Hui 1

Shuliang Hui Professor Hagerty ENGL 1127 25 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 evidence and in the biased ways. However it has well served its purpose as a popular article to emotionally engage the public into thinking of policy making in higher education. Author John Villasenor as a professor at UCLA argues that all majors should have equal amount of tuition in contrast 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. Villasenor makes use of numerical statistics from the National Association of Colleges and Employees and personal teaching experiences at UCLA to support liberal art students, but he does not introduce his objection to Floridas new policy well. He makes arguments in many aspects to defend liberal arts students rights. However, the arguments are biased on liberal art students and are based on assumptions that they are treated as second class majors. Villasnor leaves many claims without or with very little relevant evidence to support them. For example, he has claimed that: its a well-meaning proposal intended to meet genuine needs but its likely to create more problems than it solves (Villasenor 1), but rest of the article does not show any evidence that the proposal would create problems. The only problem he

Hui 2

mentions is that the policy would drive students to other states which is only an assumption and there is no evidence to prove that lowering STEM majors tuition would drive away liberal arts 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. 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). He should not assume financial aid wont attract students better because STEM majors future financial advantages have not attracted students. There are many students just couldnt afford the tuition at the present. Even though his evidence is non-relevant and biased but most of the evidence is credible and up to date. 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 claim that different tuition rates across majors in graduate school are common but the principle should not be applied to undergraduate experiences. Those claims are accurate and persuasive but they are there only to prove the common facts we have already known. It does not support his main arguments about lowering tuitions: its likely to

Hui 3

create more problems than it solves.(Villasenor 1). He should have explained why different tuition rates in undergraduate would cause problems and what kind of problems. Villasenor should also have addressed the purpose of the new tuition discount policy in Florida instead of omitting it entirely which makes his arguments biased. Furthermore, He only uses evidence to show that the liberal arts students have disadvantages in every aspect like careers, future choices and financial issues, those are just subjective feelings because the author has failed to mention other majors hardships. He assumes that liberal art students suffer more than others rather than providing the evidence to prove them. After all, this article has successfully engaged readers by articulating classical appeals 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 and thus gives Vilassenor the chances to further explain himself and engage readers emotions to his feelings. He has utilized words and phrases such as penalty to students, second-class treatment, and burdens to show his sympathy. His sympathy to liberal arts students makes his words more tangible to readers. Those words lock 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 biased but the strategies of framing evidences works well in guiding readers in a certain direction. It leaves no room for readers to think about the students in STEM majors like why was the policy created and what problems the tuition discount policy aimed to solve in 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

Hui 4

and engages readers into the debates. However, the article is biased and does not explain the policy itself well. 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.

Hui 5

Works Cited
Villasenor, John. "In Defense of Equal Tuition for All Majors " 7 January 2013. The Chronicle of Higer Education.