For corporations, sponsoring a school’s sports teams or facilities is a way of community outreach, where for a good turn, a company’s name and logo are disseminated more freely among the populace. For schools, sponsorship is a way to pick up extra cash-to buy books, renovate classrooms or make sure the soccer team has up-to-date equipment. In most public school systems, the taxpayers can’t provide all that. While cities cry foul for the supposed corporate “brainwashing” that takes place when a business writes a check to a nonprofit, it is quite clear they are the beneficiaries of such generosity.
Sure, giving away money is a smart public relations move, as it often garners a newspaper article or two and the logo stamped on a kid’s t-shirt, but this is a far cry from the monopolization of the mind that some are so worried about.
Here’s exhibit A. At my high school. The football team wears under-Armour exclusively.
AS a bulk package from a smaller company, the athletic department gets a discount, and is able to provide uniforms at considerably lower expenses than if individuals purchased everything on their own. The “cost” of corporate influence is a small “UA” under the collar of every kid’s t-shirt, Under Armour’s marketing department gets a slap on the back for successful outreach to an important consumer group, and both sides are satisfied. The relationship is mutualistic the corporate “parasite” is AWOL.
Exhibit B: my previous high school. As a freshman, I attended a small, Catholic school, with a student body of roughly 300 students.
What kept the doors open and the lights on was partially from tuition, but that barely made a debt in overall costs. In the gym were about twenty billboards of moderate size with a logo. A phone number, and a tag line for the business that provided financial support to the school. Thanks to the businesses, who gave a little tog et a little, the place was still running last time I checked.
Despite these tales of cozy, appropriate relationships between corporate America and America’s schools, sometimes things go too far. In past years, Coca-Cola held a contest to see which school in Atlanta could produce the most coke “patriotism”, presumably for a cash prize for the school. One year, two kids wore Pepsi shirts on the designated “Coke day” and were suspended. Whether it’s the story if the cash strapped school or just overzealous administrators doesn’t matter. Somebody went to far.
However, if the tabloids are any suggestion, this doesn’t happen with great frequency. The corporate sponsoring of a TV channel at school meant to solely advertise, or a billboard the size of Texas in the lunchroom, cross the line, but on balance, the relationship is mutually beneficial. Extra money traded for brief recognition at a game or a little embroidery on the back of a t-shirt, most would agree, is worth everyone’s time. As with all things moderation is the key—but none should be denied a new classroom, sports jerseys, or anything else, for that matter because it came from corporate America.
Clearly defines the issue of corporate sponsorship for schools Shows a full awareness of the pros and cons of the issue
Develops a clear, thoughtful position between extremes
Makes effective use of two appropriate and convincing examples based on personal experience Uses syntactically varied and sophisticated language with impressive control throughout
The advertisements that corporations place around US schools these days are ubiquitous. Around every corner in a school is vending machines encouraging kids to buy a coke or some other product the machine may sell. The money that comes from these corporate ads maybe helpful in funding the modern school, but has a negative affect on the students that see advertisements every day.
A school in today’s society has a huge financial burden placed upon it that corporate money helps ease. School’s have to buy textbooks, computers, over-head projectors , say TVS, maintain the physical condition of the school and many may other financial costs are needed to support a school. Buy allowing corporations to advertise in the school, funding all the costs of running a modern school becomes possible. Coco Cola has huge, multi-million dollar contracts with many schools and has vending machines in them. Many other corporations like Subway and Chick-Fil-A also pay schools to see their food in the school’s cafeteria’s. The money gained from these contracts allow schools to have desks and chalkboards. And many new modern technological advancements in school materials. Buy advertising for these companies, schools essentially gain the proper funds to function.
Although schools are able to provide students with a proper learning environment through corporate funds, the advertisements themselves paradoxily make the school environment less about learning and more about marketing. Students already advertise for companies on their own through the clothing they wear, the shoes they buy, and other commercial products they have in their possession. The advertising in school is only promoting students to buy certain products and only encourages them to let their mentality of consumerism grow. School is about learning and that should be what the aim of a school feels like. Walking to a school should not be like entering a city mall like is today.
Students walk around the campus as if it were full of shops and stores; they buy cokes before class or pick up a subway sandwich before the bell rings and next period begins. Schools should not be a zone where consumerism takes the place of learning. A thought on a student’s mind should be “how do I take the derivative of 3x squared minus 8x?” or “I really learned a lot from that lecture on Vietnam.” They should not be thinking “do I have time to buy a coke before 2nd period?”
Advertising in the school setting also turns students from children that work on education into marketing groups that companies use to gauge the success of their products. This is essentially what schools have become. Students buy foods and drinks that are there to advertise for certain corporations and depending on what sells and what does not, companies change their products so they will be more affective in making a profit. Students are not test subjects that are meant to be studied. They are the future leaders of the world and should not be labeled as a lain demographic as
corporations do by advertising in schools. Focus groups that many companies also use consist of volunteers.
