FINAL PAPER DEC 15

Jelani Pritchard

Professor Werry

RWS 100

15 Dec. 2014

And How Would You Know That? ..The Internet

            If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Because of the internet, our brain has undergo numerous of changes throughout our lives. It is argued that the internet has been a cancer to the way humans have read, write, or even think. Others claim that it has enhanced us as human race; from improving memory to creating connections with the world. Two individuals specifically, Nicholas Carr and Clive Thompson,  have two different views on  how the internet and technology has affected  us.  In the article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Carr argues that the internet has negatively affected the way we read and write. Carr claims that the net has altered the way we think and our ability to focus.  He believes  that the internet has become a distraction causing us to lose focus/concentration and is possibly making us 'stupid'. Opposing Carr,  Clive Thompson in his excerpt "Public Thinking" from the book "Smarter Than You Think,"  argues that the internet has been a vital tool in our advancement as the human race. Thompson claims that the internet has positively affected our lives by creating connections with others, improving our reading and writing skills, and even enhance our cognitive behavior. He presents a strong claim that the internet has been a useful tool that enhances our abilities and skill set that may benefit us a whole along with our individual selves.  Along with Thompson, Lance Ulanoff, writer for Mashable, argues in his article "Why Cant Johhny Write? Dont Blame Social Media" that the internet has been a beneficial factor in the way the human  race has advanced. Ulanoff claims that internet, for example social media, has created a new way of learning and should not be blamed for the idea of the internet causing kids to lose focus or have a decrease in their reading and writing skills. In the world we live in today, the internet has been essential to many of our successes. It is hard to argue that the technology has been a parasite to the human brain without looking at the many improvements and  advancements the internet has done for us. Thompson  presents an agreeable argument and it must be understood that the world wide web has presented us positivity and prosperity if anything.

            Nicholas Carr presents an interesting argument of the internet perishing our concentration and becoming a distraction. Carr believes that the internet has caused individuals to lose focus/concentration when reading.  Using  information and experiences from individuals who all are credible literary-types to Carr, he keys the idea of the effects of the internet and how they can alter concentration and brain activity . Fellow literary-type, Bruce Friedman, who  is a regular blogger who writes about the use of technology in medicine, explains how the internet has affected the way he works and reads.  Friedman states that he "has almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print" (59). Truthfully, Carr's claim of a decreasing concentration is strongly presented. Many college students, such as myself, are interested in reading long texts anymore compared to those who grew up without technology. Now in today's age, the internet is used as a tool in learning. Carr however, believes that the tool is more defected than helpful. He claims that the internet has negatively tweaked the way we are supposed to learn, read, and write. It can be argued that the net has become a domain of distraction and has slowed down learning for children, but in the modern era we live in today, it is inevitable to ignore the internet. Although Carr argues  a strong claim he also has presented   weaknesses in his article. Using only literary types and himself,  Carr tries to point out how the internet has negatively altered the way they read and work; for example causing them to lose the ability to read long novels/texts. Knowing that Carr and his fellow literary types grew up in a different era without technology, it seems to be biased to blame the internet for their  loss of their ability to 'focus' or negatively change the way they work. On the other side, lies the youth who grew up with this technology, as it advanced itself,  that has help claim that the internet has been more helpful than harmful.

            Although the internet withholds distractions that may affect us, Clive Thompson presents a strong argument of the internet improving our memory, creates connection, and enhance the way we read & write. Thompson states  that the internet/ the technological advancement  has improved individuals'  writing skills because of major increase of composed writing. According to Thompson, "we compose of 154 billion emails, 500 million tweets on Twitter, 1 million blog posts and comments, and about 150 billion words written on Facebook each day" (Thompson 47). The more we write as humans, the more improvements we will see in the skill. In basketball, Michael Jordan did not treat practice as an option, he treated it as a tool that will enhance his play in games. Tom Brady, professional football quarterback, uses practice to correct his mistakes and look for the weaknesses or strengths that are presented. It is the same for writing. the more we write the better we will be at it; with the advancement of the internet, it has launched us even further than we have expected.  The internet has not only been used for a domain to practice reading and writing skills, it is also used as a platform for connections with the world. Users of the internet are able to connect and share ideas like never before. It has created a way for people to interact socially, expand globally, and  enhance reading/writing skills. Thompson also states that the internet/technology has improved memory and cognitive thinking skills. With the internet it can be used as a platform or a stage. Ideas and ways of thinking can be shared to an audience. An audience can be used to improve performance, whether it be from writing for an audience or presenting/sharing ideas to others, this is called the audience effect. Thompson presents an experiment that supports his claim of the audience effect; One group had to solve the puzzle alone in silent while the other had to explain the way they were solving the puzzle into a tape recorder. The results showed that the kids who tried completing the puzzle did much worse than the group who didn't (55).  Thompson presents various ways of how the internet is a benefit to us. This shows how much positivity the internet has and how it can affect people as whole or individuals in many different ways.

            There are many different ways how the internet can affect people. Today, social media is probably one of the most used platform networks on this planet. It is used to network, socially connect, and surprisingly enhance reading & writing skills. Like Thompson, Lance Ulanoff argues that the internet is here for the better in the article "Why Cant Johnny Write? Dont Blame Social Media."  Arguing against individuals such as Carr, Ulanoff specifically states that social media should not be blamed for any negative effect on the way teenagers write. He argues that social media is actually a tool that can be used to help kids learn. Ulanoff uses an expert, Ethna Dempsey Lay, Hofstra University Assistant Professor of Writing Studies and Composition, to help claim that social media can actually be a different way individuals are able to write. Ulanoff and Lay claims that social media can be used to express one's self differently and can be used effectively. Ulanoff, more specifically discusses the effect of the social media plat form of Twitter. He uses examples from Lay's own teaching methods through Twitter, showing that social media can be used as a platform to write and communicate in a different way. He conducts an experiment on Twitter to see how well others are able to write in 140 characters or less, receives impressive results. He evaluates how well individuals are able to use correct grammar and punctuation under 140 characters or less. The internet has been used to expand ideas, not shorten them. There is more positive outcomes because of the internet than  negative ones.  

