Full scholarships and degrees do nothing but help college students continue into their future- right? In the case of student athletes, former athlete and current entrepreneur and author Malcolm Lemmons declares that a person's entire future is not worked out simply by obtaining a scholarship and a degree. In his article, "If You're An College Athlete, Your Degree Might Mean Next To Nothing," Lemmons argues to his intended audience of student athletes that they need more than a scholarship to succeed later in life.
Because of the relevance this subject has to him, Lemmons discusses the issue with sober diction: "With the lack of a meaningful degree, it is difficult for many athletes to get a entry-level job once they graduate." He worries that these students are not getting "meaningful degrees" because the athletic system they participate in does not ensure that they put proper effort into their majors. It is clear that Lemmons has credibility because he was a college athlete who had to work through the system in order to be successful in non-athletic careers, and this appeals to ethos. The author includes a short summary of his career and goals at the end of the article in order to prove to the audience that he is informed about the matter at hand and is taking measures to solve the problem. As he pinpoints the errors in the system student athletes are involved in, Lemmons utilizes a critical tone. He injects, "The NCAA seems to pretend like they deeply care about the well-being of these athletes... [it] does receive millions in profit withholding athletes from their cut; furthermore, not allowing them to pursue any means of entrepreneurial or self branding endeavors." The author's tone asserts an impact to the idea that student athletes are not being treated properly- which leads to the purpose of his article: change must happen in the education of college athletes. Lemmons believes that this starts encouraging these students to take measure to ensure their futures. His intention to teach initiative to athletes that do not make the cut is reasonable; if Lemmons discovers a way to convince these young, talented athletes to take initiative then in time, it might be able to make a difference. Lemmons's argument is set up in the traditional way. In his second paragraph he includes a counter argument: from the NCAA's perspective, college athletes have a "'better life than they would have without sports.'" His solution has some holes, though; he does not elucidate much on the measures that must be taken. Besides his solution, Lemmons's grammar has some holes as well- including in the title of the article itself (an college athlete?). It was disappointing to find these flaws because the argument is interesting and relevant, and though it was somewhat effective it could have been much more so if there had been more care put into the writing; in other words, less grammatical errors and more detailed explanations. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/if-youre-an-college-athlete-your-degree-might-mean_us_58e3dfd1e4b09dbd42f3dae8
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorHello, I'm Jules. Archives
May 2017
Categories |