For some time going to college was undoubtedly the best option to secure a stable and well paid job. However, as the number of college students has increased many have growing concerns about whether attending college is actually providing the marketed financial security. There is anxiety among prospective college students as they hear the disappointing truth about the job market from those who have graduated before them. The truth that many find hard to believe is that a college education will not necessarily guarantee a comfortable standard of living. In the article “Poverty or Prosperity—Different Paths of Life After College” published in the Wall Street Journal in 2015, Corinne Ramey and Mike Vilensky reveal the shocking truth that the
…show more content…
From the beginning the article starts off by mentioning that a previous article released was not conducting a valid statistical study. Right off you get a sense of authority. The second sentence in the article is: “An article on Friday about salaries of students who attended college in New York City failed to mention that the report was limited to financial aid recipients.” It is immediately noticeable that their language is fierce because they specifically mention that the DOE “failed” to say that the study was limited to financial aid recipients as opposed to hinting at it. Not too far along do they show (once again) that they are very knowledgeable by saying, “For students who attended college in New York City, financial success has varied widely, but also somewhat predictably.” Here, the authors have a very authoritative tone. Another way the authors manipulate the language to establish credibility is by their diction. The authors chose words like “divergent” and “reaffirmed” instead of saying it more plainly using words like different or confirmed. For the rest of the article the use of respectable names such as “Harvard University”, “Juilliard”, “NYU”, and others to generate interest and hyperbolize their claims. For example, “Students who attended arts schools appeared to be struggling more than their peers. Former students at Juilliard are making a median of $30,100,” the authors use …show more content…
Throughout the entire article there are only three instances where the authors are trying to manipulate their audience. The first is when they try to exaggerate and emphasize the “financial gamble” that college has become. When they give IvyWise’s perspective they include that "… a lot of [college] presidents aren't pleased because it's a very narrow way to look at the success of the students, by looking at the salary afterward." It almost comes off angry. They seem offended that college administrator get their feelings hurt when they are evaluated on a single but very important statistic. The second is when they subtly dissing of religious schools when they include Representatives for those schools declined to comment. Almost like saying they couldn’t deny or cover-up the failure the school .\neglect. They are very critical of the Jewish college by making it seem small minded weak "But by and large," he said, "they kind of want to stay within their community," and the student focus is on religion rather than job-hunting. To make things worse they compare that Jewish school to the Yeshiva University, a Manhattan school that teaches both secular and religious studies, was in the top 10 highest earners. Yeshiva President Richard Joel said he felt validated. Yeshiva students are "living an integrated life of faith and action" that contributes to their high incomes later in life, he said. Making it obvious that they disapprove of the Jewish education
From the beginning the article starts off by mentioning that a previous article released was not conducting a valid statistical study. Right off you get a sense of authority. The second sentence in the article is: “An article on Friday about salaries of students who attended college in New York City failed to mention that the report was limited to financial aid recipients.” It is immediately noticeable that their language is fierce because they specifically mention that the DOE “failed” to say that the study was limited to financial aid recipients as opposed to hinting at it. Not too far along do they show (once again) that they are very knowledgeable by saying, “For students who attended college in New York City, financial success has varied widely, but also somewhat predictably.” Here, the authors have a very authoritative tone. Another way the authors manipulate the language to establish credibility is by their diction. The authors chose words like “divergent” and “reaffirmed” instead of saying it more plainly using words like different or confirmed. For the rest of the article the use of respectable names such as “Harvard University”, “Juilliard”, “NYU”, and others to generate interest and hyperbolize their claims. For example, “Students who attended arts schools appeared to be struggling more than their peers. Former students at Juilliard are making a median of $30,100,” the authors use …show more content…
Throughout the entire article there are only three instances where the authors are trying to manipulate their audience. The first is when they try to exaggerate and emphasize the “financial gamble” that college has become. When they give IvyWise’s perspective they include that "… a lot of [college] presidents aren't pleased because it's a very narrow way to look at the success of the students, by looking at the salary afterward." It almost comes off angry. They seem offended that college administrator get their feelings hurt when they are evaluated on a single but very important statistic. The second is when they subtly dissing of religious schools when they include Representatives for those schools declined to comment. Almost like saying they couldn’t deny or cover-up the failure the school .\neglect. They are very critical of the Jewish college by making it seem small minded weak "But by and large," he said, "they kind of want to stay within their community," and the student focus is on religion rather than job-hunting. To make things worse they compare that Jewish school to the Yeshiva University, a Manhattan school that teaches both secular and religious studies, was in the top 10 highest earners. Yeshiva President Richard Joel said he felt validated. Yeshiva students are "living an integrated life of faith and action" that contributes to their high incomes later in life, he said. Making it obvious that they disapprove of the Jewish education