            The internet and technology that exists today is almost inevitable to any human being that attends school. The advancement of technology, claimed by both Thompson and Carr, has indeed affected the way an individual thinks, reads, or writes. Now whether it is more of a negative or positive effect on an individual can still be questioned; but it is safe to say that there is at least somewhat of both elements (positive/negative effect) that can alter one's mind. Personally, the internet has changed the way I work and receive information. Although it can be a distraction at times, the internet has become a useful tool. It can be used as a platform to connect with others socially and educationally. By connecting with others, there is more understanding in the how and whys of the world. Multiple minds can make change the world by sharing ideas and thoughts. Information can be absorbed in many different ways because of the accessibility to the internet, which serves as a platform for other's thoughts and ideas. Not only does the internet have individuals connect their minds with others, but it also has helped individuals to connect with themselves; enhancing our own cognitive thinking, writing, and reading skills. We now tend to read or look for the information that will either appeal to or help us. It can be questioned that this method may be a negative influence by the internet, making us humans 'lazy' or drift away from focusing on a full length of text, but it also can be argued that it could be a more efficient way to absorb information.

            At the end of the day the internet will always be more beneficial than negative in my eyes. It has created a place for myself to improve the way I think, read, and write. Using social media has improved my social skills and communication. This skill is very vital in the real world and can be applied to any job in the world. It is more than just education. Although, education is very important in success. The internet and the way technology has advanced, I only see massive improvements with education. Reading other individual's work has helped me create my own ideas. For example; reading my classmates' work on their blogs has inspired some of my work or ideas that I  have created on my own. Posting work myself will improve the way I write as well. Connecting to somewhat of the audience effect.  The world today needs the internet and has made it a useful tool. Without it, it is hard for many individuals to succeed and expand globally. It is a platform for networking and connecting with others. The connection an individual has with another will improve the way we share ideas and thoughts. Thoughts and ideas that can be used to help create solutions to the problems we have in the world. The way we read and write has been altered for the better. Thompson and Ulanoff  presents a persuasive argument that the internet/the advancement of technology has bettered individuals globally.

            Although they have different views, Nicholas Carr, Clive Thompson, and Lance Ulanoff all have one thing in common. They all believe that the internet has a major role in today's world has a effect on us as humans. Carr believes it is more detrimental, causing us humans to lose focus. The internet has some distractions of course, but so does real life. The idea of  negative effects of the internet are flawed and can be easily countered with opposing arguments such as Thompson or Ulanoff  present. They believe that the world wide web has given us an advantage. It has created a platform for creativity. The internet has been a beneficial, positive, and an important factor in how the human race has advanced. Research methods are altered for the better. The internet can be used as a tool that will pick out all of the important and useful information. Carr believes that the net has a negative effect on learning or absorbing information, but in reality it has only been efficient in the way humans have been able to learn, read, and write.  Without the internet, there wouldn't be much in the world, so it is vital that us humans do not take it for granted and use it to the best of our abilities to only better ourselves as the human race.    

Work Cited

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic Sept. 2008. Print. Nov. 2014.

Thompson, Clive. "Smarter Than You Think" Penguin Press 2013. Print. 9 Sept. 2014.

Ulanoff, Lance. "Why Cant Johhny Write? Dont Blame Social Media." Mashable 4 May 2013.

            Web. 19 Nov. 2014.

very rough draft HW DEC 8th

                        VERY ROUGH DRAFT

If it aint broke, dont fix it. Because of the internet, our brain has undergo numerous of changes throughout our lives. In the article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Nicholas Carr argues that the internet has negatively affected the way we read and write. Carr claims that the net has altered the way we think and focus.  But has the internet made our brains automatically unable to focus? While Carr jumps into conclusion, Clive Thompson in his excerpt "Public Thinking" from the book "Smarter Than You Think"  argues that the internet has been a vital tool in our advancement as the human race. Thompson claims that the internet has positively affected our lives by creating connections with others, improving our reading and writing skills, and even enhance our cognitive behavior. Thompson and Carr both believe the internet/the advancements of technology has affected the world's way of thinking, writing, and reading. Carr claims that the internet has become a distraction causing us to lose focus/concentration and is possibly making us 'stupid'. Thompson however, presents a strong claim that the internet has been a useful tool that enhances our abilities and skill set. The world today needs the internet and has made it a useful tool. Without it, it is hard for many individuals to succeed and expand globally. It is a platform for networking and connecting with others. The connection an individual has with another will improve the way we share ideas and thoughts. Thoughts and ideas that can be used to help create solutions to the problems we have in the world. The way we read and write has been altered for the better. Thompson presents a persuasive argument that the internet/the advancement of technology has bettered individuals globally. 

The internet and technology that exists today is almost inevitable to any human being that attends school. The advancement of technology, claimed by both Thompson and Carr, has indeed affected the way an individual thinks, reads, or writes. Now whether it is more of a negative or positive effect on an individual can still be questioned; but it is safe to say that there is at least somewhat of both elements (positive/negative effect) that can alter one's mind. Personally, the internet has changed the way I work and receive information. Although it can be a distraction at times, the internet has become a useful tool. It can be used as a platform to connect with others socially and educationally. By connecting with others, there is more understanding in the how and whys of the world. Multiple minds can make change the world by sharing ideas and thoughts. Information can be absorbed in many different ways because of the accessibility to the internet, which serves as a platform for other's thoughts and ideas. Not only does the internet have individuals connect their minds with others, but it also has helped individuals to connect with themselves; enhancing our own cognitive thinking, writing, and reading skills. We now tend to read or look for the information that will either appeal to or help us. It can be questioned that this method may be a negative influence by the internet, making us humans 'lazy' or drift away from focusing on a full length of text, but it also can be argued that it could be a more efficient way to absorb information.

             

New Outline HW DEC 3

OUTLINE

Intro: I will introduce both Thompson and Carr by  their position of how the internet affects individuals.

