A Response to Steven Vogel "Grades and Money”
In "Grades and Money,” Steven Vogel discusses the relationship between money and grades. He argues that students are only interested in getting good grades rather than learning. He says that most of the students have created a direct relationship between grades and money. They believe that good grades create opportunities to get more money than poor grades. Steven Vogel presents a great piece of work because everything follows from the central thesis. The author successfully directs the value of education from the importance of good grades to making money. I agree with the author’s idea that money has influence on student performance because most of the employers reward their employees based on performance. Therefore, students strive to get good grades so as to have a good income. The author even says “We let grades count as money--we let education count as money--because money, nowadays, is the only value we know” (Vogel 446).
The article’s organizational plan is impressive. The author uses a plan that is indeed appropriate for this article. Being an argumentative essay, the author has structured the article into three parts namely the introduction, body and the conclusion. In the introduction, the author reflects back on his school days. The body contains his main points as to why education should not be commoditized and; finally, the conclusion has the recommendations that support the thesis of the whole paper and seal the argument. However, the author fails to create effective variations. This is because he only presents two cases for argument. One of the cases is his school days, and the other case is the prevailing conditions in learning institutions. The response is adequate given that it serves its initial purpose because it delivers the message clearly. As for appropriateness, the response to the issue at hand is indeed appropriate since he gives valid reasons as to why education should not be commoditized and viewed in terms of money given that it has more value than money. This is evident from the statement “why we take them for granted” (Vogel 447).
While the writer does a good job at giving a vivid picture of the education system during his school days and in the present, there is poor transition between these two periods. The author makes little to explain the shift from not talking about grades towards talking about grades. He also provides very little documentation or evidence besides that of ‘his days’ and the president’s proposal. While lacking in transition from the author’s school days to the present, there are many cases where the author does transition from one idea to the next. These connecting ideas serve to bring to light his main point especially as applied to real life issues. For instance, the author mentions of a student who could not take philosophy for fear of losing her scholarship. This reveals how many students correlate grades to money. He says “She was right. She kept the scholarship and never learned philosophy” (Vogel 448).
The writer’s voice is distinct and clear in the way he passes his message to the reader. The voice is dark and heavy and filled with lamentations. The author complains of the shift from viewing education as a learning tool to viewing it as a tool to create money for oneself. This is clear from the many examples he puts forth. For instance, a female student ditched philosophy because she strongly attached money to her education. She thus feared exploring which is the main idea in education. The author is successful in catching the attention of the reader because he introduces the article by comparing two different experiences. These two experiences are unique to the extent that they evoke curiosity in the reader’s mind as to why there is this big divide. Curiosity pushes the reader to read the article to as to discover the writer’s experiences.
In my opinion, the conclusion offers new insights into how far money has taken over the valuation of things in life. While the paper focuses on the value of money to university students, the conclusion introduces the idea that money is nowadays “the only value we know.” This opens the eyes of the reader because it moves him from the narrow corridor of education to an open field. This article is a good read because of a number of factors. First of all, the writer uses very strong evidence to support his arguments. For instance, he mentions President Clinton’s proposal to support the argument that people have shifted their focus from learning towards grades. Secondly, the author is writing from a firsthand point of view because he is an experienced scholar. These two factors give the paper a lot of validity make reading the article a very interesting experience.
Even though the article is very interesting, it has a number of weaknesses. First of all, it has a very narrow scope as far as the number of students it considers. The writer only gives views around himself, his friends and his students. The other weakness is that the writer does not give provide concrete facts to support his arguments related to his subject. This exposes his arguments as mere opinions. However, the positive aspects of the article outshine its limitations. I believe that students and teachers should place more emphasis on leaning rather than grades because learning will improve our society more than good grades.
Works Cited
Vogel, Steven. Grades and Money. Dissent 44: 445-448.
