College Inc. Response

Gerald Lappay

RWS 100

Professor Werry

September 29, 2014

College Inc. Response

     In my 12th grade statistics class, a good portion of it was dedicated to college knowledge and 

financial literacy. Words such as "default", "deferment", and concepts such as "loan forgiveness" and 

"wage garnishment" were commonly used. I'm no stranger to them now; which is good for me 

because I understand almost all of terminology used in College Inc. The first two-thirds of 

College Inc talk about the head honchos behind for-profit colleges -- how and why they milk money

 out of the financial illiterate and those who can pull large sums of money from college loans. They 

use call-centers, provocative advertisements, and sometimes get straight to the point and guilt trip 

their targets into submission. All of these, from a purely business standpoint, are very good ways to 

get what the CEOs and investors want -- capital. Ideally, I want to write my paper about for-profit

colleges in the viewpoint of the investors. Why they decided to invest in companies such as EDMC, 

how much profit do they earn, and their opinions on the future of for-profit colleges are the questions 

and subjects I [tentatively] wish to cover in my paper.

Final Thompson Paper

Gerald Lappay

RWS 100

Professor Werry

September 23, 2014

Many of us find ourselves perusing the internet at some point in our day; some more than others. We can look towards Asia, particularly in South Korea, and here in the United States, as examples of these heavy internet users. Youth can spend up to sixteen hours a day on the internet, mostly playing video games. But what else do we do on the internet? Does it hurt or help us? This piece touches on some of these subjects in Clive Thompson’s book, “Smarter Than You Think: How Technology is Changing Our Minds for the Better”. Clive Thompson is a Canadian writer whose works have appeared on The New York Times Magazine, The Washington Post, Wired, and other famous publications. His work relates technology and its social and developmental impacts.

Most older people think negatively of the iGeneration, also known as those who were born around the mid-late 1990s and early 2000s. They claim that nothing good comes from using the internet. They cite nasty, naive comments found on YouTube and other social media with a comments section. However, Thompson as well as other professionals believe that the iGeneration’s frequent use of the internet is improving their ability to think and write; and suggests that everyone should do the same. In this piece, I analyze Thompson’s idea of public thinking through discussing the main claims and arguments he presents throughout “Smarter Than You Think”.

Quite a few adults believe that this generation of youth’s writing abilities are hindered by new technology, particularly the internet. In Nicholas Carr’s piece “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, Carr believes that the ability to read through long passages has been negatively affected by use of the internet. I’ll admit, I myself find it hard to read long paragraphs; and would end up asking for a “TL;DR”, short for “Too long, didn’t read” when I’m perusing forums. But aside from the YouTube comment battles and other tactless postings, there is quite a bit of substance on the internet. Thompson is amazed at the amount of writing available to peruse and discuss. “The internet has produced a foaming Niagara of writing. E-mails, tweets on Twitter, blog posts and comments … doing an extraordinarily crude back-of-the-napkin calculation, and sticking only to e-mails and utterances in social media, I calculate that we’re composing at least 3.6 trillion words daily” (47).

We’re not writing 3.6 trillion words a day just to stint our brain’s growth. Thompson and other researchers have theories and research to argue that the internet doesn’t necessarily have adverse effects on this generation’s ability to think, debate, and analyze. In fact, these theories support the idea that internet use improves our thinking and analyzing of text; as well as create professional discussions about them. Thompson cites research from Andrea Lunsford, a Stanford University English professor who “is one of America’s leading researchers into how young people write” (66). Lunsford describes her discoveries with synonyms to “awe”, such as “stunning”, and “striking,” (67) and claims that “we are in the midst of a literacy revolution the likes of which we haven’t seen since Greek civilization” (67). Furthermore, Thompson highlights the comments section of a New York Times article; describing them as “remarkably nuanced, replete with complex legal and ethical arguments” (67). This evidence suggests that not only has this generation’s writing  has improved, but their ability to discuss and debate is slowly becoming that of the ancient Greeks; who were known to be the grandmasters of discussion.

By writing towards an audience, a person has the potential to invoke critical thinking and discussion amongst others. Thompson takes a moment to explain the concept of the “audience effect -- the shift in our performance when we know people are watching” (54). Take for example Ory Okolloh, Thompson’s first subject in Smarter Than You Think. Okolloh, an American blogger of Kenyan descent, took to the internet to voice her thoughts on the unusual 2007 election in Kenya. These thoughts, alongside facts and evidence and a media blackout in Kenya, quickly made Okolloh one of Kenya’s main sources of information for the presidential ordeal in Kenya. However, outsiders from Kenya who also wanted more information about the ordeal also looked to Okolloh’s blog. With the right amount of rhetoric and appeals, any person with a computer, the internet, and some decent understanding of grammar has the potential to reach to the masses like Okolloh did.