Students do not get to choose whether they want to be part of market research or not. They are put in these marketing groups just by going to school. Corporations are changing schools from learning environments to controlled research for their products. Education is the most important aspect of a school and companies and their advertisements are changing this. Students should be able to go to school and learn without being bothered by corporations who only want to gain a profit from these students.
Modern schools function today largely in part because of the money they receive from corporations that advertise in them. Bat funding should not take precedence over learning. New ways to give schools an adequate budget need to be explored so schools can once again become a place of education. As schools are now, they are only getting students trapped in the world of consumerism and marketing.
Effectively dramatizes the increasing prevalence of corporate ads in schools In paragraph two, explains why corporate sponsorship is increasing In paragraphs three through five, presents and embraces the opposing view, that ads “make the schools less about learning and more about marketing” Draws upon brief, useful examples of marketing in schools
Uses language that is effective and controlled
Essay # 3
Corporate partnerships have been becoming much more prevalent in our schools today. The Under Armor logo seems to be on every single baseball, football, and volleyball uniforms even at my own school. The money received by the school for endorsing the company than is used in a variety of ways to improve the school and its facilities. This is why these partnerships have become a necessity for cash-trapped schools. Others, however, frown upon schools, which accept these partnerships, as they believe schools should provide an ad-free environment for the students. Corporate partnerships are
beneficial to schools, because they provide the funds to further the students’ educational opportunities and the advertisements have no negative effect on the learning environment.
I personally am very familiar with the relationship between schools and “corporate sponsorships”. Having lived in South Korea for over ten years, I have heard many arguments about the “special relationship” between schools and sponsors. In South Korea, contributions of huge sums of money to schools by individuals, families, and corporations are prohibited, contrary to American schools. Here in America, universities accept large amounts of donation from outside sponsors in exchange for an easier admission. This is seen as outrageous and corrupt in South Korea. However, I believe that many South Koreans disregard the tremendous benefits that result from these sponsorships
. One of the biggest reasons why numerous students, who come from a poor economic background, can even dream about attending colleges is that universities utilize the money received from sponsors to give scholarships. In South Korea, students without money cannot go onto college. The benefits of these corporate sponsorships greatly outweigh the drawbacks.
These relationships are greatly help schools of other level such as high schools. Although no many high schools will utilize the money through scholarships (as public schools are free), the money can be used for basic necessities of the 21st century such as up-to-date computers, textbooks, and other school facilities. With these advancements and improvements, students will be able to access more resources and have better chances of success. This is fitting especially for under funded schools across America. These sponsorships could be exactly what they need to lift themselves out of the stagnation they have been trapped inside for numerous years.
Corporate logos may distract a student from paying attention in AP English Language and Composition. However, the advertisements’ influence is limited. Seeing products and logos that we as students already see daily outside of school will not have significant effects on the students. Sure, we may choose to drink more Pepsi than coke since we see more Pepsi logos and products at out schools. But what harm is done through that? With the benefits that can be obtained through sponsorships money greatly overpowering the drawbacks of increase in Pepsi sales, schools should and must be allowed to maintain corporate sponsorships.
Develops both sides of the corporate partnership issue
Contrasts (not altogether clearly) South Korea and US attitudes towards corporate sponsorship Develops an adequate rationale in support of corporate partnership, using appropriate evidence Demonstrates a mature prose style with few lapses
Some argue that corporate sponsorship or school exposes students to ads and corporate influence, and that schools should be an envirornment free of these things. However, the money that comes from these corporate sponserships could be extremely important to schools and so these sponsorships do more harm than foul.
The real world is full of ads and corporate influence. Even if companies and products were not highlighted in schools, students would be exposed to the same products elsewhere. Marketing is so advanced and successful these days, that a company will do whatever it takes to reach their target market. If their idea benefits a school, why not create a partnership? Also, a school will only allow certain companies to partner with them. A school may be one of the best places for a student to be exposed to ads because they are school appropriate and considered thoughtfully. It is not like Marlboro or Coors are trying to create partnerships with school, so why not expose students to normal companies they might already buy into, and earn money doing it? Partnering with Coca-Cola may establish brand loyalty among teenagers, but it is not introducing them to soft drinks. By high school age, pretty much every American has at least tried a Coke and/or Pepsi.
Although the argument promoting corporate sponsorships with school is stronger and has more positive effects, it does have a few instances that could be argued with. Some could argue that teenage years are too young to be establishing brand loyalty, which is the company’s objective in partnering with the school. Parents could argue that they want their children experiencing different types of soda instead of only drinking the one offered at school. Or buying clothes from other companies. Or listening to other radio stations. Pretty things, that in comparison look even more petty to receiving money for the school, which could go toward computers, more teachers, more supplies, a better school.