P1: attack Carr's weaknesses to strengthen my argument and support/extend Thompson's claim.

P2: Use the Johhny Can't Write source to extend/illustrate thompson's claim

P3. Argue my position; discussing how the internet can improve our memory, clarify thinking, and creating connection with others by using personal experiences, claims from Thompson, points from the Johhny Cant Write source, and also the weaknesses of Carr for contradiction

Conclusion: summarize and answer the "'so what?" question.

Focus on paper: creating connections, improving memory, clarifying thinking.

1. Thompson's claim: The internet has enhanced the way we think, read, and write in the modern era today.

2. My own sub-claim: The internet/advancements of technology has enhanced the way we as  humans think, read, and write. The positive effect of the internet can improve memory as well creating a way for us to be connected with one another. 

3. Sources that will be used

a) Ulanoff, Lance. "Why Cant Johhny Write? Dont Blame Social Media." Mashable 4 May 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.

b) Thompson, Clive. "Smarter Than You Think" Penguin Press 2013. Print. 9 Sept. 2014.

c) Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic Sept. 2008. Print. Nov. 2014.

d) Also a little bit of personal experience - to be used to further extend the idea of Thompson's claim of the internet enhancing reading, writing, and thinking.

4. I will be using Thompson's and Carr's sources to introduce the different views of how the internet effects the world today. Along with the use of Thompson's text, I will take claims from the "Why Cant Johnny Write?" article and points from my own personal experience to discuss how the internet effects us in a positive way by changing the way we read, think, and write. The focus of the final paper will discuss the clarification of thinking, the creation of connections of others, and the improvement of memory, all due to the effect of the advancement of technology/internet.

HW NOV 24 outline

OUTLINE

Focus on paper: creating connections, improving memory, clarifying thinking.

1. Thompson's claim: The internet has enhanced the way we think, read, and write in the modern era today.

2. My own sub-claim: The internet/advancements of technology has enhanced the way we as  humans think, read, and write. The positive effect of the internet can improve memory as well creating a way for us to be connected with one another.  

3. Sources that will be used

a) Ulanoff, Lance. "Why Cant Johhny Write? Dont Blame Social Media." Mashable 4 May 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.

b) Thompson, Clive. "Smarter Than You Think" Penguin Press 2013. Print. 9 Sept. 2014.

c) Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic Sept. 2008. Print. Nov. 2014.

d) Also a little bit of personal experience

4. I will be using Thompson's and Carr's sources to introduce the different views of how the internet effects the world today. Along with the use of Thompson's text, I will take claims from the "Why Cant Johnny Write?" article and points from my own personal experience to discuss how the internet effects us in a positive way by changing the way we read, think, and write. The focus of the final paper will discuss the clarification of thinking, the creation of connections of others, and the improvement of memory, all due to the effect of the advancement of technology/internet. 

HW NOV 21

Jelani Pritchard

Professor Werry

21 Nov. 2014

Anecdote

            The internet and technology that exists today is almost inevitable to any human being that attends school. The advancement of technology, claimed by both Thompson and Carr, has indeed affected the way an individual thinks, reads, or writes. Now whether it is more of a negative or positive effect on an individual can still be questioned; but it is safe to say that there is at least somewhat of both elements (positive/negative effect) that can alter one's mind. Personally, the internet has changed the way I work and receive information. Although it can be a distraction at times, the internet has become a useful tool. It can be used as a platform to connect with others socially and educationally. By connecting with others, there is more understanding in the how and whys of the world. Multiple minds can make change the world by sharing ideas and thoughts. Information can be absorbed in many different ways because of the accessibility to the internet, which serves as a platform for other's thoughts and ideas. Not only does the internet have individuals connect their minds with others, but it also has helped individuals to connect with themselves; enhancing our own cognitive thinking, writing, and reading skills. We now tend to read or look for the information that will either appeal to or help us. It can be questioned that this method may be a negative influence by the internet, making us humans 'lazy' or drift away from focusing on a full length of text, but it also can be argued that it could be a more efficient way to absorb information.

            Thompson and Carr both believe the internet/the advancements of technology has affected the world's way of thinking, writing, and reading. Carr claims that the internet has become a distraction causing us to lose focus/concentration and is possibly making us 'stupid'. Thompson however, presents a strong claim that the internet has been a useful tool that enhances our abilities and skill set. The world today needs the internet and has made it a useful tool. Without it, it is hard for many individuals to succeed and expand globally. It is a platform for networking and connecting with others. The connection an individual has with another will improve the way we share ideas and thoughts. Thoughts and ideas that can be used to help create solutions to the problems we have in the world. The way we read and write has been altered for the better. Thompson presents a persuasive argument that the internet/the advancement of technology has bettered individuals globally.  

11-19-14 summaries

Matthew Zipagan, Tatiana Lai Jelani, Pritchard

Professor Werry

RWS100, Section 24

November 17, 2014

Summary of “What’s Lost as Handwriting Fades?” By Maria Konnokova

            In the article, “What’s Lost as Handwriting Fades?”, Maria Konnokova discusses how writing effectively creates more brain activity than typing on a keyboard. As children learn how to write and continue to write, they gain the skills of reading faster, generating ideas, and also retaining information. Konnokova includes a study in her article that dealt with children and writing. Children who wrote free-handedly experiencedincreased activity in three parts of their brain andchildren who typed on a keyboard or connected the dots showed little activity within the brain. Konnokova also argues that the way we write, whether it’s print or cursive, can also have a great benefit on our brains. Konnokava’s article connects to Carr’s text because she favors writing instead of using the technology. Konnokova wants her audience to know that there are more benefits when writing rather than typing away on a keyboard.   

