Review the templates Graff and Birkenstein provide in Chapter 7 and look over Scheuer’s and Ungar’s articles. Take note of 3-4 examples where you see them making similar moves, or setting out the contrast between their thinking and others’.
Ex. 1: Ungars whole essay is based around what other people commonly think versus what he thinks. An example is his very first “Misperception,” where he claims that others perceive that “a liberal arts degree is a luxury that most families can no longer afford. ‘Career education’ is what we now must focus on” (Ungar 1). He goes on to explain his view that the “well-rounded preparation that the liberal arts offer is a better investment than ever” (Ungar 1).
Ex. 2: Scheuer explains who cares in the very first paragraph of his essay: “Students want jobs, not debts, and who can blame them?” This also sets up the rest of his essay, which is directed at future or present students that lack appreciation for liberal arts focuses.
Ex. 3: In the conclusion of Ungar’s essay, he uses a variation of the second template on page 97 of Graff and Berkensteins, “They say,” “I say”. He states: “Financial issues cannot be ignored, but neither can certain eternal verities. Through immersion in liberal arts, students learn not just to make a living, but also live life rich in values and characters.” This demonstrates his “so what,” which is that yes, students are facing debt, but the values that an individual gains from a liberal arts education is much more valuable in broader aspects of them and is thus, more versatile and useful.
What do these writers claim could/will happen if readers don’t engage with the ideas in their articles or consider their recommendations?
Ungar explains that, yes, students who pursue a STEM career will not face as much debt, but they will be lacking in skills that allow them to keep learning for the rest of their days. He claims that students who pursue this career-focused education may end up with a job that serves a dead-end and skills that are useful towards only one career.
Scheuer argues that students who pursue STEM careers over liberal arts will not receive the education that allows them to become well-round productive citizens with critical thinking and inquiry abilities that are applicable to a variety of careers and real-life situations.
What makes you care about the arguments we’ve encountered in our readings?
I am a student at a science-based school pursuing a STEM education and possibly future career. Both Ungar and Scheuer directly mention how STEM careers are too narrow. I also pay for my own tuition, so Ungars direction towards lower-income students also speaks to me. Both articles are directed at students who are pursuing an education, and, for me at least, the “negative” aspects of major, which is why I care about these arguments.
Working with your responses to Ungar and the new Barclay’s paragraph you wrote for today (connecting Ungar back to Scheuer), check to see if your explanation (EQ1Q2CL) “support[s], complicate[s] or develop[s] your claim in the paragraph.
The explanation of the paragraph helps develop Ungar’s claim. Sheuer’s claim involves aspects that Ungar doesn’t mention, but it still supports and further develops my claim.
Now add another sentence or two to indicate why this paragraph-level claim matters and who should care about it.