However, your writing doesn’t have to be about mind-numbing politics and ethics to create professional discussion. One can write about sex and sappy movies and still create a healthy think tank. I would be bold to say that the best discussions come from writing about the trivial things in life. At first, Thompson believed that every popular blogger would talk about human rights and government everywhere they went. “I’d naively expected that most of them would talk about the giddy potential of arguing about human rights and free speech online. But many of them told me it was startling enough to just suddenly be writing, in public, about the minutiae of their everyday lives … they suspected that the creation of small, everyday audiences among the emerging middle-class online community, for all the seeming triviality of its conversation, was a key part of the reform process” (57-58). Thompson’s false assumption about bloggers implies that one does not have to be an activist to be a public thinker. Multiple topics can be touched upon using public thinking; but it seems that the most popular topics are also those that are frequently discussed by the middle class. This leads to another implication: popular public thinkers are mainly comprised of those in the middle class. So what does this all mean? Well, if we go by the common belief of “a strong upper class has an ever stronger middle class,” public thinking [about anything] amongst the middle class produces an overwhelming amount of benefit. Public thinking leads to better writers and rhetoricians, and better writers and rhetoricians can lead to a better community -- be it as small as an online forum or as large as Kenya; like in Ory Okolloh’s case.

Thompson’s overall argument in “Smarter Than You Think” is that public thinking through the internet has tremendous benefits. Though it can house the rude and naive, it also has room for the thinkers and debaters. Thompson doesn’t really address the skeptics; instead he layers benefits over benefits over benefits as to make the internet appear to be one of the hearths of discussion for today’s world. I would have liked to see Thompson address some of these skeptics -- maybe by pulling work from students who don’t attend prestigious schools. From a slightly hedonistic standpoint, I have to agree that the benefits of the internet that were presented by Thompson outweigh the drawbacks that I tried to address in this piece. The internet is definitely making us “Smarter Than You Think”.

Even More Thompson Paper Updates

Gerald Lappay

RWS 100

Professor Werry

September 20, 2014

How often do you think out loud? Do you accidentally blurt out your thoughts? Do you try to voice your opinions publicly? Do you attempt post deep and meaningful just to get attention on social media? This piece touches on some of these subjects in Clive Thompson’s book, “Smarter Than You Think: How Technology is Changing Our Minds for the Better”. Clive Thompson is a Canadian writer whose works have appeared on The New York Times Magazine, The Washington Post, Wired, and other famous publications. Most of his work relates to technology and its social and developmental impacts. Most older people think negatively of the iGeneration, also known as those who were born around the mid-late 1990s and early 2000s. Thompson seeks to shed some light on them; especially through his concept of public thinking. What is public thinking? In this piece, I analyze Thompson’s idea of public thinking through discussing the main claims and arguments he presents throughout “Smarter Than You Think”.

Quite a few adults believe that this generation of youth’s writing abilities are hindered by new technology, particularly the internet. However, Thompson and other researchers have theories and research to argue that the internet doesn’t necessarily have adverse effects on this generation’s ability to think, debate, and analyze. Thompson samples research from Andrea Lunsford, a Stanford University English professor who “is one of America’s leading researchers into how young people write” (66). Lunsford describes her discoveries with synonyms to “awe”, such as “stunning”, and “striking,” (67) and claims that “we are in the midst of a literacy revolution the likes of which we haven’t seen since Greek civilization” (67). Furthermore, Thompson highlights the comments section of a New York Times article; describing them as “remarkably nuanced, replete with complex legal and ethical arguments” (67). This evidence suggests that not only has this generation’s writing  has improved, but their ability to discuss and debate is slowly becoming that of the ancient Greeks; who were known to be the grandmasters of discussion.

These benefits can not only apply to college papers and comments sections. It has the potential to reach out to people on a larger scale. Take for example Ory Okolloh, Thompson’s first subject in Smarter Than You Think. Okolloh, an American blogger of Kenyan descent, took to the internet to voice her thoughts on the unusual 2007 election in Kenya. These thoughts, alongside facts and evidence and a media blackout in Kenya, quickly made Okolloh one of Kenya’s main sources of information for the presidential ordeal in Kenya. However, outsiders from Kenya who also wanted more information about the ordeal also looked to Okolloh’s blog. With the right amount of rhetoric and appeals, any person with a computer, the internet, and some decent understanding of grammar has the potential to reach to the masses like Okolloh did.

