-
kartikshah
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:03 pm
- Location: New York, USA
- Thanked: 34 times
- Followed by:1 members
The following appeared in a letter from a staff member in the office of admissions at Argent University.
"The most recent nationwide surveys show that undergraduates choose their major field primarily based on their perception of job prospects in that field. At our university, economics is now the most popular major, so students must perceive this field as having the best job prospects. Therefore, we can increase our enrollment if we focus our advertising and recruiting on publicizing the accomplishments of our best-known economics professors and the success of our economics graduates in finding employment."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . Etc.
According to a nationwide survey many students major in a subject they perceive will help them find employment upon graduation most easily. Presently, economics is the most popular major among the students of Argent University and hence the staff member argues that by advertising the accomplishments of the university's economics teachers and the success rate of its economics graduates at finding a job after graduation, the university can hope to increase enrolment in its courses. While the staff member's argument may have some merit, her conclusion does not follow from the premises stated.
The most conspicuous flaw in the the author's argument is her absolute reliance on the trend indicated by the nationwide survey. While this survey may be accurate at a national level, we have no way to determine whether the nationwide trend is also reflected locally in the city or state where Argent University is located. If the trend in the city or State where the university is located does not mirror the national phenomenon, then the survey may not be very helpful to the admissions committee and the staff member would be well advised to not base her decisions exclusively on the data of the survey.
The secondary issue with the argument lies in the author's premise that only the accomplishments of the economics faculty members and students need be advertised to increase enrolment. Economics is a popular major presently. Perhaps the current job market is favourable for economics graduates. But this may not be the case next year or the year in which current year's intake will graduate. In that case it could be quite misleading to advertise without clear disclaimers.
Finally, the staff member fails to take into account those students who may not have decided, just as yet, which subject they would like to major in. In this case an economics-only publicity might actually put the university at risk of being perceived as an institution that is best suited for those who are certain about making a career in economics. Such a flawed enrolment strategy might actually deter otherwise bright and eligible students from applying to this university.
In sum, as it stands, the staff member's argument is poorly reasoned and it cannot be conclusively said that such selective publicity will help the university see increased enrolment numbers. However, if the staff member were to restructure her argument, fix the flaws in her logic pointed above, clearly explicate her assumptions and provide stronger evidential support, her argument would stand a better chance at persuading the members of the admissions committee.
"The most recent nationwide surveys show that undergraduates choose their major field primarily based on their perception of job prospects in that field. At our university, economics is now the most popular major, so students must perceive this field as having the best job prospects. Therefore, we can increase our enrollment if we focus our advertising and recruiting on publicizing the accomplishments of our best-known economics professors and the success of our economics graduates in finding employment."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . Etc.
According to a nationwide survey many students major in a subject they perceive will help them find employment upon graduation most easily. Presently, economics is the most popular major among the students of Argent University and hence the staff member argues that by advertising the accomplishments of the university's economics teachers and the success rate of its economics graduates at finding a job after graduation, the university can hope to increase enrolment in its courses. While the staff member's argument may have some merit, her conclusion does not follow from the premises stated.
The most conspicuous flaw in the the author's argument is her absolute reliance on the trend indicated by the nationwide survey. While this survey may be accurate at a national level, we have no way to determine whether the nationwide trend is also reflected locally in the city or state where Argent University is located. If the trend in the city or State where the university is located does not mirror the national phenomenon, then the survey may not be very helpful to the admissions committee and the staff member would be well advised to not base her decisions exclusively on the data of the survey.
The secondary issue with the argument lies in the author's premise that only the accomplishments of the economics faculty members and students need be advertised to increase enrolment. Economics is a popular major presently. Perhaps the current job market is favourable for economics graduates. But this may not be the case next year or the year in which current year's intake will graduate. In that case it could be quite misleading to advertise without clear disclaimers.
Finally, the staff member fails to take into account those students who may not have decided, just as yet, which subject they would like to major in. In this case an economics-only publicity might actually put the university at risk of being perceived as an institution that is best suited for those who are certain about making a career in economics. Such a flawed enrolment strategy might actually deter otherwise bright and eligible students from applying to this university.
In sum, as it stands, the staff member's argument is poorly reasoned and it cannot be conclusively said that such selective publicity will help the university see increased enrolment numbers. However, if the staff member were to restructure her argument, fix the flaws in her logic pointed above, clearly explicate her assumptions and provide stronger evidential support, her argument would stand a better chance at persuading the members of the admissions committee.
