Visual Rhetoric

 
    This picture ties together two topics. One concerns the end of tuition assistance to US service members due to federal budgets cuts.  The other concerns illegal immigrants qualifying for in-state tuition.  The picture is meant to incite shock and anger.  It shows a wounded army vet with prosthetic legs next to a photo of a group of rowdy people of Hispanic heritage.  When people think of illegal immigrants they often picture Mexicans.  One girl in the photo almost appears to be laughing and giving the veteran the finger.   The words on top simply asks the reader in red letters to 'guess who gets tuition assistance?'  The message is clear and to the point.  It basically questions the actions and priorities of our government.
     The political advertisement relies on pathos to incite both sympathy toward the veteran and anger towards illegal immigrants and the government. At the same time it simplifies or distorts both issues. The end of tuition assistance only applied to US service members currently in active duty not veterans.  For veterans there is the both the Montgomery and Post 9/ll GI Bill which provides monthly payments for veterans enrolled at an accredited school.  So the veteran pictured here can still get educational benefits from the government.
   Not all states provide in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.  And in the states that do provide, not all illegal immigrants will receive it.  Most states require the undocumented student to have resided in the state for a certain amount of years and to have graduated from a high school within the state.  
And they don't qualify for financial aid, so they still pay for their education unassisted.
    Thus this picture may be effective in communicating the message but it does so through highlighting a few parts of the truth.
 
 

My Scholarly Source

    My topic for my research paper is about the state of Texas providing in-state tuition to illegal aliens.  I've located a scholarly source that I can use for my paper.  The article is entitled 'Undocumented College Students, Taxation, and Financial Aid:  A Technical Note."  I believe this article to be a scholary scource because it was published in The Review of Higher Education which is an academic journal.  The publisher is Johns Hopkins University Press which sounds official.  The author Michael A. Olivas is a law professor from the University of Houston.  The contents of the article does not seem to be addressed for a general audience.  The typical audience seems to be other law professors or students.  Thus all of these factors lead me to conclude that this is a scholary source.
   The article begins with how the federal government treats the issue of undocumented college students.  In the case of Plyler v. Doe, the US Supreme Court ruled that each state has the power to grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.  Each state may set up it's own standards that determines whether an illegal immigrant can qualify for in-state tuition.
  The article goes on to provide examples of state cases that challenged a state's provisions regarding the issue.  Some cases such as Merten v. Doe invovled plaintiffs that challenged Virginia's refusal of granting undocumented students in-state tuition.  Other cases such as Day v. Sibelius challenged the laws that granted in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.  In those times the cases were dropped or ruled in favor of the state.  The point that the author is trying to make is that the states have the right determine whether or not to grant in-state tuition to undocumented children.
    The author then goes on to talks about federal action such as the failed attempts to get the DREAM act passed, which will provide a path for citizenship to undocumented students.  He also brings up the issue of financial aid and the complexity of state tax laws.  He finally challenges the categories of resident and non-resident aliens as being to limiting because illegal immigrants don't fall into either categories.
   The purpose of the article seems to be educating people regarding this little known issue.  The author appeals to the reader's logos by providing factual information to establish his point.  His point being that more attention should be brought upon this issue.  Overall the author writes an effective and convincing article.

25 by 25?

   Recently the Dwight Look College of Engineering announced a plan to increase enrollment from 10,000 to 25,000 by 2025.  As they say everything is or 'must be' bigger in Texas.  In a press release posted on the web, 25 by 25, they cited research conducted by the Texas Workforce Commision.  The research predicts a "19 percent growth in engineering jobs" within the state.  Thus the school believes in increasing enrollment to fill in this predicted void.
   As a current student, I am a little ambivalent on this goal.  25,000 does sound impressive, but is the school emphasizing quantity over quality?  Will increasing enrollment place more strain on both teachers and classroom resources?  Now the press release says that the school will pause this plan in the next twelve years if it perceives a drop in the quality of education. But at the current level of enrollment, I feel there is already a strain on these resources.  I've been in lab where not all the equipment worked.  This resulted either in long frustrating hours troublehsooting my work or forming groups of students to share on piece of lab equipment. 
   Also where do they see this projected growth in the demand of engineers?  Right now the workforce seems to be saturated with new graduates.  The perception I get from potential employers is one of snobbery because they often overlook your past accomplishments and reduce your resume to a simple number.  They have the upper hand in the market.  So I don't think increasing an already high supply of graduates will help the situation.  Maybe it will ensure that only the best and brightest recieve employment but that means time and money for the rest of us.
   What are your opinions? Is the school's goal of increasing enrollment worthwhile or misguided?