« Don’t drop out: Alex Kern on the value of college life | Main | “So easy”: Nancy Jo Sales on dating apps and hookup culture »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


In discussions of Cai Lun and the invention of paper, a controversial issue is whether books are coming to end now that digital books were invented. While some argue that paper books will still stick around while digital books are more of an obsession, others contend that different kinds of reading can affect the way you comprehend the text.

Josh Bergeron

The argument of paper versus computers has been argued for many years since technology began to expand to where you can publish many articles online. Some say that technology is a better more efficient way to publish text. But I say that it takes away from your reading experience, you tend to skim the page, and try to read faster when you read online, rather than in a book. The ability to think deeply is more when you read text in my opinion.

Sonia DeMaio

In discussions of Paper vs. Pixel, a controversial issue is weather technology is replacing paper. While some argue that it is, others contend that paper will never become extinct. I personally believe that people will always go back to relaying on paper. Its more durable, you can take it anywhere and use it anywhere. Even after we have thousands of different tools online to replace paper people continue to go back to it and many people still prefer it. I don't think we have to worry about paper being replaced any time soon.


In today's day and age, the debate between paper vs. pixel is a interesting one. I feel that paper will always be a priority for life because it is something that we as a society are accustomed to. Granted same with technology, I feel that paper is the dominant resource.


Ehrenreich's theory about the pursuit of the American dream is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of the hardships that all of humanity has to face. This writing starts by bringing up that the author has dealt with those who are in poverty and has documented their struggles, but she then brings up the fact that people completely forget about the problems of living the white collar life. For those who do not know, to be white collar is to be in the mid to upper level in the corporate world and the problem with being this in this day and age is the lack of jobs that our society has. While not all the unemployed are in poverty, it is still a state of life that causes much suffering for those living it. I have seen people put themselves in a depressive rut that only getting a job can fix, even though not having a job is not necessary their fault because it is society who creates and destroys jobs. The other hardship that comes from living this white collar life is the idea of “overemployment”, which is people having jobs that force them to work past what they are required to do. While having a job is an important part of life, it should not be a thing that controls a life of a person. In conclusion, if Ehrenreich is right about the about the struggles of the white collar class, as I think she is then we need to reassess the popular assumption that those who are with a job and not in poverty are faced with a life without struggle. This writing also makes me conclude that life is not easy for anyone, whether you have a job or not.


Natalie says that the controversy over paper books is now coming to and end because of the invention of online books. Some say paper will stick around because that's how some comprehend better.
Josh says that some say that technology is a better more efficient way for people to post text, but it takes away from your reading experience because you may tend to skim the page.
I say that the online books aren't as helpful because of the technology itself. technology gives you ways to cheat, it isn't always reliable because of power, wifi, and data. Without either of those you can't get any online work done.

Mark Tyler

I strongly support our military in all it does to protect us and the world at large, and I think our military should always be manned by highly trained professionals who should never be interrupted by civilian students touring with them. Furthermore, the Department of Defense mandate is to defend our freedom and not to educate people about civic duties. This is why we have the Department of State and the Department of Education.
With that said, the GI Bill is a good program for our veterans. We could never repay them for the sacrifices they made to protect us. This bill is one of the many ways we show our appreciation, but extending this bill to civilian students who won’t be making the same sacrifices seems like another “Government Welfare Program.” These unskilled students will be kept and fed on military bases for their safety while the trained soldiers do all of the hard and dangerous work.
Some may argue that these students will have some basic training, but I say, having civilians with low-skilled military training and experience around trained soldiers is a recipe for disaster because soldiers will be spending more time and resources protecting these civilian students than fighting battles. Also, people in the military will complain, and rightly so, that it is unfair for civilians to tour with them for “one year” and to get the same benefits they enlist for and risk their lives for, for many years.
Speaking of touring, civilian students can offer their services to society in many more ways than solely touring with our military. They can tour with our police on community-outreach programs, or tour with our postal workers on mail-delivery runs, or tour with our healthcare workers in hospitals and nursing homes… Furthermore, we don’t learn about our duties to society by volunteering our services to society. I think we give our services to society after we have learned about our duties to society. “Civic literacy” can be stressed more in our school system to create a culture of “civic engagement.”
After our students have acquired a sound education about their duties to society from high school, and while they are fulfilling these duties to various places of business in society, they could earn assistance for college in the form of a “college-tuition-points system.” Their volunteer services must be enough to offset costs at these businesses, and those businesses that benefit from the services of these students provide rewards in tuition points. The government can incentivize this program by giving tax breaks to entities that help students in this way. Such a program will not only help students with college, but it will also help them recognize the importance of fulfilling their duties to society. The government benefits by not creating another “welfare system.” Finally, “student-loan debt” will become a thing of the past.