While Okolloh’s version of public thinking was radical in the sense of increasing attention about a corrupt government, public thinking doesn’t just have to be about politics and human rights. At first, Thompson believed that every popular blogger would talk about human rights and government everywhere they went. “I’d naively expected that most of them would talk about the giddy potential of arguing about human rights and free speech online. But many of them told me it was startling enough to just suddenly be writing, in public, about the minutiae of their everyday lives … they suspected that the creation of small, everyday audiences among the emerging middle-class online community, for all the seeming triviality of its conversation, was a key part of the reform process” (57-58). Thompson’s false assumption implies that one does not have to be an activist to be a public thinker. Multiple topics can be touched upon using public thinking; but it seems that the most popular topics are also those that are frequently discussed by the middle class. This leads to another implication: popular public thinkers are mainly comprised of those in the middle class. So what does this all mean? Well, if we go by the common belief of “a strong upper class has an ever stronger middle class,” public thinking [about anything] amongst the middle class produces an overwhelming amount of benefit. Public thinking leads to better writers and rhetoricians, and better writers and rhetoricians can lead to a better community -- be it as small as an online forum or as large as Kenya; like in Ory Okolloh’s case.

Thompson’s overall argument in “Smarter Than You Think” is that public thinking through the internet has tremendous benefits. It can promote advocacy or humor the middle class. While at times it is true that the internet can be a not-so-productive tool, Thompson disregards that possibility and strictly goes over the benefits. Thompson should have addressed these issues to help make himself more credible and make the piece even more interesting.

Revised Body Paragraph

Quite a few adults believe that this generation of youth’s writing abilities are hindered by new technology, particularly the internet. However, Thompson and other researchers have theories and research to argue that the internet doesn’t necessarily hinder this generation’s ability to think, debate, and analyze. Thompson samples research from Andrea Lunsford, a Stanford University English professor who “is one of America’s leading researchers into how young people write.” (66) Lunsford describes her discoveries with synonyms to “awe”, such as “stunning”, and “striking,” (67) and claims that “we are in the midst of a literacy revolution the likes of which we haven’t seen since Greek civilization.” (67) Furthermore, Thompson highlights the comments section of a New York Times article; describing them as “remarkably nuanced, replete with complex legal and ethical arguments.” (67) This evidence suggests that not only has this generation’s writing  has improved, but their ability to discuss and debate is slowly becoming that of the ancient Greeks; who were known to be the grandmasters of discussion.

Revised Intro and Body Paragraphs

Gerald Lappay

RWS 100

Professor Werry

September 9, 2014

How often do you think out loud? Do you accidentally blurt out your thoughts? Do you try to voice your opinions publicly? Do you post thoughts you think are deep and meaningful just to get attention on social media? This piece touches on some of these subjects in Clive Thompson’s book, “Smarter Than You Think: How Technology is Changing Our Minds for the Better”. Clive Thompson is a Canadian writer whose works have appeared on The New York Times Magazine, The Washington Post, Wired, and other famous publications. Most of his work relates to technology and its social and developmental impacts. While most older people think negatively of the post-1990s-millennials, Thompson seeks to shed some light on them; especially through his concept of public thinking. What is public thinking? In this piece, I analyze Thompson’s idea of public thinking through discussing the main claims and arguments he presents throughout Smarter Than You Think.

Thompson introduces the concept of public thinking through facts, research, and accounts of online bloggers. What seems to be a dull account of a Kenyan blogger. turns into a staggering estimation about the volume of internet posts created by the post-1990s-millennials, and how it compares to large treasuries of writing. “I calculate that we’re composing at least 3.6 trillion ords daily, or the equivalent of 36 million books every day. The entire U.S. Library of Congress, by comparison, holds around 35 million books.” (47) Successfully captivating readers with these statistics, Thompson starts to pitch his main idea to us. Why not post more of our thoughts on the internet? I’m not talking about small, trivial things such as seven word status updates on Facebook about how horrible your day has gone. I’m talking about bigger ideas. How to cure diseases, how to contribute to the world’s problems. Pitch ideas on some online community where the biggest and brightest of them all can communicate,  contribute, design, and create. The internet has the potential to make these things into a reality, and Thompson prove this point throughout his piece.

Draft Intro/1st Body Paragraph

Gerald Lappay

RWS 100

Professor Werry

September 7, 2014

How often do you think out loud? Do you accidentally blurt out your thoughts? Do you try to voice your opinions? Do you post thoughts you think are deep and meaningful just to get attention on social media? We talk about that in Clive Thompson’s book, “Smarter Than You Think: How Technology is Changing Our Minds for the Better”. What is public thinking? Is it one of the aforementioned questions? Is it a combination of them? Not necessarily. While all three of my initial questions to you can contribute to the idea of public thinking, they’re small ideas in comparison to what Thompson presents in his book.

