Ashe Matteson

Professor Skylar Locke

English 170

12 May 2023

 

PART A

 

Cass’ main argument is that many students, especially those who are underprivileged, are not fully prepared for college, and that public high schools should get more funding from the government so that students are more well prepared. Cass gives a theoretical scenario about two students– one who is academically strong, and one who is not. He explains that while the academically stronger student will likely pursue college, the academically challenged student may not even finish a Bachelor’s degree. Cass goes on to explain that if the second student chooses to go on to college, he will likely not get much money in scholarships, if any at all.

 

Cass is writing to officials who have the power to change the way the high school curriculum is laid out, as well as the general public to try and convince them that his argument and proposal are the right way to go. His purpose is to try and re-form the high school curriculum and put more funding towards public schools so that students can graduate from high school and be well prepared for college. Cass states in the article, “Any American could have, at age 20, three years of work experience, and an industry credential and earnings in the bank.” (Cass) After explaining his 5-year high school plan that includes a high school education, a paid internship and vocational program, and subsidized work/employer sponsored training, he says that these three years of work experience could make a high school student prepared for college and the real world.

 

Cass’ argument is structured with an opening of a theoretical situation with the two students, which goes into him explaining where each of these students might go after high school. After giving statistics from different sources to support his claims, he proposes a solution that could better fit how he believes students should be prepared for college. This argument works well for what Cass is trying to achieve because he proposes a very bold plan. It requires a complicated setup and explanation to convince the reader that this is a problem, and that there should be things done to fix the system already in place. 

 

One of Cass’ claims is that while many college graduates will earn more than high school graduates, not all college graduates will make more money than a high-performing high school graduate. He gives evidence from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, which state that “high school graduates with above-average earnings make $34K-$70K, while college graduates with below average earnings make around $28K to $58K.” (Cass)  This evidence is effective, because it supports his idea that even while we push for more students to pursue college, pursuing a higher education does not guarantee you will do better in life after college.

 

In the beginning of the article Cass gives a theoretical situation of the two students. He explains how the second student, who is underprivileged, does not face a very bright future, and Cass says in the article “To the second student, we offer a little beyond a sympathetic ‘Sorry.’ Our education system has become one of our nation’s most regressive institutions.” (Cass) This could be considered an instance of bias because there is no evidence given to support the claim pertaining to our education system, and is not presented in a very factual way. This can influence the way the audience perceives the argument and their reaction to the rest of the article because all the evidence is in support of Cass’ argument and does not give them a chance to see the other side of the argument, as Cass does not provide a counterclaim or rebuttal. 

The second paragraph of the article explaining the theoretical second student’s situation is an instance where Cass uses pathos. He uses language such as “clawed his way through”, which can evoke emotion in someone when reading. It can make you feel sympathy for this second student, who has worked so hard just to complete his high school education that Cass believes will not benefit him in the long run.

 

PART B

 

As a student, I agree that college may not be the path that everyone wants to take. However, I believe that Cass’ proposal for a 5-year high school model that only gives 2 years of a high school education while the other 3 years gives you work experience might not benefit kids as much as Cass believes it will. There are a good number of kids that still don’t know what they want to pursue after high school, and usually will use college as a means to explore that. Personally, I believe that college is both a choice and a privilege. Some high school graduates may choose to go to college after graduating, given that they have the kind of money to support that type of education. Some kids may choose to go to college but might not have enough money to support themselves, so they will have to take out student loans and be in debt for years after graduating college. The experience will be different for everyone. I chose to go to college because I want to go into the music industry, but without any kind of degree or professional training you are not able to get very far. 

 

PART C

 

Looking at the response from Pamela Hollander, this response is very important to understanding Cass’ article because it expands on Cass’ point that many underprivileged students drop out of college. She claims that she has done research and found that many students are not college ready because of the public education system in different districts of cities. She goes on to compare how rich, white districts and poorer, urban districts fare differently in terms of public education. She also says that we “invest instead in college bridge programs like Upward Bound…” (Hollander) and goes on to explain how programs like these will help students succeed in college. The people who are affected by these arguments are people reading the article in the New York Times, where it was originally published. Reading this response will help them better understand the root of the issue and how to help without reforming an entire curriculum

 

Readers might give many of these perspectives serious consideration. Many of the responses are written by college professors, which makes them more credible and easier to believe. The response from Pamela Hollander is a good option to seriously consider because of her language, which sounds very professional, and her explanation of the program and what it does. There is also ethos used, even if it is not directly stated, because she is a professor at Worcester State University and an author. This makes her more credible than others responding to the article.