What is a College Education in the Time of Coronavirus
In an opinion analysis published in The New York Times, “What is a College Education in the Time of Coronavirus,” Richard Arum and Mitchel Stevens synthesize the significance of virtual classroom setup in advancing the underlying objectives of higher education. Consequently, the duo’s approach to the overall concern in paragraph 1 is highly effective as it instantaneously paints the quality outcome issue through reference to the University of Phoenix, on the one hand, and Harvard or Stanford, on the other. Hence, the differential standards in each of the identified categories prompt the readers’ contemplation of how quality implications could undermine the existing higher education order in the United States.
The authors’ development of the central theme in the 2nd paragraph is effective since it acknowledges the primary necessity for elite colleges to conform to the pervasive coronavirus mitigation measures. The effectiveness of this paragraph is grounded on the literary approach that uses a familiar basis to brainstorm the likelihood of unfamiliar, complicated implications. Hence, the analysts succeed in setting a consistent basis for arguing the topic.
Paragraph three introduces a somewhat obvious consequence; hence, it effectively builds the issue on the readers’ mind by linking the outcome’s severity to a commonplace factor. This approach aids the readers’ logical understanding of the writers’ views, commencing the question on compatibility issues in the two distinct models. Consequently, it contemplates the necessity of restructuring the credit allocation schemes to reflect the content acquisition challenges associated with the online delivery system.
Fundamentally, the authors effectively substantiate their concern by referencing the historic adoption of the online delivery system. They link the online model’s challenges to the educational quality dilemma associated with MOOCs’ inability to provide a clear direction about the new delivery strategy since 2012. Hence, this paragraph introduces evidence to support the claim that online academic delivery compromises the learners’ quality content acquisition.
Subsequently, paragraph five seamlessly builds the MOOCs aspect by recognizing the relevance of the online model in some socioeconomic contexts, albeit the associated quality effects. This paragraph implies the authors’ observation that the higher education stakeholders must embrace this ‘relegated’ model. Therefore, the authors use this paragraph to refute the new model’s significance in administering the overall higher education system.
Furthermore, paragraph six notes the irregularity associated with the extensive adoption of online forums to supplement the conventional models in the U.S. higher education context. Thus, the use of historical anomaly commendably paints the flaws in the coronavirus education arrangements. Hence, they effectively use this paragraph to engage the reader with the comprehensive quality concerns in the new content delivery method.
Paragraph seven introduces the big-picture component. Notably, the authors utilize the philosophical technique, which remarkably questions the value derived from the traditional brick-and-mortar model. It achieves this by contemplating the equivalence between the high costs associated with residential education and the resultant quality outcomes.
Remarkably, paragraph eight envisions the extent to which the contemporary higher education order would have been shielded from the coronavirus phenomenon based on the system’s adoption of futuristic models. This observation implies the necessity for stakeholders to draw useful lessons from the ongoing predicament. Therefore, the analysts employ this paragraph as a counterclaim to argue the relevance of online format in the system’s future advancement needs.
Subsequently, paragraph nine uses the soft skills aspect to justify the superiority of the traditional brick-and-mortar classroom approach. Therefore, it exceptionally acknowledges the adverse effects accompanied by the systematic shift to the online academic methods. Here, the authors use the traditional model’s superiority to weaken the stance of the new content delivery approach.
Furthermore, paragraph ten seamlessly builds on the current issue by recognizing the probable risks of adopting fully-fledged online formats. Hence, it empowers the reader to appreciate the comprehensive forces behind the North American college system. This subsection provides further reason for rejecting online academic delivery format.
Therefore, the subsequent paragraph cites the necessity of further research to determine the benefits and risks associated with each model. The reference of scientific study aspect effectively enlightens the reader about the absence of adequate information to establish differential quality implications between the traditional and the contemporary delivery approaches. This part indicates the literature gap in the educational administration field; therefore, it hints to the inability to arrive at a conclusive judgment on the matter.
Based on the preceding assessment, the authors use paragraph twelve to suggest that particular types of institutions should use research-based practices to shape unique models. This part cleverly introduces the basis for questioning the usefulness of the blanketed academic models. Therefore, the analysts point to the existing system’s weakness to justify the need to shift to hybrid models.
Consequently, paragraph thirteen introduces the costliness aspect derived from compelling students to engage in physical tutoring. This begs the question about the necessity of engaging learners in up to four years of face-to-face tutor contact. Concisely, this component, in part, refutes the usefulness of the sophisticated traditional approach.
Based on the preceding argument, the authors employ the case study example to demonstrate the real-world administrative and decision-making problems associated with the hybrid academic delivery. The evidence suggests systematic errors in the University of California case study. These errors accrue improved academic benefits for some groups while suppressing the educational potential of other demographics. Hence, paragraph fourteen references the University of California system as evidence to inform the elimination of blanketed assessment systems.
Subsequently, in paragraph fifteen, the authors ponder the significance of using online formats at some stages to supplement the traditional model’s objectives while suppressing the cost element. Therefore, they effectively use this paragraph to brainstorm some of the factors to be used in determining the usefulness of hybrid academic models. This part contemplates interventions for addressing future advancement needs.
Based on the arguments above, paragraph sixteen introduces the positive outcome from the current coronavirus predicament in advancing future higher education systems. Consequently, they assert the necessity to conduct scientific studies to determine the benefits and risks associated with particular academic models. This subsection conveniently calls for the reader’s action to capitalize on advancement opportunities in the post-corona period.
Hence, the authors use paragraph seventeen to express optimism about the adoption of responsive academic models in future higher education systems. Here, they emphasize that the cost savings from such futuristic models are used to advance the overall research aspect. Thus, they align the system with the ideals of educational access and equal participation.
Finally, paragraph eighteen cleverly prompts the reader to contemplate the quality concessions that emanate from the coronavirus pandemic. However, the authors logically concluded that the current crisis is associated with both risks and benefits, which should be integrated into decision-making contexts in the post-crisis period. Besides the risks, the analysts suggest the presence of practical opportunities for advancing the country’s higher education status.