“Waking Up and Taking Charge,” and “College Debt” were written about similar subjects, but they aimed for two completely different outcomes. Kamenetz wanted to encourage students to joins PACs to make the changes that they want to see. At the same time, Archer was encouraging students to ditch the college idea altogether because of insurmountable debt. As a 25 year old freshmen in college I can see where both of these authors are coming from. I chose not to attend college right out of high school because I knew that I couldn’t afford it. I did not know what I wanted to do, and school pushes the idea of college into students’ heads. I was once told I could go into college as undecided, to give myself time to choose what I wanted to do. It wasn’t until years later that I decided I wanted to become a teacher.

Kamenetz and Archer both bring up some valid points. Kamenetz’s argument is more approachable in my opinion, because she addresses that the only people who are going to make a change are the ones who are active in the community and local government. Archer suggests that students go to trade school instead of college. He states that everyone now has a college degree, which has lowered the value of the degree itself. If everyone decided to take his advice and go to trade school, trades would be overwhelmed with workers, and no one would be able to find work. Turning a blind eye and not going to college will not solve the issues that students and young adults are facing.

As a reader, it is crucial to know the author of the article you are reading. Kamenetz and Archer are two drastically different people. Archer is a psychologist who wrote an article about college debt for a magazine column, while Kamenetz is a Yale Graduate who writes about education for a living. After learning about these two from our class discussion, I decided that Kamenetz was a more reliable source of information. This does not discredit Archer, because he made a good case when it comes to college debt. Through further analysis, though, you can see that Archer is not a very responsible reasoner; his argument is very one-sided. It comes off as, “Not going to college is the only way to solve the college debt crisis,” which couldn’t be more false. Kamenetz’s proposal of getting involved in government may be a turn off to some people, not everyone is a fan of PACs. While many people would like to think the individual voter has all the power, PACs can influence the outcomes of some elections through the funding of specific individuals and providing certain candidates a platform. This idea rubs a lot of people the wrong way, but it is hard to see much change happen if students and young adults do not get involved in local government.

Kamenetz understands that it is not always rainbows and sunshine, that you have to take the good with the bad. We discussed in class that credit and loan companies are a massive problem in the student debt crisis. High-interest rates on money that is so freely given really have an impact on the repayment of student debts. Virginia 21 is an organization that works with the local government to add/change legislation regarding things that affect students and young adults entering the workforce, but they are funded by credit companies. Kamenetz understands that that is contradictory to what she is trying to say, but she addresses that you have to do what you can at the time to get ahead. What is good for now will not necessarily be right in the future, and that is why things can always change.

Overall, I agree with what Kamenetz has to say. Kamenetz’s approach to college debt seems more reasonable than just not going to college at all. If you don’t like the high-interest rates and the high cost of tuition, then why not do something about it rather than ignore the problem altogether.