Corporate Administration Versus Vocation of Learning

Corporate Administration Versus Vocation of Learning. The article “University Wars: The Corporate Administration Vs. The Vocation of Learning” by John McMurtry is insightful and informative because the author seeks to inform the readers about how university administrators hinder academic freedom. The article was written for individuals who read the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ (CCPA) journal, The Monitor. The author targets to reach students, educators university administrators, government officials and head of corporate institutions who are interested in issues concerning university education. The article’s thesis is that university administrators hinder the advancement of learning and dissemination of knowledge because their primary intention is to increase their income.

The author organizes his main arguments in a clear manner. McMurty begins by choosing a broad topic. He chooses the university as the main topic of discussion. Afterward, the author gets specific by introducing the challenges professors and students face. McMurty points out that university administrators attack the professors who are concerned with dispersing knowledge. The arguments made connect well with the article’s thesis. Throughout the article, McMurty informs the readers how university administrators frustrate professors and students in an attempt to bring money back into their pockets (McMurtry 16). Towards the end of the article, the author suggests some solutions to the problems facing universities. The main arguments are well organized in the article making it easy for readers to read the author’s claims, intentions, and possible solutions. All the arguments made in the article relate with each other and with the thesis to fulfill the author’s objective.

The author employs various strategies to generate interest in the argument and to persuade readers of its merit. Firstly, the author utilizes numerous credible sources as evidence of how university administrators are less concerned with the dissemination of knowledge and more concerned with making profits. McMurty uses multiple sources from professionals who have written articles for academic journals to support his arguments and justify his claims. The claims made and the findings utilized are verifiable because they are published in credible sources or made by esteemed writers and political leaders. Some of the sources utilized include the New York Times, Corporate Higher Education Forum, Canadian Association of University Teachers, Howard Woodhouse’s book and Larry Summers, former Harvard President (McMurtry 16, 17). McMurty uses numerous sources in his article to support his arguments and claims and discourage criticism.

Secondly, the author persuades the readers by the use of logic, emotions, and authority. McMurty appeals to the reader’s logic by describing the challenges teachers and students face in university (McMurtry 16). The readers are already aware of the high cost of college education; therefore, the author appeals to the reader’s logic by stating that the high cost of the college education can be attributed to selfish university administrators. Additionally, the author appeals to the readers’ emotions by stating how the administrators mistreat educators and students. Lastly, the author proves the authority of the article by use of credible sources of information.

Corporate Administration Versus Vocation of Learning

McMurty exhaustively addresses various questions in his article. Firstly, the author begins by defining who a corporate administrator is. According to McMurtry, a corporate administrator is a university president who is more concerned with making profits than in promoting the dissemination of knowledge (McMurtry 16). Secondly, the author describes five key properties of greedy university administrators. These include desire to have total control of all the institution’s financial expenditures, failure to perform the primary functions of the institution, drawing institution’s financial resources for personal benefits, failure to perform functions that promote the dissemination of information and selecting faculty members who are not interested in the dissemination of knowledge (McMurtry 17). Thirdly, the author differentiates between the corporate administration and the vocation of learning. The corporate administrators are defined by their desire to maximize on personal gains and creating conflicts with educators who are interested in spreading the truth. On the other hand, the individuals in the learning vocation maximize on learning advancement, promote knowledge sharing without limits and are interested in promoting the truth in the learning institutions (McMurtry 17).

McMurty informs his readers of how the universities are run today in an organized and well-articulated way. From the beginning of the article, the thesis is well defined. The clear thesis guides the reader on what the author seeks to discuss. The author uses strong and effective arguments. The main argument made is that corporate administrators are more interested in making profits for self-gains than the advancement of knowledge and research. All the arguments made in the article connect well with each other and with the thesis. Various strategies are employed by the author to promote the credibility of the article.  The author seeks to persuade his readers through the use of logic, emotions, and authority. Various credible sources are used to support the claims and arguments made in the article. The author does not use any faulty reasoning in his discussion. The author closes by providing possible solutions to the problems facing the university administration to provide a guide through which university administrators can address the issues raised.

Works Cited

McMurtry, John. “University Wars: The Corporate Administration Vs. The Vocation of Learning.” Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ the Monitor. 2009, pp. 16-18.