           

Summary of “Why Can’t Johnny Write? Don’t Blame Social Media”

In the article, "Why Can't Johnny Write? Don't Blame Social Media," Lance Ulanoff discusses how social media may actually have no negative effect on the writing skills of teens. Ulanoff uses an expert on prose, Ethna Dempsey Lay (Hofstra University Assistant Professor of Writing Studies and Composition) to help claim that social media can actually be a different way individuals are able to write. It is claimed that social media can be used to express one's self differently and can be used effectively. Ulanoff also uses examples from Lay's own teaching methods through Twitter, showing that social media can be used as a platform to write and communicate with others more. Ulanoff also conducts an experiment on Twitter to see how well others are able to write in 140 characters or less. This article connects with both Thompson and Carr on how technology/internet can affect the way we read or write. Through the Twitter experiment Ulanoff used and how Thompson used the Vanderbilt experiment in his text , they are both able to show the audience how technology may not indeed negatively affect an individual's skills. Although Carr's argument is how the internet may negatively effects us, Thompson and Ulanoff both write that the technological advancements does not necessarily do so.  

FINAL DRAFT 3RD PAPER (Nov 17)

Jelani Pritchard

Professor Werry

17  Nov. 2014

Is da Internet making me stoopid?

             Research and several studies show that in the United States..[*stops reading*]. And that is when we usually stop or want to stop reading a text in today's era. Nicholas Carr, who is a writer for The Atlantic discusses how the internet has negatively affected the way we read, write, and think in his article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" In his text, which was ironically dreadful to read through, discusses the aspects of how the internet has negatively altered our ways of reading and writing. Carr questions if the internet has made us stupid enough to the point where we can't even get through a full text of reading without wanting to give up on it because of the lack of interest we have. Carr also claims that the world wide web has tweaked his methods of writing. With a few searches on Google, information is quickly found right under your finger tips. Writing papers or researching studies has evolved with the help of the internet, while the old method that once required stacks of print and hours at the library has seem to drifted off along with the wind. In this text Carr uses multiple credible sources that he calls 'literary-types' who gives input on the internet and its influences on readers and writers. Carr argues that as a literary-type, he and others have trouble staying focused reading an article or text the more they use the web. In this day and age, our generation has grew up with technology that helps advances education. It is important for us to understand whether or not if the technology, particularly the internet, is a negative influence on our reading, writing, and thinking skills or not. Carr does make favorable arguments, but there are also flaws in his text. In this paper I will discuss how Carr presents his argument to the audience by analyzing strategies he uses.

             In the article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Carr, uses several strategies to help support his argument and persuade his audience. One strategy Carr uses well throughout the text was his use of Ethos. Using multiple experiences and information from individuals who all seem to be credible literary-types, Carr tries to point out the effects of the internet and how they can alter brain activity and focus. A literary-type, Bruce Friedman, who  regularly blogs about the use of technology in medicine, gave his insight on how the way he reads and works has been affected by the internet.  Friedman states that he "has almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print" (59). Having credentials such as a graduate from the University of Michigan Medical School and who is now a pathologist, Friedman is a prime example of how Carr uses Ethos to help support his argument. By using multiple credible individuals in his text, Carr is able to build his credibility and trustworthiness throughout his text.  This strategy works by introducing and presenting a notable individual to his audience to reassure them that it is not just a random individual off the streets who blogs on his iPhone. He uses this specific strategy to show that even high authorities or an individual with high credentials can also be victims of how the internet effects focus. Friedman even explains how he is unable to read the classic novel of War and Peace or even a couple of paragraphs on a blog post because it is "too much to absorb." With the internet making work and reading "easier', it may have flawed the human brain to look for the easy way out. Brain activity is now altered for the human to absorb information they will only be useful or beneficial to them. Carr uses the strategy of Ethos fairly well. From computer scientists to corporations such as Google, he presents multiple credible sources that help him with his claim. Convincing readers that the internet can change the way you take in or even have the ability to absorb information from a text, Carr proves that the strategy of Ethos is effective. Although effective, Carr may have several flaws in the way he uses this strategy. He does indeed provide very credible individuals, but they are all literary-types, just like him. Using experiences and information from literary types may seem a little biased considering the fact that the whole argument is about how the internet effects the way us humans read, obtain knowledge, and sometimes write. Carr should probably look into using individuals who has a different perspective than he and his literary-types do. They may even say that the internet is actually helping the way we work by providing a more efficient way to complete tasks or texts. Nonetheless, Carr still uses Ethos in an effective way to  support his argument. 

            Nicholas Carr also uses the strategy of exemplification. With credible sources established and introduced, he uses examples from others to help illustrate and illuminate his argument. Examples from history has been presented various times throughout the text. Carr compares how new technology back then affected individuals to how the new technology we have here today affects us. According to Carr, Alan Turing, a British mathematician, proved that the digital computer (which at the time of 1936 only existed to be a theoretical machine) "could be programmed to perform the function of any other information-processing device (61). He then discusses how the computer has evolved to not only provide information on the internet, but also become a radio, a map, a television, type writer, a printing press, and even a calculator. Now with the technological advancements, the internet can work in a very versatile way. He claims that the net has now become a domain of distraction, scattering our attention span and diffuse our concentration. HIs use in using historical examples also partly contributes into the strategy of compare and contrast. This influences the audience to believe that even in history, the theoretical idea of the computer may become more than an information-processing machine that may force or allow individuals to lose focus and attention easily. Carr's uses of exemplification was very effective to help support his claim.

            Carr not only explains how the internet can alter the way we focus, write, or read through examples and credible sources, but he also does so by connecting with the audience. Throughout the whole texts, he uses pronouns, such as; we, us, and you to make it clear that the internet does not only effect him and his literary-types but of all us together. He claims that we should be skeptical of his skepticism because of our love for the internet and even admits that perhaps some people that believe that the internet will prosper and help our world intellectually. But he also rebuts his statement, saying that because of the internet and how it can distract us, the loss of deep reading from printed pages causes us to lose focus and lack deep thinking. For the most part in the beginning of his texts, he refers to himself along with his literary-types more than the audience. He starts out strongly to show the audience how the net can affect how they are unable to absorb information the way they used to. But Carr later, makes it clear that it the new technology/internet is part of our world today and that is is important that we must start thinking about how we really obtain information from the web. The question of us really losing focus, us lacking the ability to think deeply, or even write effectively because of the internet may all be asked after Carr's argument. And that's what makes Carr fairly effective in his text. Carr was successful in making sure that the audience is engaged towards the end to clarify that we are all effected by the internet.  

