of the Grand Canyon University denies that the schools “have any responsibility whatsoever for how much students borrow and whether they can pay it back”(Carrey 8). The Harvard scholars help qualify Carey’s text as they support the side that it is not the For-Profit schools fault that the students default but they believe that the students who default were destined to fail from the start. The students later go on to compare the Community College system to the For-Profits as they are both feasible options for students that were rejected from the public Universities. They claim that the For-Profits have a much better guidance system that allows the students to complete the classes they need and graduate in a short period of time. They discovered a study conducted by James Rosenbaum, Regina Deil-Amen and Ann Person where they researched and compared the completion rates between community colleges and For-Profits alone and they came to the conclusion that “”Private Occupational Colleges”(Meaning for-profit, proprietary or career colleges) had higher completion

ratings than students at community colleges”(Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2013). These students are helping support and qualify Carey’s claims as they are stating that although the For-Profits are more expensive than the community colleges, the for-profits have higher completion ratings and they offer much better programs with more guidance that the community colleges are unable to offer.

Carey makes many claims speaking against what the For-Profit schools are doing. One of the claims he makes is how the For-Profit schools are fighting against many of the government laws being created to limit the money the schools can receive from government subsidies. He states that “the “90/10 rule,” a federal rule that bars for-profits from receiving more than 90 percent of their revenue from federal aid”(Carey, 2010). He goes on to state that the schools are making attempts to re brand as “Market based” instead of for-profit to make it seem as though they are less in it for the money and more in it to give the students a better education. Although Carey is on the side to enforce these sorts of laws, there are many people out there that believe that these schools are being singled out and that these laws shouldn't only be enforced on for-profits but on the higher education sector as a whole. People such as Brian Darling, an aide to senators on the US counsel, believes that “the non-profit sector feels threatened”(Darling 2010), and that they have aided with the government to limit the power that the for-profits can hold. Darling supports the Education for All Act which forbids the singling out of students from proprietary and vocational schools. He complicates Carey’s claim by supporting the enforcement of laws, such as one requiring the department of education to evaluate students of post-secondary schools and deny them if they are deemed unfit, would make it very difficult for these schools to operate. As Darling states that it would be more difficult for the institutions to operate if the students were evaluated, there is much more room to argue that these rules should be enforced because the students that they are taking in are not fit to take on this higher education and being able to pay it off in the end. Others that help strengthen Carey's case such as a professor of law at the University of Miami argue that “By civic and economic standards, for-profit higher education outcomes are disappointing”(James, 2011). James believes that many students are misguided and they should be provided with the facts on graduation rates and salaries after graduation so that students can see the dangers and make the decision for themselves whether they want to take the risk of entering into the school or not. Both authors complicate the Claim Carey makes and states that the government shouldn’t take only the for-profits into discussion when creating these laws and that instead of singling the schools out in these laws that would limit the amount of money the schools can make, the schools should be able to provide the student with enough information on what the school can offer them and how likely they are to succeed. Darling later states that the government making these laws “unfairly hold for-profit institutions to a higher standard for student debt and default than all other institutions of higher education”(Darling, 2010)  But much of the reason these laws are being created are not because of the large risk of default but because the hgih percentage of federal aid coming to for-profits. Carey states that “A quarter of federal aid goes to for-profits, while they enroll only 10 percent of students”(Carey, 2010). Although these claims made by these professionals do complicate the claims made by Carey, the claims Carey makes prove to show compelling evidence that the government should be able to put a higher regulation on the federal aid the for profits can receive as they are such a small percentage of higher education but they still gain such a large proportion from the government

After doing in-depth research on the topic of higher education in the form of For-Profit schools, it is shown by the evidence provided by Carey and various outside sources that this sector of higher education proves to be a vital source of education for low income students rejected by the formal university. The claims made by Carey showed that he believed that the For-Profits were a suitable place for education but had stated that it should also be regulated slightly by the government. Some outside sources had qualified Carey while others had complicated his claims, but in the end the claims originally made by Carey had been proven much more applicable. Although For-Profits do have a much higher price tag than those on community colleges, the For-Profits provide much better programs that allow students to get their degrees completed in a short amount of time and keep them on track throughout the way.

