Adjunct Walk-out Rhetorical Analysis – Book Report/Review Example

Download free paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

Adjunct Walk-Out Rhetorical AnalysisIntroductionLydia DePillis and Max Weintraub’s articles focus on the immense challenges faced by adjunct professors. DePillis’ article being written in the Washington Post seems to target the larger American Population, especially those in the education field. Weintraub’s article’s main audience is the student or academic population at the University of Arizona. The two writers bring out strong arguments supporting the fact that adjunct professors deserve better treatment with regards to their remuneration packages. They have both given compelling evidentiary statements that indicate that the current state of affairs is dire and intervention measures are urgent.

EthosLydia DePillis is a reporter for the Washington Post and mainly focuses on labour, business and housing. She has previously worked with the Washington City paper and The New Republic. She seems to have good experience in writing such matters. Weintraub who is in his senior year studies Italian studies and creative writing. He writes in the University of Arizona’s Daily Wildcat Newspaper. With the newspaper’s relatively impressive circulation of approximately 6500 he can be said to be a relatively competent writer. LogicBoth Writers give facts regarding the average wage of an adjunct professor earns with DePillis quoting it as $2,700 per course (par.

1). Weintraub on the other hand quotes that tuition fee in public universities had more than tripled since 1980, yet the fate of the professors still remain the same (par. 19). Both of them also point to the fact that administrator’s wages have been increasing exponentially thus being proof that it is possible to actually increase the adjunct salaries without increasing tuition fees. Their opinions resonate with the reader since they bring out the fact that in as much as administrators are important, adjuncts’ well-being should not be sacrificed in the process.

PathosDePillis’ use of pathetic appeal is more reserved than Weintraub’s. The former manages to evoke feelings of empathy on the reader by mentioning the fact that adjuncts work for less than half of what full-time professors earn, and with hardly any benefits (Depillis par. 1). Weintraub takes it a notch higher by mentioning that these professors are afraid of asking for a raise for fear of being fired.

They are always left in the balance wondering whether or not they will still have a job the next semester. Weintraub’s article brings the author close to feeling the sort of despair experienced by adjunct professors (par. 7). ConclusionThe challenges facing adjunct professors have been well articulated and given evidentiary support from research conducted by both writers. They have also suggested possible solutions to these problems and have remained realistic about the time period required to effect these suggested changes. DePillis suggests, inter alia, cost-free interventions like longer contract terms.

On the other hand, Weintraub suggests “eliminating the waste on the top”, which means employing less administrators and using the money to pay adjunct professors better. These articles enable students and other relevant stakeholders in the education arena to understand why it is important for adjunct professors to be treated more fairly. Works CitedDePillis, L. (2015, February 9). Adjunct Professors get Poverty-level Wages. Should their pay quintuple? Retrieved March 3, 2015.Weintraub, M. (2013, October 15). Universities exploit adjuncts, hinder learning. Retrieved March 3, 2015.

Download free paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us