            In today's day and age, the internet has become a tool that plays a major role in  technological advancements and arguably humans as well. Carr, on the other hand believes that the internet has become a distraction for people. Literary types such as himself are unable to focus and they blame the internet for that. Carr uses multiple strategies throughout the text to connect with readers by using examples and usses experiences and testimonies from credible sources to help his claim of how the internet may possibly be making us stupid. His text revealed several points that make great arguments in how the internet is negatively affecting us.. Carr uses Bruce Friedman's experience of his inability to read the novel of War and Peace to show that the internet has affected him and his focus on reading. Although the internet has helped us in many ways, almost becoming the universal tool of the world, it has negatively affected individuals. Just like Carr and his literary types, it has personally alter the way I have researched and read material. The invention of the car has become a huge advancement in the human race; although used as an efficient way to travel and get to places has it made us lazy? The internet is similar in that sense. It has become a tool that has advanced humans globally, but may have individuals question if it has become a distraction from reality. Making us stupid. 

updated draft nov 10

Jelani Prtchard

Professor Werry

6 Nov. 2014

Draft

             Research and several studies show that in the United States..[*stops reading*]. And that is when we usually stop or want to stop reading a text in today's era. Nicholas Carr, who is a writer for The Atlantic discusses how the internet has negatively affected the way we read, write, and think in his article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" In his text, which was ironically dreadful to read through, discusses the aspects of how the internet has negatively altered our ways of reading and writing. Carr questions if the internet has made us stupid enough to the point where we can't even get through a full text of reading without wanting to give up on it because of the lack of interest we have. Carr also claims that the world wide web has tweaked his methods of writing. With a few searches on Google, information is quickly found right under your finger tips. Writing papers or researching studies has evolved with the help of the internet, while the old method that once required stacks of print and hours at the library has seem to drifted off along with the wind. In this text Carr uses multiple credible sources that he calls 'literary-types' who gives input on the internet and its influences on readers and writers. Carr argues that as a literary-type, he and others have trouble staying focused reading an article or text the more they use the web. In this day and age, our generation has grew up with technology that helps advances education. It is important for us to understand whether or not if the technology, particularly the internet, is a negative influence on our reading, writing, and thinking skills or not. Carr does make favorable arguments, but there are also flaws in his text. In this paper I will discuss how Carr presents his argument to the audience by analyzing strategies he uses.

             In the article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Carr, uses several strategies to help support his argument and persuade his audience. One strategy Carr uses well throughout the text was his use of Ethos. Using multiple experiences and information from individuals who all seem to be credible literary-types, Carr tries to point out the effects of the internet and how they can alter brain activity and focus. A literary-type, Bruce Friedman, who  regularly blogs about the use of technology in medicine, gave his insight on how the way he reads and works has been affected by the internet.  Friedman states that he "has almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print" (59). Having credentials such as a graduate from the University of Michigan Medical School and who is now a pathologist, Friedman is a prime example of how Carr uses Ethos to help support his argument. By using multiple credible individuals in his text, Carr is able to build his credibility and trustworthiness throughout his text.  This strategy works by introducing and presenting a notable individual to his audience to reassure them that it is not just a random individual off the streets who blogs on his iPhone. He uses this specific strategy to show that even high authorities or an individual with high credentials can also be victims of how the internet effects focus. Friedman even explains how he is unable to read the classic novel of War and Peace or even a couple of paragraphs on a blog post because it is "too much to absorb." With the internet making work and reading "easier', it may have flawed the human brain to look for the easy way out. Brain activity is now altered for the human to absorb information they will only be useful or beneficial to them. Carr uses the strategy of Ethos fairly well. From computer scientists to corporations such as Google, he presents multiple credible sources that help him with his claim. Convincing readers that the internet can change the way you take in or even have the ability to absorb information from a text, Carr proves that the strategy of Ethos is effective. Although effective, Carr may have several flaws in the way he uses this strategy. He does indeed provide very credible individuals, but they are all literary-types, just like him. Using experiences and information from literary types may seem a little biased considering the fact that the whole argument is about how the internet effects the way us humans read, obtain knowledge, and sometimes write. Carr should probably look into using individuals who has a different perspective than he and his literary-types do. They may even say that the internet is actually helping the way we work by providing a more efficient way to complete tasks or texts. Nonetheless, Carr still uses Ethos in an effective way to  support his argument. 

            Nicholas Carr also uses the strategy of exemplification. With credible sources established and introduced, he uses examples from others to help illustrate and illuminate his argument. Examples from history has been presented various times throughout the text. Carr compares how new technology back then affected individuals to how the new technology we have here today affects us. According to Carr, Alan Turing, a British mathematician, proved that the digital computer (which at the time of 1936 only existed to be a theoretical machine) "could be programmed to perform the function of any other information-processing device (61). He then discusses how the computer has evolved to not only provide information on the internet, but also become a radio, a map, a television, type writer, a printing press, and even a calculator. Now with the technological advancements, the internet can work in a very versatile way. He claims that the net has now become a domain of distraction, scattering our attention span and diffuse our concentration. HIs use in using historical examples also partly contributes into the strategy of compare and contrast. This influences the audience to believe that even in history, the theoretical idea of the computer may become more than an information-processing machine that may force or allow individuals to lose focus and attention easily. Carr's uses of exemplification was very effective to help support his claim.

            Carr not only explains how the internet can alter the way we focus, write, or read through examples and credible sources, but he also does so by connecting with the audience. Throughout the whole texts, he uses pronouns, such as; we, us, and you to make it clear that the internet does not only effect him and his literary-types but of all us together. He claims that we should be skeptical of his skepticism because of our love for the internet and even admits that perhaps some people that believe that the internet will prosper and help our world intellectually. But he also rebuts his statement, saying that because of the internet and how it can distract us, the loss of deep reading from printed pages causes us to lose focus and lack deep thinking. For the most part in the beginning of his texts, he refers to himself along with his literary-types more than the audience. He starts out strongly to show the audience how the net can affect how they are unable to absorb information the way they used to. But Carr later, makes it clear that it the new technology/internet is part of our world today and that is is important that we must start thinking about how we really obtain information from the web. The question of us really losing focus, us lacking the ability to think deeply, or even write effectively because of the internet may all be asked after Carr's argument. And that's what makes Carr fairly effective in his text. Carr was successful in making sure that the audience is engaged towards the end to clarify tht we are all effected by the internet.  