Marc Mercurio

I am in 100% agreement that we should have programs in place to support our military men and women and have programs in place to assist them after their military careers. I believe that is what our should be doing.

However, I disagree with many of the points that Kennedy and Impink raise. Although, I agree that the cost of college education is out of hand; I believe there are other ways of reducing the overall cost while reducing the burden of student loan debt. My radar goes up as soon as I hear that it will be a federally funded program. Who pays for this program and who will benefit? Is it another tax placed on the middle and upper class? Kennedy and Impink suggest that the program would require a commitment from local government to participate. My concern would be that the Federal government would require mandatory participation regardless of them saying it would be voluntary.

I can't envision how a yearlong program would drive down the cost of secondary education. Instead of focusing on a 'Tour of Duty' before college, why doesn't the government focus on driving down the cost of college education and start with the cost of books and material. This has become a business in itself and in my opinion a complete rip off.

Another point made by Kennedy and Impink is that the general public is lacking in its civic literacy. I would take it one step further and say that many people lack the basic knowledge of our founding fathers and the principles that our country was built upon. Will a one year 'Tour of Duty' fix this? I doubt it.

I think we need to go back and revamp the entire education system and maybe start reinforcing and teaching the younger generation on the history of country and the important principles our country was built upon.

In closing I agree with Kennedy and Impink that there is a real problem with both civic literacy and student loan debt; however, I don't agree with either of their proposed solutions.


this artical talks about how online books are taking over, and how paper books are going away. i think its better to have a online book then a paper because you can have it all on one device instead of having 5 books.

Deanna Morales

I somewhat agree with this article. I believe Kennedy was coming from good morals and ideas when devising this plan and that a program such as this could drastically improve student loan debt, the housing market, and interest in civic literacy. On the other hand this is only true if this theory works. The Board of Education would have to approve such a trip for their students along with the new course. Students halfway through high school would suddenly be told that they have added an additional course requirement to graduate that they haven't prepared for. Among these issues the schools would have to find trustworthy adults to supervise these high-school students throughout the trip and most likely the schools will ask their students to pay a "small fee" for going. But yes I do see the success in this plan but it must be illustrated very carefully in order to produce the results Kennedy dreams of.


Does the one year tour of duty be considered slavery if that is the only option of free subsidized college opportunities?
What the government and this article seem to be lacking is the over all mind set of the younger generations looking to broaden their knowledge and careers. The mindset I mentioned is that of peace and equality. We as a country need to reset the entire outlook on college and weigh the cost it would take to change the future.


I do agree that the cost of higher education is becoming ridiculous. I however, do not agree with the plan to have someone serve for a year to get free school. I want men and women who WANT to fight for our country to be defending it, not those who just want free school.

I believe this needs to be revised. I am sure there are other ways to help boost the economy and help students with tuition other than the proposed plan above. It doesn't seem like the best option, in my opinion. I don't want to feel pressured to join the military if I cannot afford school. I completely understand that I am not up for that challenge. I don't feel others should need to have that mental argument with themselves either, whether it is worth it or not.


Students loans are becoming more and more of a issue when going to college. We all want to achieve in life and for some of us school is a way of doing so. But as many know college isn't cheap and paying for it can be a big deal. So some requires taking out loans and that's not always in our best interest for some. Student loan debt is at a all time high and will continue to grow. The concern I have is for many students who doesn't finish be stuck with paying back loans for a lifetime and that's just adding on another bill. I do think this topic should be more of an focal point with going to school and have programs that can lean a hand with dealing with loans. It reflects on our credit but most of all it can be something we deal with for the rest of out lives.


Sheila Suess Kennedy talks about a plan that would allow college to be affordable to students if they take a "Tour of Duty". I think that this plan would be a great opportunity that a lot of people could take advantage of but I do think it should voluntary. Since student debt is so high we should do something about it and this seems like a good way about doing so. A "Tour of Duty" not only makes college more affordable for students, but it also puts some money in their pockets to help even more with paying off college. This plan just kills so many birds with one stone, it would give a lot of young people working experience, it would ensure a large working group for civil things, and it puts more people through college.

