A Review of Margaret Wente’s “Inside the Entitlement Generation” Essay

Margaret Wentes Globe and Mail article on the existence and characteristics of the entitlement genesis in Canada is both opinionated and thought provoking. The author strongly throws that the entitlement lookout is quite prevalent in Canadas universities, has been nurtured by its preceding generation and has led to students wild work expectations. Although Wente effectively communicates her opinions regarding the entitlement generation, her arguments are compromised by inadequate use of appeal to authority and a polarized approach to the theme.Those who have stepped onto one of Canadas legion(predicate) university campuses may have noticed the student mentality encompassed by its translation. Wente credits Dr. Ken Coates, a professor of history and former Dean at the University of Waterloo, with elucidating the mindset of the entitlement generation the kids whove always been told theyre smart, and never pushed in any case hard (par. 3). With the assistance of Dr. Coates exp ertise, the author argues that the development and existence of this generation of students has led to their unrealistic work expectations and dismay post-graduation. She contends that this mentality is derived from student disinterest and laziness, yet nurtured by a former generation. Wente withstands her opinion on the topic of the entitlement generation very clear by using a firm tone, which may be misinterpreted as condescending by the wrong audience. She makes implications regarding the entitlement generation and their work ethic.Applying these implications to a sizeable population is Wentes heavy flaw. Moreover, she bases many of her arguments on the shared opinion of Dr. Coates and does not deviate from this source. Implications that apply to large populations and the use of scarcely a single source leads to generalizations that consequently contribute to error in appeal. These characteristics of Wentes writing make many of her claims questionable and open to criticism, e ven though they may be valid arguments. The author uses Dr. Coates seeming expertise on the entitlement generation to support her arguments. She reassures her reader that Dr. Coates is an expert on the entitlement generation by indicating that his book, Campus surreptitious is a guide to the mindset of the entitlement generation (par. 3). Wente presents Dr. Coates opinions as if they were her own, demonstrating her concurrence.Her sympathy can be seen in her support of Dr. Coates statement that students bring assignments in late and think that professors will mark them without penalty (par. 4). Wente claims that this attitude is sure because thats the way its been all their lives (par. 5). Wentes editorial is riddled with this type of accord, which may be criticized by the reader. The author only introduces the audience to Dr. Coates who is assumed to be the expert-on-the-topic and lacks an indication that there is adequate agreement among other experts. Additionally, there is n o mention of the opinions held by Dr. Coates students regarding his credibility and competence in his role as a professor. It is possible that his opinion of the students he has encountered during his career has been shaped by their attitude towards his teaching ability, popularity or subject of expertise.Finally, Wente adopts a polarized approach to the topic by implying that students are either a part of the entitlement generation or the top 15 to 20 per cent of their class (par. 10). Wente argues that only the top of the class, can realistically anticipate jobs with a starting annual salary that exceeds $50 000 (par. 11). She implies that the remaining students are encompassed by the definition of the entitlement generation and are considered both uninterested and lazy. Furthermore, the author suggests that only the entitlement generation expressed their zest for unrealistic work/life balance, vacation time and a starting annual in the recent travel along of university students (par. 11).She fails to acknowledge the possibility of a group of students who do not achieve a GPA that militia them a spot at the top of the class yet possess a genuine desire to learn and be challenged. These are the students who might devour the works of Frantz Fanton, Karl Marx and Gloria Steinem (par. 7), but may also be complicated in extracurricular activities, which take time away from their studies. Dr. Coates and Wente, do not recognize important attributes that students chance upon from being involved in clubs, sports or organizations. This lack of consideration contributes to the polarized approach adopted by the author.Wentes holds a firm opinion regarding the entitlement generation and their characteristics. Her article brings public attention to a common mindset of Canadian students, which may table service to explain the unrealistic work expectations of the current generation. This information may help employers who draw from Canadian institutions hire candidate s that will integrate well into their organization based on their attitude. Employers should be wary, though, of the information presented in Wentes article as it adopts a polarized approach to the topic of the entitlement generation with poor use of authorities.Works CitedPrinsen, Jean. Mind Wide Open Critical Reading. Kingston Queens University, 2011. 1-6.Wente, Margaret. in spite of appearance the Entitlement Generation. Toronto The Globe & Mail division of Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc., 17 September 2011. F9.