NOV 7 UPDATED DRAFT

Jelani Prtchard

Professor Werry

6 Nov. 2014

Draft

             Research and several studies show that in the United States..[*stops reading*]. And that is when we usually stop or want to stop reading a text in today's era. Nicholas Carr, who is a writer for The Atlantic discusses how the internet has negatively affected the way we read, write, and think in his article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" In his text, which was ironically dreadful to read through, discusses the aspects of how the internet has negatively altered our ways of reading and writing. Carr questions if the internet has made us stupid enough to the point where we can't even get through a full text of reading without wanting to give up on it because of the lack of interest we have. Carr also claims that the world wide web has tweaked his methods of writing. With a few searches on Google, information is quickly found right under your finger tips. Writing papers or researching studies has evolved with the help of the internet, while the old method that once required stacks of print and hours at the library has seem to drifted off along with the wind. In this text Carr uses multiple credible sources that he calls 'literary-types' who gives input on the internet and its influences on readers and writers. Carr argues that as a literary-type, he and others have trouble staying focused reading an article or text the more they use the web. In this day and age, our generation has grew up with technology that helps advances education. It is important for us to understand whether or not if the technology, particularly the internet, is a negative influence on our reading, writing, and thinking skills or not. Carr does make favorable arguments, but there are also flaws in his text. In this paper I will discuss how Carr presents his argument to the audience by analyzing strategies he uses.

             In the article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Carr, uses several strategies to help support his argument and persuade his audience. One strategy Carr uses well throughout the text was his use of Ethos. Using multiple experiences and information from individuals who all seem to be credible literary-types, Carr tries to point out the effects of the internet and how they can alter brain activity and focus. A literary-type, Bruce Friedman, who  regularly blogs about the use of technology in medicine, gave his insight on how the way he reads and works has been affected by the internet.  Friedman states that he "has almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print" (59). Having credentials such as a graduate from the University of Michigan Medical School and who is now a pathologist, Friedman is a prime example of how Carr uses Ethos to help support his argument. By using multiple credible individuals in his text, Carr is able to build his credibility and trustworthiness throughout his text.  This strategy works by introducing and presenting a notable individual to his audience to reassure them that it is not just a random individual off the streets who blogs on his iPhone. He uses this specific strategy to show that even high authorities or an individual with high credentials can also be victims of how the internet effects focus. Friedman even explains how he is unable to read the classic novel of War and Peace or even a couple of paragraphs on a blog post because it is "too much to absorb." With the internet making work and reading "easier', it may have flawed the human brain to look for the easy way out. Brain activity is now altered for the human to absorb information they will only be useful or beneficial to them. Carr uses the strategy of Ethos fairly well. From computer scientists to corporations such as Google, he presents multiple credible sources that help him with his claim. Convincing readers that the internet can change the way you take in or even have the ability to absorb information from a text, Carr proves that the strategy of Ethos is effective. Although effective, Carr may have several flaws in the way he uses this strategy. He does indeed provide very credible individuals, but they are all literary-types, just like him. Using experiences and information from literary types may seem a little biased considering the fact that the whole argument is about how the internet effects the way us humans read, obtain knowledge, and sometimes write. Carr should probably look into using individuals who has a different perspective than he and his literary-types do. They may even say that the internet is actually helping the way we work by providing a more efficient way to complete tasks or texts. Nonetheless, Carr still uses Ethos in an effective way to  support his argument. 

            Nicholas Carr also uses the strategy of exemplification. With credible sources established and introduced, he uses examples from others to help illustrate and illuminate his argument. Examples of the past has been presented various times throughout the text. Carr compares how new technology back then affected individuals to how the new technology we have here today affects us. According to Carr, Alan Turing, a British mathematician, proved that the digital computer (which at the time of 1936 only existed to be a theoretical machine) "could be programmed to perform the function of any other information-processing device (61). He then discusses how the computer has evolved to not only provide information on the internet, but also become a radio, a map, a television, type writer, a printing press, and even a calculator. Now with the technological advancements, the internet can work in a very versatile way. He claims that the net has now become a domain of distraction, scattering our attention span and diffuse our concentration.    

Nov 5th Draft (just the intro, body paragraphs will be posted later)

Jelani Prtchard

Professor Werry

6 Nov. 2014

Draft

             Research and several studies show that in the United States..[*stops reading*]. And that is when we usually stop or want to stop reading a text in today's era. Nicholas Carr, who is a writer for The Atlantic discusses how the internet has negatively affected the way we read, write, and think in his article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" In his text, which was ironically dreadful to read through, discusses the aspects of how the internet has negatively altered our ways of reading and writing. Carr questions if the internet has made us stupid enough to the point where we can't even get through a full text of reading without wanting to give up on it because of the lack of interest we have. Carr also claims that the world wide web has tweaked his methods of writing. With a few searches on Google, information is quickly found right under your finger tips. Writing papers or researching studies has evolved with the help of the internet, while the old method that once required stacks of print and hours at the library has seem to drifted off along with the wind. In this text Carr uses multiple credible sources that he calls 'literary-types' who gives input on the internet and its influences on readers and writers. Carr argues that as a literary-type, he and others have trouble staying focused reading an article or text the more they use the web. In this day and age, our generation has grew up with technology that helps advances education. It is important for us to understand whether or not if the technology, particularly the internet, is a negative influence on our reading, writing, and thinking skills or not. Carr does make favorable arguments, but there are also flaws in his text. In this paper I will discuss how Carr presents his argument to the audience by analyzing strategies he uses.    

