Hui 1

Shuliang Hui Professor Hagerty ENGL 1127 22 April 2013 Analysis and Evaluation of an Argument The commentary In Defense of Equal Tuition for All Majors argues its main point with non-relevant evidences and in the bias ways. However it has well served its purpose as a popular article to emotionally engage public into thinkings of policy making in higher education. Author John Villasnor as a professor at UCLA argues that all majors should have equal amount of tuition in contest to Floridas new tuition discount policy in STEM majors. He believes that it is not the best way to attract more students to study Engineering solely by lowering its tuition. Instead, college should convey to young people more effectively why careers in STEM are good choices. Villasnor makes use of numerical statistics from National Association of Colleges and Employees and personal teaching experiences at UCLA to support liberal art students, but he does not introduce his objection Floridas new policy well. He makes arguments in many aspects to defend liberal arts students rights. However, the arguments are bias on liberal art students and are based on assumptions that they are treated as second class majors. Villasnor leaves many claims without or very little relevant evidences to support them. The first claim: its a well-meaning proposal intended to meet genuine needs but its likely to create more problems than it solves. (Villasenor 1) The rest article does not show any evidences that the proposal would create problems. The only problem he mentions is that the policy would drive students to other states is only an assumption and there are no evidences to

Hui 2

prove that lowering STEM majors tuition would drive away liberal art students to other universities. The second claim is that: If the substantial financial advantages of graduating with a degree in a strategic discipline arent already attracting sufficient numbers of students, throwing an annual tuition discount at them wont have much effect. (Villasenor 1) It does not have any relevant supporting evidence following it up because he only uses official statistics to prove liberal arts graduates earn less salaries but he does not use evidence to prove that why throwing an annual tuition discount wont attract more students. His assumption that future financial advantages do not help solve the present problem thus financial helps now wont do any better is logically incorrect. According to data released in September by the National Association of Colleges and Employers, bachelor's-degree recipients in the Class of 2012 who majored in engineering and computer science received average starting salaries of over $60,000, while degree recipients in the humanities and social sciences had average starting salaries of less than $37,000. (Villasenor 1) Villasnor has uses sufficient credible evidences to support some of his claims. He has noted the annual income differences across majors by the data from National Associations. They are representative and up to date. He makes use of his own personal experiences teaching at UCLA to prove that different tuition rate across majors are common but the principle should not be applied into undergraduate experiences. Those evidences are accurate and persuasive but they are there only to prove the common facts we may have already know. It does not support the main arguments that its likely to create more problems than it solves. (Villasenor 1) Rather, it has only showed support and excessive sympathy to the liberal art side. Villasenor should have addressed the purpose of the new tuition discount policy instead of omitting it entirely. He only uses evidences to show that the liberal arts students have disadvantages in every aspect like

Hui 3

careers, future choices and financial issues. Those are subjective feelings because the author has failed to mention other majors hardships. He has made assumptions that liberal art students suffered more than others rather than providing the evidences to prove them. Nevertheless, the article has articulated classical appeals well especially to emotions or pathos. The article opens with the question: should English and history majors be forced to pay higher tuition than engineering students do? Yes The opening provokes those readers who dont agree with the statement thus gives Vilassenor the chances to further explain himself and engage readers emotions to his feelings. Like what I have said in Journal 4, He has utilized words and phrases such as penalty to students, second-class treatment, and burdens to show his sympathy. His sympathy to liberal art students makes his words more tangible to readers. Those words locks readers attentions well and shift their main focus to the situations liberal arts student are facing. Together with the reasons (logos), they frame imagine that it is wrongful to have unbalanced tuition. Even though it tends to be bias but the strategies of framing evidences works well in guiding readers in a certain direction. It leaves no room for reader to think about the students in STEM major like why is the policy created and what problems the tuition discount policy aimed to solve at the first place. This is a successful popular article in conveying authors feelings about STEM major tuition discounts. Its use of classical appeals especially pathos strengthens the articles credibility and engages readers into the debates. However, the article is biased and does not explain the policy itself with enough evidences. Readers would easily believe authors claim because they do not have a round view of the issue. However, readers would also easily turn against the author once they read opposite articles. Arthur should have given more solutions at the end like explaining how to make STEM majors interesting to young students.

Hui 4

Works Cited
Villasenor, John. "Commentary." 7 January 2013. The Chronicle of Higer Education. <http://chronicle.com/article/In-Defense-of-Equal-Tuition/136475/>.