argument9 [aw狂人社]第二次作业 simahui

simahuiUID: 2208751

题目：ARGUMENT9 - The following appeared in a memorandum from a dean at Omega University.

"Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall student grade averages at Omega have risen by thirty percent. Potential employers apparently believe the grades at Omega are inflated; this would explain why Omega graduates have not been as successful at getting jobs as have graduates from nearby Alpha University. To enable its graduates to secure better jobs, Omega University should now terminate student evaluation of professors."
字数：459          用时：2:42:25          日期：2007-3-6

I find the argument for terminating student evaluation of professors specious at best, because it relies on a series of unproven, and doubtful, assumptions. One such assumption is that the inflated grades lead to get bad jobs. Do the grades play an important role of whether graduates can get better jobs? The mere fact that graduates from Alpha have more opportunities for better jobs than Omega graduates hardly suffices to infer that employers only stare at the grades whether the graduates’ major is necessary for their business. It is entirely possible that the curriculum supplied by Alpha University might more popular than Omega University, such as Computer Science, Business Administration, which can satisfy the modern entrepreneurs’ need. It is also possible that the city which AU located is more prosperous and able to supply more better jobs to graduates.

Even if the grades are the pivotal factor of employers' choices and the inflated grades will bring negative effect, it is unfair to assume that the grades are really inflated by the evaluation. Without clear evidence that the professors assign higher grades on purpose, it is likely that the teaching effectiveness have an obvious progress after the evaluation was implemented. For that matter students learn more easily and efficiently than before, the grades, of course, are really improved. Obviously, what OU need to do might be how to publicize the fact and persuade potential employers, not terminate the evaluation. Therefore, I cannot agree with the proposal unless the arguer ruled out these reasons above.

Even assume that after professors return to giving appropriate grades, employers will accept the new grades and offer better jobs. For all we know, fifteen years is so a long time that many things might be changed.  It is possible that employers have already be used to the higher score of graduates from OU and established an electing system between inflate grades and just grades, in which event the arguer’s recommendation would amount to especially poor advice. In that case, the new graduates’ grades might be rebated and attain less opportunities for few years. In short, the arguer cannot defend the recommended course of action on the basis of what might be a false cause-and-effect relationship from the counterpart that inflated grades lead to get bad jobs.

In sum, the argument is a dubious one that relies on a series of unproven assumptions—about the relationship between grades and jobs, as well as the reason of higher score. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should provide better evidence above. Even with these additional evidence, in order to properly evaluate the argument, I would need to know why potential employers think the grade are inflated, the reason why graduates from AU are successful in getting better jobs.