HW OCT 31 Carr

Carr's argument in his text, discusses how the internet negatively affects the way we read, write, and even think today. The text argues that we have a hard time reading long texts because of the internet, we lack effort in finding sources or information because of the easy use of Google, and also how our brains/minds are negatively altered.

Evidence
- Outside sources
- Expert/Authority statements
- Other people's opinions/experiences
- Data or studies from schools or scientists

Strategies
- Logos
- Ethos
- Identification
- Comparison
- Exemplification

HW OCT 29 Response

In Vince Parry's "Branding a Condition," he uses a strategy that engages with the audience. Parry lists 5 questions that the reader can answer to and then gives the audience the answer to his own question. This allows the readers to critically think about problems and concepts. 

In Jeremy Rifkin's "A Change of Heart About Animals," divides and organizes his text in an interesting way. He breaks up his text by dividing a paragraphs that discuss a topic/problem independently. <-- if that was confusing, here is an example: In his first 2 paragraphs, he mainly introduces the topic. In the next 2, he discusses on animal treatment and how it affects their behavior. In paragraphs 5,6,7, and 8 the body of text focuses animal behavior by providing evidence or information. He organizes his paper so well, it sort of creates an easy way for the reader to get a better understanding on his text.

FINAL DRAFT OCT 27 Carey

Jelani Pritchard

Professor Werry

27 Oct. 2014

Bank Of America

            How bad do you want yourself or your kids to receive an education that will allow you to succeed? Young adults in America thrive to succeed. To reach success in today's world, education is pretty much mandatory. In "Why Do You Think They're Called For-Profit Colleges," a 2010 article published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Kevin Carey argues that although the higher level education institutions, such as for-profit schools, are here to stay, they have major flaws in their system. Carey is a writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education that discusses the negatives of for-profits in America and also the way these schools benefit education.  Carey defends the for-profits although the system of the way it is ran, is a huge fraud and have victimized college students. These For-Profit schools have been accused with a flawed recruiting process, leaving students with huge amounts of debt, or even leaving them unemployed with a degree in their hand. For-Profit schools such as University of Phoenix, Kaplan College, Corinthian College, Grand Canyon University, etc are now ran like a business with the main goal of gaining profit instead of giving students quality education for the price they paid for. With For-Profit schools having 90% of the revenue coming from federal government assistance, rewarded Pell Grants and loans taken out from students are used to pay off their tuition is. Many of the students have taken out loans from the government with the kind help of the school itself. Schools target young adults who have the strong desire to receive a higher education, even with the possibility that they are not suited to receive it. College acceptant rates at For-Profit universities are almost at 100% with the schools not even bothering to ask for students' high school transcripts. Many of the students that are enrolled come from a low-income family, but that does not stop them from targeting them for loans. For-Profits are out to look for themselves, even with faulty recruiting tactics. Never the less to say, even with problems with the creditability or quality of education they provide, the treatment of students, and the profit first mentality, For-Profits are here to stay. Carey believes that the schools are here now and that the fact of the matter is that there needs to be acceptance of it. For-Profit does indeed give students another option to receive a higher level of education and also does give them a more specific career path to fulfill after high school. For-Profit schools play a big role in providing students alternatives. They are here to help fix failures left by traditional public or private college/universities, such as not providing certain courses due to expenses. This helps students consider in enrolling into a For-Profit institution that does have benefits that traditional schools don't. Although Carey defends for-profit schools by arguing that they are here to stay, the flaws of the institution seem to outweigh the positive insight Carey has.  In this paper I will analyze Carey's text by  illustrating, extending, and complicating his claims by bringing in several outside sources that will support my analysis.

            Although, Carey claims that we "do not have the credibility to determine if the quality of education given by For-Profit schools are less than traditional institutions" (14-16),  excerpts from a government accountability report on For-Profit universities, published in the full article, "For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices," obtains several pieces of evidence that complicates his claim.  It is argued that finding employment after graduation of a college is in the sole responsibility of the individual, but several For-Profit schools deceived possible recruitments in order to gain their interest. In an undercover study/experiment, an applicant was told "deceiving or questionable information on about employment and prospective salaries after graduation by 5 different For-Profit schools. One small for-profit school that specializes in beauty told the applicant that barbers can earn up to $150,000 to $250,000 a year, while according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 10% of Barbers make more than $43,000 a year" (11).  Another For-Profit school deceived an undercover representative by telling them that instead of obtaining a criminal justice degree, they should consider a medical assisting certificate that would only take 9 months to complete at the college, earning up to $68,000 a year. With data found by the BLS, "90% of all people working in this field make less than $40,000 a year," (12) contradicting the deceiving information told.  It can be argued that For-Profit schools should not being responsible for finding employment for individuals after their graduation or obtainment of degree . But the schools do indeed make several guarantees or false information to possible future For-Profit students in the recruiting process. Allowing individuals to question the quality or credibility of the degree they earned at the For-Profit institution they attended. The GAO reports provides evidence that shows us that students were promised employment and outstanding salaries after graduation. This also exposes how the quality of degree the for-profit schools does not help post grads actually find employment. If for-profs are promising successful results by attending the schools, students should either be employed or make the expected salary the schools promised them. Instead they were told false information and were left with a questionable degree, if they are unemployed.