For-Profit Draft

Education in the United States has been becoming a larger priority for citizens to have as every new year passes. More jobs are looking for people with degrees in the corresponding field of the work they will be doing. Although more jobs are looking for a degree and more students are going to college every year, the limit for students that large Universities can take in, both public and private, is reaching its maximum intake of students. With this overflow of students that want a higher education, entrepreneurs like John Sperling and Michael Clifford are stepping in and innovating a branch of higher education known as For-Profit institutions designed for the students that were ignored from a standard university. For-Profit colleges have made a large change in the past decade as they have turned from being mainly “Mom and Pop Trade” Trade schools to being publicly traded giants. With this large growth in the past years it has allowed for many schools such as University of Phoenix and Grand Canyon University to build schools all over the nation for easy access by the United States. With this large uprise up schools they allow more students to attend every year. Although these schools sound like saviours for the rejected students, many have another view on what they really are. Many see the schools as a powerful mongol that is out to steal these students money and leave the in the dirt in the end. Kevin Carey wrote an article called “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges”, He goes and reaches out to some of the powerful leaders of this industry such as Michael Clifford, the owner of Grand Canyon University, to find out what these schools are all about. He discusses all of the horrific horror stories of many of the students that went to these schools who feel as though they were scammed and left with nothing but a massive pile of debt. Carey and many others claim that For-Profit colleges are just looking to make money out of these students and they will take in anyone that is eligible for a loan no matter how underqualified they are or how likely they will be to default on their loan and even if they succeed in the school they are left with a practically worthless degree. In my paper I will discuss Carey’s paper and link it to other outside works in establishing the validity of the facts that Carey is presenting to his audience.
In Carey’s Article he discusses how the For-Profit schools mainly target low-income families mainly because they are more likely to receive government loans which will help them pay for the hefty tuition that the schools charge, but although they are able to find government aid doesn’t mean that they will be able to pay the loan back in the end. This is why the For-Profit sector has led so many students to default on their loans, because they require low-income students to take on massive amounts of debt to get their degree that many students end up not being able to receive in the end as many students will likely drop out. It is shown that the graduation rate for the University of Phoenix online campus is less than 5% for students that have received a degree in 6 years and only .5% graduate in 4 years. With the graduation rate so low for these students it  leaves them in the end with no degree to help them get the job they will need to pay off all of the debt that they have accumulated. As Carey states in his work “Large debt plus small income equals high risk of default”(Carrey 9), he says this because many of the students will end up defaulting on their loans because they didn’t have the funds necessary to pay for the loan they took out and now that they are left with their same previous income and no degree to help them find a better job, they have no other option but to default on their loans. Although Carey believes that it is the schools fault that they end up defaulting but the the Harvard scholars that wrote the article “For-Profit Colleges” on the Future of Children think otherwise. In their article they state how the students at For-Profits are hurt financially but they don’t believe that it is the schools fault as they state “Students in for-profits tend to be in more precarious financial situations than other students before they enroll. Many of those from for-profits who defaulted on their loans or were unable to find work might have been in the same predicament even if they had attended a public or nonprofit institution”(Deming 6). This statement shows that in general even if this student had gone to a regular non-profit university they would have had the same likeliness to default on their loan. Although this statement is true it is shown that the For-Profit schools will take anyone even if the have a high risk of default while non-profits will deny these students loans if they are unfit to pay them back. But the employees of the for-profit schools such as Michael Clifford of the Grand Canyon University  denies that the schools “have any responsibility whatsoever for how much students borrow and whether they can pay it back”(Carrey 8). This shows that the argument could go either way of people saying that it is either the schools fault or that the student was destined still default even after a non-profit university. Another claim that Carey makes in his paper that can also be retaliated against is the claim about how the For-Profit schools are making attempts to sneak by the laws the government is making to prevent them from receiving the majority of their money from government subsidies.
Carey makes many claims speaking against what the For-Profit schools are doing, one of the claims he makes is how the For-Profit schools are fighting against many of the government laws being created to limit the money the schools can receive from government subsidies. He states that “the “90/10 rule,” a federal rule that bars for-profits from receiving more than 90 percent of their revenue from federal aid”(Carey 10). He goes on to state that the schools are making attempts to rebrand as “Market based” instead of for-profit to make it seem as though they are less in it for the money and more in it to give the students a better education. Although Carey is on the side to enforce these sorts of laws, there are many people out there that believe that these schools are being singled out and that these laws shouldn’t only be enforced on for-profits but on the higher education sector as a whole. People such as Brian Darling, an aide to senators on the US counsel, believes that “the non-profit sector feels threatened”(Darling 1), and that the have aided with the government to limit the power that the for-profits can hold. Darling supports the Education for All Act which forbids the singling out of students from proprietary and vocational schools. Darling believes that the enforcement of laws, such as one requiring the department of education to evaluate students of postsecondary schools and deny them if they are deemed unfit, would make it very difficult for these schools to operate. As Darling states that it would be more difficult for the institutions to operate if the students were evaluated, there is much more room to argue that these rules should be enforced because the students that they are taking in are not fit to take on this higher education and being able to pay it off in the end. Others that help strengthen Carey's case such as a professor of law at the University of Miami argue that “By civic and economic standards, for-profit higher education outcomes are disappointing”(James 3). James believes that many students are misguided and they should be provided with the facts on graduation rates and salaries after graduation so that students can see the dangers and make the decision for themselves whether they want to take the risk of entering into the school or not.
After doing in depth research on this topic of for-profit schools, I am now lead to believe that the schools are very corrupted and regulations need to be set to limit what they can and can’t do. Although I believe this, I also see some sort of light at the end of the tunnel for these schools as they do show some positives and they could possibly evolve and change in a way so they can still operate efficiently and make a profit, but also do good for the community by continuing to save dying schools and educate those that want to be highly educated but can’t do the denial from the non-profit school system. So for-profits should not be completely disregarded, but with the right pushing of some laws and restrictions, the for-profit sector can be a great asset in providing the general public with a way to get more people to recieve a higher education.

