Rhetorical Analysis of Gender Balance in U.S. Colleges
User Rating: 0 / 5
- Details
- Hits: 12471
Rhetorical Analysis
The author of ‘colleges’ gender gap’ intends to discuss gender balance in U.S. colleges. He admits the number of women both enrolling for and graduating from various courses outnumber that of men by far. The question of who is smarter between women and men seem to have become quite difficult according to this author. According to him, for 17 years, the government has been using all ways possible to raise females’ academic performance. These affirmative measures have seen women progress tremendously in academic performance, but has also seen less and fewer men enrolling to and graduating from colleges.
The appeal of the author to logos is commendable. There are a widespread use of facts and startling statistics in the article. The data on enrollment in leading colleges is given. For example, the proportions of women to men in schools like Vassar College. Here, the college’s senate accepted applications from 20 percent of the men who applied, opposed to 20 percent of the women. He has also cited Pomona College, which accepted 13 percent of the women, compared to 21 percent of male applicants. The 7,652 women who applied for enrollment this year have also been presented for comparison with 4,457 male applicants at Virginia's College of William & Mary. In a bid to show the accuracy of these figures, the author claims the statistics were got from the administrations of the respective colleges.
In a rhetorical context, the article would not have scored much as far as the appeal to ethos is concerned. There is little appeal to the credibility and authority of the author. The author has done little to convince his readers that he is qualified to write on this particular subject. For instance, the name of the author is not even given, and nothing is told about his qualifications or experience on the topic of gender balance in colleges. Nevertheless, he had made subtle effort to show he has a bit of knowledge on the topic by discussing other people’s theories and arguments about the skewed enrollments.
The author has attempted to appeal to the emotions of his readers. This mode of persuasion, known as pathos comes out strongly throughout the article. There is a near perfect attempt to sway the readers to agree with his viewpoint. He asserts ‘we prefer underqualified students for the sake of diversity (Colleges' gender gap 23).’ Nonetheless, his delivery of the information is not passionate, at least from subjective gauging. He is apparently unable to move his audience with the way he presents his arguments, with the diction appearing as plain as to invoke any emotions from the audience. As is required of anyone discussing such a sensitive issue, a demonstration of partial agreement with a few underlying values of the readers is critical, but that is not the case with this author. No notable value has been supported; the author just presents his opinions without acknowledging any deep-seated convictions the readers might be having.
Emily Bryson York writes about men and their increased engagement in grocery shopping. He claims more and more men are taking up household chores traditionally seen as women’s work. York’s appeal to logos is exceptionally efficient. He has used case examples where men who are now doing all grocery shopping in their homes are offered. He starts with Meyer, whose wife has enrolled recently in college, necessitating the man to take up household duties. Statistics from many food stores are also provided, along with confession from the directors of these stores. Some facts, however, appear falsified. For example, Brad Harrington, whose opinions form one major argument claims men are doing household roles to the extent only comparable to what women do in offices.
The appeal to pathos does not come out as strongly as in the first article. No identifiable imagery can be seen in the article. Additionally, the delivery of the message is not as passionate as would be required of such an interesting topic. The author is not very convincing. Like in the first article, there is no instance where the author agrees with a deep-seated value of his readers. For example, the fact that men now move along supermarket aisles shopping ought to be presented more strongly in a way that appeals to the emotions of the reader. A lot is to be desired; the author could have made his article more interesting, thereby swaying a large number of people to side with his point of view. The author of the second article has been named; he is Emily York. However, the readers are not told who he is or what qualifications he possesses. Due to the lack of his profile, the readers cannot determine if he is qualified to address the topic. Nevertheless, York’s appeal to pathos is more appealing as opposed to that in the first article where the identity of the writer is not given (York 12).
A comparison of the two articles brings out significant differences. The article on college gender balance is a lot more convincing, given the statistics offered and the way the author presents his arguments. York’s article, on the other hand, apparently relies on people opinion’s to draw the conclusions. Such an approach makes it hard for a critical reader to take York’s viewpoints as true.