The issue at debate is weather Harvard, and other big colleges, should offer online classes for degrees. The kicker here is that while students can participate to earn a degree they cannot obtain a credit. Yet, the benefit of these courses being free proves it worthy for a highly intellectual debate. Kathy Enger in her article, "Online Courses Offer a Way to Reach Minorities" argues that these online classes allow for a diversified classroom, reaching minorities who otherwise won't be sitting in a college environment. The writer mainly supports her evidence by using her personal experience teaching an online class, logic, and ethical appeal. It is clear her purpose is to make these classes more widespread in order to help more people earn the American dream. The intended audience here is the American citizens, college students, and the school board. Her tone is very simplistic and to the point, while also reminiscent as she recalls her past experiences. This article is really strong in its supporting argument. Her personal experiences with this issue provide unshakable evidence. It is lacking in more of an emotional appeal, because while it argues for its plight, the absence of true emotions make it a little less believable. In congruence, but with a difference, Sean Decatur in his article, "Online Classes Enhance, But Don't Replace College", communicates his idea that these courses diversify, and reach more students, they aren't sufficient enough for a degree. He uses strong diction, rhetorical questions, and past experiences with the issues. His purpose proves to be to educate those who are confused about the subject, in order to help those who are considering to do this, and make sure they are not misinformed about the topic. The audience is clearly potential college students, the college board, and the government. This article is superb in its real life examples, diction, and logic. This article is lacking emotional appeal though making the story less believable.
Enger's article is almost a unreachable utopian education, which is why Decatur's article wins in this debate. I personally wish Enger's article of reaching more minorities and offering "the opportunity to cross racial boundaries', but is is a little too good to be true. It is true that children in Africa, India, and China can take course from Harvard, and M.I..T. for free but this is not enough for an actual college education, which is why these colleges refuse to give credit for these courses. As Decatur argues, these online classes are only an enhancement to actual college. Also, the racial barriers may be true in some parts of America, but as a whole I believe, America has moved away from education and racial segregation. She argues that "Higher education gives opportunity to those who may be marginalized or excluded" by giving them a chance to free classes. This is true, but these classes are not enough education to fully remove such accusations and labels. One simply has to go to college. Decatur uses better arguments in his article such as the fact that " class time can be focused on higher-order learning and discussion" with these classes, not replace classes completely. He uses a better simplistic tone such as "in other words" there is a huge difference between online course takers, and those actually present in class. He simply states that "these new online courses are not a substitute for in-person classes" so there is no need to give credits to the students who take them. There is no counterargument there because what he says proves true. People just do better with actual teachers rather than virtual ones. He is also more convincing due the fact he includes benefits of the other side of the issue. He states "online initiatives offer a way for institutions to reach out to those who are unable to matriculate due to distance" thereby introducing the other argument. He really leaves no stones unturned.
Egner argues that these classes should offer credits due to the fact they can break barriers that education is chained to today. Decatur concedes to the point that these classes reach through barriers, but says that they do not replace the higher education system. I concede with the points made by Decatur in that sense, because I have personal experience that virtual environments do not replace a classroom setting. I wish that Enger's points were enough alone to give credits, but sadly it is not.
Enger's article is almost a unreachable utopian education, which is why Decatur's article wins in this debate. I personally wish Enger's article of reaching more minorities and offering "the opportunity to cross racial boundaries', but is is a little too good to be true. It is true that children in Africa, India, and China can take course from Harvard, and M.I..T. for free but this is not enough for an actual college education, which is why these colleges refuse to give credit for these courses. As Decatur argues, these online classes are only an enhancement to actual college. Also, the racial barriers may be true in some parts of America, but as a whole I believe, America has moved away from education and racial segregation. She argues that "Higher education gives opportunity to those who may be marginalized or excluded" by giving them a chance to free classes. This is true, but these classes are not enough education to fully remove such accusations and labels. One simply has to go to college. Decatur uses better arguments in his article such as the fact that " class time can be focused on higher-order learning and discussion" with these classes, not replace classes completely. He uses a better simplistic tone such as "in other words" there is a huge difference between online course takers, and those actually present in class. He simply states that "these new online courses are not a substitute for in-person classes" so there is no need to give credits to the students who take them. There is no counterargument there because what he says proves true. People just do better with actual teachers rather than virtual ones. He is also more convincing due the fact he includes benefits of the other side of the issue. He states "online initiatives offer a way for institutions to reach out to those who are unable to matriculate due to distance" thereby introducing the other argument. He really leaves no stones unturned.
Egner argues that these classes should offer credits due to the fact they can break barriers that education is chained to today. Decatur concedes to the point that these classes reach through barriers, but says that they do not replace the higher education system. I concede with the points made by Decatur in that sense, because I have personal experience that virtual environments do not replace a classroom setting. I wish that Enger's points were enough alone to give credits, but sadly it is not.