Thompson introduces the concept of public thinking through facts, research, and accounts of online bloggers. He talks about the volume of what we post on the internet and how it compares to large treasuries of writing. “I calculate that we’re composing at least 3.6 trillion ords daily, or the equivalent of 36 million books every day. The entire U.S. Library of Congress, by comparison, holds around 35 million books.” (47) After what seems to be boring us with a story of a Kenyan blogger, and amazing us with sheer numbers, Thompson starts to pitch his main idea to us. Why not post more of our thoughts on the internet? I’m not talking about small, trivial things such as “I probably shouldn’t have ate that old slice of bread,” I’m talking about bigger ideas. How to cure diseases, how to contribute to the world’s problems. Pitch ideas on some online community where the biggest and brightest of them all can communicate,  contribute, design, and create. I think this is Thompson’s concept of public thinking.

Exploring Thompson

Gerald Lappay
RWS 100
Professor Werry
September 4, 2014

Question #1 (to Thompson): In your piece, you describe places on the internet where you found immense amounts of writing. What was the most interesting website (or area of the internet in general) where you found interesting pieces of writing? Why were they so interesting?

Question #2 (to Thompson): This generation of young people has its highs and lows. Some can generate interesting, thought-provoking pieces and others ... can produce garbage. What are your thoughts on this generation and its writers?

One element I found persuasive was the "we write a whole lot" example. I get hooked when someone pulls big numbers like that, because I want to know how and where he got those figures.

Another persuasive element was the study on children he presented. When I read pieces like these, I really resonate with studies done on children. I'm not absolutely sure why that's the case.

An element I found less persuasive was when Thompson transitions into answering the question of "how is all of this writing changing our cognitive behavior?" (Public Thinking 51) It gets pretty dense and easy to lose focus on reading the piece.

At first, the story about Ory Okolloh can seem to be one of the most dense, uninteresting aspects of Public Thinking. But as Thompson goes on about sharing your ideas, be it online or otherwise, the story about a blogger sharing her ideas online seems to connect with the rest of the piece.

A Semi-Public Response to Public Thinking

Gerald Lappay

Professor Werry

RWS 100

September 1, 2014

A Semi-Public Response to Public Thinking

I believe that Thompson is trying to answer the question of ‘why don’t more people think publicly,’ with thinking publicly being defined as: posting one’s thoughts online. It could be simplified to ‘why don’t people write more’, if it wasn’t for the fact he goes on about studies done on children who express their thoughts and how great of a tool the internet can be. When someone posts online, people read it, understand it, and critique it. It develops intellectual conversation. This process is very powerful for everyone, writers and non-writers alike and I think Thompson is trying to stress this.

The first thing Thompson introduces to us in this piece is Ory Okolloh, an online blogger, who in 2007 covered Kenyan politics in a time of a media shutdown. Everyone who wanted to know about what was going on in Kenya looked to Okolloh’s blog. Publishers and documentary teams flocked to Okolloh, who seemed to be the information hub for everything Kenyan policy related at the time. “A documentary team showed up to interview Okolloh for a film they were producing about female bloggers. They’d printed up all of her blog posts on paper. When they handed her the stack of posts, it was the size of two telephone books.” (Public Thinking 46) Someone who posted two telephone books worth of information is now the talk of the town. A very big town the size of Kenya or larger, at that. The fact that a single person wrote all of this online for people to see and discuss, and later generated this much attention upon Kenya and herself, is interesting; and further proves that public thinking should be a key part in today’s state of writing.  
Thompson emphasizes the idea that once someone posts his or her thoughts on a particular topic online, others begin to share their own ideas on the same topic; creating discussion and collaboration. Thompson invites his readers to think about the age-old concept of collaboration. “People who are talking and writing and working on the same thing often find another, trade ideas, and collaborate. Scientists have for centuries intuited the power of resolving multiples, and it’s part of the reason that in the seventeenth century they began publishing scientific journals and setting standards for citing the similar work of other scientists. Scientific journals and citation were a successful attempt at creating a worldwide network, a mechanism for not just thinking in public but doing so in a connected way. Today we have something that works in the same way, but for everyday people: the Internet, which encourages public thinking and resolves multiples on a much larger scale and at a pace more dementedly rapid.” (Public Thinking 61) Thompson is highlighting how great of a tool the Internet can be for his concept of public thinking through his own thoughts and research others have done.

Another one of his main claims is if thinking out loud has the potential to help you solve things outside of puzzles, why don’t more people do it? He pulls the results from an experiment done in 2008 by professors in Vanderbilt University; where students would solve puzzles quietly or aloud to either their mothers or a tape recorder. “The mere act of articulating their thinking process aloud helped them think more critically.” (Public Thinking 55) If speaking your thought processes out loud can help a young child solve a puzzle more efficiently, why not put this concept on a grander scale? If someone trying to solve one of the world’s biggest problems, say finding a cure to a disease, posts their findings online, what would be the result? This could connect back to the idea that people should think out loud in the form of posting onto the internet; as it helps every online contributor to a discussion in one way or another.

Overall, I believe that the whole reason why Thompson wrote Public Thinking is to get his readers to profess their thoughts to the public, be it online or in a small conference room; as it helps everyone out.