Formal Rhetorical Analysis Study Now, Pay Later

Candyce Fife English 1010, Rousculp

Oregons Legislature recently approved House Bill 3472 regarding higher education costs. The bill will allow Oregons residents to earn a degree without paying for their tuition and fees until after their schooling is completed. This Pay it Forward pilot program is also designed to freeze tuition costs, and is in response to the ever increasing cost of tuition, as well as decrease of enrollees for Oregons public higher education institutions. It will allow, for example, a person who earns a bachelor's degree to pay 3% of their earnings for 20 years to Oregon, rather than taking out loans. The cost each student will pay is determined by their expected salary, and goes into a fund to make it possible for future students to take part in this program. For my English 1010 class I was asked to write a formal rhetorical analysis of this Study Now, Pay Later discussion, from the Room for Debate section of the New York Times website. In this paper Im going to analyze 3 contributors that were asked the question Is this a viable way to pay for a college education? These contributors come from differing backgrounds, but give similar examples of why this pilot program is a poor solution to this state of emergency. Im also going to rhetorically analyze how the contributors convey their point of view, as well as how their audience might interpret the message. The first contributor Im going to analyze is Michelle Asha Cooper. She is the president of the nonprofit organization, Institute for Higher Education Policy. This organization helps those seeking access to higher education, with a special focus on underserved populations. She opposes this plan, and points out the possible perspective of the underprivileged students. Cooper explains that covering the cost of tuition and fees for a future student seems like a good plan, but that it isnt all or even half the expenses incurred while attending college. Cooper also suggests that this plan negates education being public and equal to anyone, by encouraging

recruiting based on future employability. She believes this bill wont help those that are in the most need of acquiring aid, and that it requires careful consideration before it is implemented. Michelle Asha Cooper implies that this plan has hidden aspects, saying things like supposedly and on the surface. Throughout her argument she addresses the impact on the underserved student, but doesnt address any other class of students there may be. By focusing only on one group of people, and not offering others perspectives, it makes her statements seem bias. She applauds Oregon for trying to improve financing options, but then condemns Oregon for not being careful about the impact. The issues she points out are very probable, but without facts or attempts towards a solution, it just sounds like complaining. The audience of Coopers contribution will be readers of the New York Times opinion pages, but also people wanting to improve underserved parts of society. I think her arguments may leave the reader feeling discouraged, since she doesnt offer opinions on how to improve the bill. I think her concerns are valid, and she makes it clear that this plan is perpetuating some of the current issues with higher education. However, she isnt clear on what she thinks ought to be done about it.

The second contributor Im going to analyze is Joe Mihalic, who is the author of Destroy Student Debt: A Combat Guide to Freedom and blog, which journals his efforts to pay off $90,000 in student debt over seven months. He opposes the Pay it Forward bill because he feels it penalizes students that are harder working. Mihalic believes this plan isnt fair, because education shouldnt cost more just because a career is more lucrative. He goes on to explain that no one should be borrowing money for their education just because they find the field interesting. He believes three things need to be considered for this plan to work; averaging payback costs that are fair for the amount of education received, eliminating interest, and limiting college institutions spending.

The writer is scattered with the analogies he uses to discredit this program. He makes it clear that his main concern is with the amount of debt acquired by students, but it sounds like ranting, with his first sentence being 5 lines long. His contribution doesnt flow well, so that the reader can follow what it is he is trying to say. He refers to the timeframe required to pay off student loans as a sentence making him seem bitter towards the system in general. Though he might have made some good points, such as I can finance a car at half the interest rate of a college education, but he doesnt explain how these ideas relate to the Pay it Forward program. Mihalics focus is with the debt portion of this plan, which most readers can identify with. However, the way he switches from talking about how industrious students are not treated fairly with this plan, to comparisons of what a person may end up paying over 20 years, makes his arguments confusing. He says the same thing twice in his argument, making it seem like he wrote it in haste without proofreading. This wasnt just a few words repeated, it was a whole paragraph. He also starts a list on how to improve this plan at the end of one paragraph, and continues the list into another paragraph. I think the reader may have a hard time comprehending Mihalics contribution. The third contributors are William Darity Jr. and Rhonda Sharpe. Darity is the Arts and Sciences professor of public policy and director of the Research Network on Racial and Ethnic Inequality at Duke University. He earned his PhD in economics from MIT back in 1978. Rhonda Sharpe is visiting professor of African and African American studies, as well as research director of the Research Network on Racial and Ethnic Inequality at Duke University. Darity and Sharpe explain that simply calling something other than interest doesnt change the fact that it is still overpayment. Also, that students wont be able to make informed decisions about if the Pay it Forward program is a better option than a loan, since there is no predetermined amount specified for payback. They also point out that a contractual obligation to

repay is the same as a loan, so the outcome of this Pay it Forward program isnt really all that different from the way things are currently. The writers of this article title their contribution Whats Best Isnt Always Clear as though to say this plan is the best solution there is, but its unclear on how its going to help. Im not actually sure what they mean by Best or if they like anything about the pilot program at all, since they focus mainly on what the plan is failing to do. I think Darity and Sharpe oppose the bill, and, similar to the first contributor, believe the programs authors are being deceitful, by saying want us to believe and a hidden way. The readers of this article will most likely be angered by this program, and wont be informed on what the Pay it Forward plan is trying to do for Oregons residents. Flaws and imperfections are the main focus for these two contributors. The readers of this argument might not be concerned about learning what this program has to offer Oregonians, but how it is going to penalize prospective students. All three of these contributors have similar complaints with the Pay it Forward pilot program, but voice their opinions in different ways. If before you read an article, you know you can relate to someones perspective, you may be more inclined to read what they have to say. I chose these contributors because they come from backgrounds that are associated with education. There may be some real issues with this bill, and Oregon may be forced to address these issues if they want this program to help. Statistics show increased tuition at the states universities is a real problem for Oregonians; but will Oregon address these issues, or ignore them until its too late?