            Recruitment of students not only affects the outcome of revenue of the for-profit, but also the outcome of the students future. Questionable recruiting tactics have been taken into initiative by for-profit "advisors" that present students with a deception of hope. The main goal for for-profit schools is to obtain as many students as they can for profit. Giving for-profit schools the label of "for profit." The tactics of the recruitment process are almost ruthless. For-profits will do almost anything to meet their own goals. Carey claims that of "large numbers of graduates of for-profits are having trouble paying back loans; because of aggressive recruiters" (8). The recruitment process of such schools seem to be flawed. By comparing a traditional institution, San Diego State University, and a for-profit school, American Public University System, data from collegeresults.org, extends Carey's claim by showing that the average high school GPA of college freshmen was at a 3.6 while there was no average GPA recorded for the for-profit school. Data also shows that there was no SAT or other test scores recorded. With an 100% acceptance rate, the American Public University System admitted students without the requirements of a high school transcript with a recorded GPA nor any test scores. If schools are accepting anyone from anywhere regardless of their educational or income background, they are aware of the possibility of either drop outs and unpaid loans. Although that is a possibility, schools do not care as they nonchalantly recruit an individual regardless of the circumstances, keeping their goal in tact of gaining profit. Some for-profit institutions will find a loop hole in order to fulfill their goal of recruiting and profit. In the article, “For-Profit Colleges, Vulnerable G.I.’s,” by Holly Petreaus, examples of the recruitment process of military veterans also extends on Carey's claim. With having "a strong incentive to enroll service members and veterans, in large part because of the '90-10 rule', created by the 1998 amendments to the Higher Education Act," (5), they are able to gain more revenue legally through a loop hole. The 90-10 rule states that "a for-profit college must obtain at least 10 percent of its revenue from a source other than Title IV education funds, the primary source of federal student aid"..."Funds from Tuition Assistance and the G.I. Bill are not defined as Title IV funds, so they count toward the 10 percent requirement, just like private sources of financing" (5). The for-profit institutions are not only targeting young ambitious students but also military veterans for recruitment, which does not exclude a marine with brain damages. Questionable tactics of recruitment by the schools plays a huge role in the flawed system of for-profit institutions. 

            Young students in the modern era desire higher level education after they graduate high school. Why? Competition, that is why. Finding quality employment is a difficult task, but to do so without a college degree in your hand almost makes it certain for an individual to work at a McDonalds. That is why students have ambition to receive a higher education. But there is a problem and For-Profit schools may think they have a solution. Not all students can be admitted to a 4 year university or even afford it, but with For-Profit institutions breathing on their back, students are now looking for an alternative. Blinded by tricky recruitment, For-Profit schools are able to lure students to apply and attend their institution. With tactics such as deceiving an individual with future success, they are able to have young ambitious adults to take out loans to pay for their tuition. Some may argue that some traditional institutions may be cheaper or equal to the cost of attending a For-Profit, and they may be right. But with several For-Profit institutions giving a  nicely detailed pitch to students that a career path is set up for them to follow in order to succeed, they are convinced that loans will be paid off in time of their employment. The real problem with that is now that For-Profits are rapidly becoming accused of handing out worthless degrees, students are unable to find employment. Without employment there is no revenue and without no revenue, loans cannot be paid back, leading to large student debt. Carey argues that "For-Profits won't take responsibility for the debt to income ratio they leave students with.." and that "large numbers of graduates of for-profits are having trouble paying back loans; because of aggressive recruiters and worthless degrees" (8-9).  Carey's claim can be supported and illustrated with Kai Wright's article, "Young, Black and Buried in Debt: How For-Profit Colleges Prey on African-American Ambition." Published in 2009, Kai Wright, writer for Salon News, states that " between 2004 and 2010, black enrollment in for-profit bachelor’s programs grew by a whopping 264 percent, compared to a 24 percent increase in black enrollment in public four-year programs" (7). The numbers of the statistic "mirror a simultaneous trend in eroding security among ambitious black Americans with shrinking access to middle-class jobs" (8). This helps support the argument that for-profits are seeking young ambitious students who have a desire receive a higher education in order to obtain quality employment. The results of for-profits actually fulfilling their goal to employ students after graduation says otherwise. Out of the post grad students from a for-profit school, "96% of students, according to a 2008 Department of Education survey — are unemployed and leaves with debt. Debit that students cannot pay" (9). For-profit 'advisors' try their hardest to recruit any student with a pulse. Regardless of the income or educational background the individual has, as long as if the person is breathing, the school will be seeing revenue. This shows that for-profits either do not acknowledge or are unaware of students who are at high risk in leaving the school with debt because of either their educational or income background. Wright's findings does a good job of complicating or even further extending Carey's claim of for-profits leaving large amounts of debt to students they recruited themselves.

          For-profit institutions seem to carry a lot of load on themselves. And when i say load, i mean money. Because the amount of revenue that is made by for-profits are almost a gift from the government. With questionable degrees and quality of education, students are unable to find employment and are left with huge amount of debts. Victims of for-profit schools are in deep from the very beginning, starting with ruthless recruiting tactics. The GAO report and information from the comparison of SDSU and American Public University System provides statistical data that shows false information being told by for-profits to help enroll students. Students were left with the sensibility of promised success but were left with a worthless degree that allowed them to be on a long search for a job. For-profits will go out of their way in order to achieve their goal in recruitment. This goes as far as finding loop holes through the government individuals such as recruit military veterans, who can pay for any college with the help of the GI Bill. Schools also target young students who has the desire to obtain a degree in order to find a place in the work force in the future. Kai Wright and Holly Perteaus' claims help extend Carey's claim of aggressive recruitment tactics and the amount of debts students are left after graduation. It seems as if education for for-profit schools are second on their list of goals to achieve right under profit. If Carey was correct in his article about for-profit schools, along with its many flaws, being here to stay, then they will continue to generate huge amounts of money. Becoming a school that is ran like a bank in America.

Work Cited

Carey, Kevin. "Why Do You Think They're Called For-Profit Colleges?." RWS 100 Course          Reader. Ed. Department of Rhetoric and Writing Studies. San Diego. Montezuma         Publishing, 2014 53-55. Print.

College Results Online. Data of the Comparison of San Diego State University and American      Public University System. collegeresults.org 2010. Web. Oct 2014.  

Government Accountability Report. "Excerpts from For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing        Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing            Practices." GAO 4 Aug 2010. 1-4. Print. Oct 2014.

Perteaus, Holly. “For-Profit Colleges, Vulnerable G.I.’s.” New York Times 11 Sept 2011. 1-2.

            Web. Oct 2014.  

Wright, Kai. "Young, black and buried in debt: How for-profit colleges prey on African    American ambition." Salon Magazine 9 June 2013. 1-6. Web. Oct 2014.