Quotes Relating to Carey

1. "For-Profit universities view their students as customers, and to attract and retain those customers degree programs and curricula must be market driven."-Seiden
2. "The money received in military education benefits by just 20 for-profit companies soared to an estimated $521.2 million from $66.6 million" - Perteaus 
3. "Students learn just enough by surfing the web for random unreliable sources" - Comment Section

Carey's Main Claims

1. Carey’s first claim in the article is that For-Profit colleges charge much more for tuition than Community Colleges and Universities. He backs up this claim with statistics stating the amount charged for a four year University and then how much for a For-Profit Institution. Carey’s second claim is that For-Profit colleges are receiving ridiculous amounts of money from the government. He provides evidence that the students are receiving Pell Grants and Subsidized Loans to pay. The third Claim is that the schools are growing at a very rapid rate to the point where they are highly unlikely to be stopped. He supports this by stating how they used to by “mom and Pop trade schools but now they are turning into mass corporations.
2. The first claim that Carey makes about the positives of For-Profit schools is that they fix the gap left by universities and they accept the students that weren't able to get into those schools. He supports this by stating that the schools offer night classes so people can work during the day and that they also don't look at past grades for acceptance. The second claim he makes is that these big corporate schools are able to save the sick and dying schools by buying them out and turning them into a For-Profit. He provides evidence that Grand Canyon University has bought out many smaller schools to build on and to save the students that attend these schools. The third claims is that they make the attempt to appeal to the general public. He backs this by stating that They offer a wide variety of class forms that can help almost anyone get a degree such as online.
3. I would like to investigate the 90/10 law and see how the Universities are fighting it and how it works.