In the article “Why Colleges Should Require a Gap Year”, author Jonathan Zimmerman argues that the establishment of a service year program at post-secondary institutions in the USA would alleviate concerns with the higher education system. He describes the growing concerns with the current higher education system: “Republicans are more concerned about what they call the liberal bias of our institutions, while Democrats worry more about rising tuition costs” (Zimmerman). He proposes that students in the service year program would become better citizens when exposed to different communities. He states that many institutions already have a service year program in place, who provide some financial aid to students who participate in the program. The author addresses that the participants in these service programs are often children of the wealthy, but this can change over time if third parties become involved in the programs. Another counterargument that the author addresses is the possibility that there would not be much incentive for institutions to implement this program, which he answers that it can start at elite universities and then other institutions will catch on to the trend. He says institutions could implement enticing offers to their students to participate in the program, such as admission preference or tuition discounts. These explanations to these counterarguments do not seem to be confident answers, he just relies on the possibility that intuitions will solve the problem. His counterarguments do not seem to further his argument. Eventually, Zimmerman argues, service year programs would become more established over time and become a normal part of post-secondary education. 

 

The thesis of this article seems to appear in the middle of the article. After informing the reader about Pete Buttigieg’s proposal to enlist people into the national service, the author describes why Buttigieg’s proposal is a plausible idea. Unfortunately, it is difficult to implement this at a federal level due to laws in the Constitution. He explains that post-secondary institutions must then step up to the plate, which is where his thesis appears:  

“A compulsory-service year would provide one very clear answer: We’re creating better citizens, and a better country. It isn’t just that required service would benefit out students, who would be exposed to the diversity and complexity of America. It would also make our nation a more decent and humane place, for everyone.” (Zimmerman) 

This seems to be the thesis because this is the claim made that the author explains and supports for the rest of the article. 

 

I think this argument lacks credibility. The author does not seem to be confident enough in his argument. Many phrases would begin with words such as “might” or “could”, which indicates to me that the author is not exactly sure if what he is saying is true. One example of this is in this sentence: “At less-selective institutions, meanwhile, officials might offer a tuition discount to people electing a service year” (Zimmerman). The way this sentence is phrased indicates that the author is not entirely sure if institutions would offer a tuition discount to its students who partake in the service-year program. A way to avoid this ambiguity is to look into what schools who already implemented this program have done. Do those schools offer a tuition discount? If not, what incentives do they have? 

 

Zimmerman often uses hypotheticals to get his point across. He seems to rely heavily on the reader’s willingness to imagine these scenarios in their head instead of providing concrete examples to support his claim. For example, he says: 

“Our students would clean up parks and rivers. They would visit senior citizens. They would serve food at homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and prisons. They would assist teachers in kindergartens and elsewhere at schools. They would help disabled people perform daily tasks.” (Zimmerman) 

While these statements give the reader an idea of what students would be doing in these service programs, it is more assuring to see hard evidence of what students do in the service programs that exist today. Readers want to know what it looks like for students now. They want to know what service programs could look like for them, especially for low-income students who may need to prioritize working over these service programs. The author should consider the students’ opinions about this because many students may not want to partake in these programs.