Artifact 1
A. Title of Entry:
Colo. Governor Proposes Education Cuts
B. Summary:
Governor Bill Ritter proposes fixing budget issues by using education funding. $262 million budget shortfall to be fixed by using $156 from education funding.
C. Rhetorical Context:
This article discusses the current budget deficits of Colorado and the possible reallocation of resources in order to fix them. The target audience is readers of education week, specifically Colorado teachers.
D. Evaluation:
Found on EbscoHost, It is a very short article from Education Week. It simply puts down a statement by the Governor as to what he wishes to do in order to fix budget shortfalls.
Artifact 2
A. Title of Entry:
Is Colorado’s Voucher System Worth Vouching For?
B. Summary:
This article discusses the Colorado Opportunity Fund and its financing of Colorado’s universities. It was written by Brian Prescott for Change Magazine. The article discusses how the COF uses a new voucher system.
C. Rhetorical Context:
Change Magazine is directed towards officials of higher education including university staff. Brian T. Prescott is director of policy research at the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
D. Evaluation:
This article could be useful in discussing current practices for students to pay for college. This article looks very credible.
Artifact 3
A. Title of Entry:
Colo. Lawmakers Backing Away from Indian Treaty on Education
B. Summary: Colorado is planning on breaking a treaty to allow Indian students free college education. This would affect Native American students enrolled at Fort Lewis College in Durango. Written by Steven Paulson for Community College Week.
C. Rhetorical Context: Community College Week is a biweekly magazine for 2-year college professors, students, and staff.
D. Evaluation: Discuss additional ways funding for students is being cut, specially for students of lower socioeconomic status. Should be useful for supporting data.
Artifact 4
A. Title of Entry: Trends in College Pricing 2010
B. Summary: This article discusses the current trends in college pricing. This article shows that the prices are going up. Authors Sandy Baum and Jennifer Ma do a great job showing how they came to all of their conclusions and results.
C. Rhetorical Context: The College Board is a membership association serving 5,700 of schools and colleges nationwide. The target audience is members of the College board, as an informational piece on college prices. The authors work for the College Board. The authors worked in association with a great deal of other authors and staff members at thousands of campuses in order to find the most accurate information possible.
D. Evaluation: This is written by the College Board. Since they are widely considered credible; the information can be taken as reliable. It gives a great deal of information about the subject of rising college prices. It doesn’t put in any information about if this should or should not be allowed though. It just states facts. I will use this in my public argument to show that I have a great deal of knowledge of the subject. Immediately shows that CSU out of state pricing is far higher than I first thought.
Artifact 5
A. Title of Entry: A Vision of Students Today
B. Summary: The main point is that students aren’t learning information that is relevant to them. It says part of the problem that students are given too much to do that is irrelevant. This video was made by Dr Michael Wesch and was found on his website. The video was created in 2007 for his Cultural Anthropology course but still hold relevance now.
C. Rhetorical Context: The website was created by Dr. Wesch at Kansas State University. Dr. Wesch created this video while teaching his Cultural Anthropology class in 2007. The target audience of this artifact is college level students today. Dr. Wesch is a Cultural Anthropologist who studies the impact of new media on society and culture.
D. Evaluation: The video is a compilation of survey information. Because it is survey information created by students; it may or may not be particularly reliable. It is however a good example of how students are learning new things in school. These new things may require more money to fund than the old do.
Artifact 6
A. Title of Entry: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
B. Summary: “. . .higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.” The article was written by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948. It is important because it says that this is an unalienable human right.
C. Rhetorical Context: The United Nations is a conglomerate of all major world powers and many smaller nations that have come together in order to form a more perfect world. The target audience is nations within the United Nations already. They are targeting them because while all the things in this document seem like they don’t need to be specifically written, many of them are not guaranteed even in the more affluent countries. The composers would be the major world powers. The lesser nations would have been allowed little to no input into the document.
D. Evaluation: This document states that “all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration.” The target audience is the leaders of the nations within the United Nations. Their delegates agreed upon this but clearly the nations themselves did not. Many of the things within the document aren’t covered even here in the United States.
C. Rhetorical Context: The College Board is a membership association serving 5,700 of schools and colleges nationwide. The target audience is members of the College board, as an informational piece on college prices. The authors work for the College Board. The authors worked in association with a great deal of other authors and staff members at thousands of campuses in order to find the most accurate information possible.
D. Evaluation: This is written by the College Board. Since they are widely considered credible; the information can be taken as reliable. It gives a great deal of information about the subject of rising college prices. It doesn’t put in any information about if this should or should not be allowed though. It just states facts. I will use this in my public argument to show that I have a great deal of knowledge of the subject. Immediately shows that CSU out of state pricing is far higher than I first thought.
Your artifact 3 is extremely interesting! I can’t believe they would even think of breaking that treaty just to save money (cause its not like we’ve been horrible to the Native Americans in the past… ever).
But I really think that this will be a good article for your paper, because you wanted to say how a higher education should be given to everyone (possibly even for free). Great job on this artifact!