Trevor Cissell

My main question is why not sooner? 1-trilloin is whole a lot and as a student in debt my self, who is living off of the loans because they are the only way I can afford to be semi-independent; I can honestly say I would love to be apart of this. If this idea, This "program" would help put a dent in our over all student debt (again 1-trillion) that would be amazing. With the extra money this program would give someone like me and my wife it would greatly improve our chances of living on our own. With the way things are now we could barely afford a car much less the ability to live on our own.


I think the main interest in this article is why do reporters say or ask things that none of their business. A women becoming a NFL refer is wonderful, women of this generation wants to be respected as a women.What do her children are how many she has to do with the interview.I think she handled herself very well and well respected.


*Class Assignment*
In her article, A ‘Tour of Duty’ Before College Would Serve Students and the Nation, professor Sheila Suess Kennedy makes the argument that students should voluntarily serve in the US military for a year after high school. She suggests that each student would be paid a minimum wage during that one year of service. At the end of the year, if the student has completed the requirements satisfactorily, a two-year stipend would be awarded to pay for the student’s tuition, room, and board at a public college or trade school. Kennedy further argues that students should be required to pass a civics course that would be developed by the US Department of Education to promote civic learning. Kennedy does concede that this kind of action would require the agreement and commitment by those involved, including: local units of government, federal government, nonprofit organizations, public universities, community colleges, and trade schools. But she argues that the benefits would outweigh the obstacles. Kennedy gives evidence that there would be more civic participation from current generations, including an increase of votes from informed voters, more defense for the US military, student debt would decrease, and more private-sector jobs would be created, thus increasing the economy. To conclude, Kennedy believes that this sort of “national public-service program” would motivate students from less fortunate backgrounds to, not only receive their degrees with less student-loan debt, but also “expand civil society and increase civic competence and engagement.”
While I believe that professor Kennedy is on a good track, I believe she is wrong in her proposal because students should not have to serve a “tour of duty” in order to get out of college debt free. In the United States specifically, tuition rates rise and rise each year and the amount of loans needed to attend school have also increased. It is nearly unheard of now to be in school without the use of any loans. That is where the change needs to start. There are several reasons why people go to school, none of them is to gain a lot of debt. But that is what students face now. I do not have a perfect way of lowering the tuition rates, but I argue that military service is not the answer. While Kennedy may argue that civic duty is more important than going to college right after high school, I disagree. I do not believe that it is necessary to serve in the military to make this country better. There are many different ways that we can serve our country outside the military, including: becoming an entrepreneur to raise the economy, join the Peace Corp to help spread the true nature of our culture, or becoming a teacher to teach younger generations about this nation. I also disagree with the fact that Kennedy’s plan only allows students to use the stipend at public universities, community colleges, and trade schools. If Kennedy’s proposal was to be put in place, students should be given the option to go anywhere they are admitted. If they are able to get into Harvard, for example, they should be able to use that stipend there. Students should not be limited to the degree of education just because of the tuition costs. Lastly, Kennedy argues that this program would motivate students, I maintain that there are many other different reasons students should be motivated to go to school. Students can be motivated because they want to do something they love for the rest of their lives. Students can also be motivated to move across the earth and start a new life. What motivates a person is not universal. Therefore, I conclude that a program like this would not significantly lower debt rates in the United States.

Christina Preher

I believe what Kennedy in her article "Tour of Duty" is trying to get across to the audience in general is the system we have in place right now causing the average student to go into debt around $30,000 or more by the time they graduate college. Only to graduate without a job that makes enough money to pay off the loan in a reasonable amount of time, leading these individuals going into debt. Now you have less houses being bought and less consumer consumption across the board. If you can’t buy a house, you can’t buying things to go with said new home and the cycle spirals. All the purchases that keep the economy going are not there in place. Small businesses close or have never been created. Kennedy is trying to make people wake up to reality that the system is not working, what she is trying to tell her audience is the down fall of years of a broken system.

payroll software

Since student debt is so high we should do something about it and this seems like a good way about doing so. A "Tour of Duty" not only makes college more affordable for students, but it also puts some money in their pockets to help even more with paying off college.

Odundo Eric

Student debt should have attainable policy backed repayment friendly processes and levels


I totally agree with Kennedy about the article "Tour of duty". students in this nation are graduating from college with a bunch of of debt that they can't even get a high paying job to reimburse the loans.In my view, college ought to be more affordable even making it tuition-free if possible.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

By signing up you agree to W. W. Norton’s
privacy policy and terms of use.

About They Say / I Blog

  • New readings posted monthly, on the same issues that are covered in “They Say / I Say” with Readings—and with a space where readers can comment, and join the conversation.

Follow us on Twitter to get updates about new posts and more! @NortonWrite

Become a Fan