Regardless of the exposure to ads and corporate influence, partnerships provide money for schools; a way fro schools to improve, and have a more positive, more helpful effect on students. Students are already going to be exposed to companies, regardless of it they are found at their school or on the commercial of their favorite TV show or the bus stopped in traffic in front of their faces. A corporate sponsorship is a smart way for companies and schools alike to get what they want.
Shows an understanding of the issue and evaluates pro and con adequately Argues that corporate sponsorship will do no harm because ads are pervasive in our society anyway Presents appropriate evidence and reasoning, though without strong, specific examples Uses generally clear prose but contains some syntactic awkwardness and lapses in diction
Unfortunately money is needed for the majority of things to be successful. Both public and private schools need money for their various programs and facilities. Corporations for years have sponsored school sports team, but now have moved on to other school facilities and negotiating contracts with food, drink, and clothing companies. While some argue that this is a necessity to pay for certain aspects of the school, others claim that the school environment should be ad and corporate influence free. Corporations should be able to advertise within schools so that school can receive funds.
To argue that schools should be corporate influence free one must first evaluate the actual influence ads have. Right now I am in my school’s gym writing this essay and the scoreboard has a Coke logo avout it. Am I really going to go buy a coke after this test just because Coke was written on the wall? No. I do not like coke, nor do I want one. The fact that there is an advertisement above my head does not change the fact that I do not drink soft drinks. Similarly my sister goes to a private school that only sells Pepsi products because of a contract with a Pepsi company. She does not like the taste of Pepsi and is not going to pay money for something she does not want just because it is there.
Most people will buy what they need or want regardless of a sign on the wall. For the School newspaper last summer I was required to sell five hundred dollars worth of ads. In every issue the ads are at the bottom of the page, but no one looks at them. Whether or not schools should be ad free is a trivial question because the majority of the people do not notice those ads around them.
Since ads do not have a negative influence upon students schools should be able to accept necessary funds from corporations. Without advertisements the newspaper staff I am on could not publish or distribute our paper, sports programs would not have as much money and would not be as efficient, drinks for students would cost more. Corporate support makes things that might have been impossible originally, possible. Corporate funds are necessary for a successful school.
Corporate support through advertisements and contracts should be allowed so that schools can attain money needed for various programs. Advertisements have little to no influence on students, but the money they bring in can make a world of difference.
Opens with a statement of the basic issue, indication support for corporate sponsorship Acknowledges the opposition to corporate sponsorship in schools but does little to evaluate this position Develops a tenuous argument that is somewhat tangential to the central issue-that ads are acceptable in schools because people don’t pay attention to ads anyway Makes some use of personal anecdote as evidence
Contains language that conveys the writer’s ideas but lacks maturity
Advertisements are seen everywhere, everyday and by everyone. They stimulate the economy and make products and services know to the public more and more, companies are sponsoring schools in order to get their product known. Some say that schools should be “an environment free from ads and corporate influence,” but the ads provide necessary funding for schools which benefits the students.
There is not reason there shouldn’t be advertisements in schools. The companies give the school money simply to show their logo or sell their products. The money given to the schools goes towards new computers, new technology and better teacher. If the money is given to the sports teams it goes towards new uniforms, equipment and better coaches. All of these things benefit the student in everyway the student has better resources and is more motivated to do well and succeed.
Many schools in less fortunate areas receive a majority of their funds from companies that need to advertise. Say for instance the school needed to make changes or repairs to the facility, where would the money come from? Since the parents, students or community members wouldn’t be able to donate, the companies have to step in. without the corporate funding, repairs to facilities, new technology and better resources become available to the students that otherwise wouldn’t have the access to them.
In conclusion, there is no legitment reason that advertisements should not be allowed in schools. It is all around beneficial for the students, teachers, and the school itself. The advertisement or products placed in the schools are informative to the students and staff, and allow east access to the product. If not, the ad can simply be ignored just as in everyday life. The money given to the school greatly outweighs any negative of advertising. The money allows for better facilities, teachers, resources, and equipment, which enevitably allows the students to do better. Don’t you want your child to succeed?
Makes an assertion about the pervasiveness of advertising
Briefly mentions the view opposing ads in schools but does not evaluate or elaborate on this position Argues in favor of corporate sponsorship but is inadequate because of its simplistic development Prose suggests immature control of language
Should corporations be allowed to influence students at school with ads? Schools need money to have certain programs. Corporatiosn are allowed to give schools money to sponsor sports, libraries, music rooms, cafeterias, hallyways and textbooks.
It takes a lot of money to have sports teams. Schools have to pay insurance, coachs, buses to take teams to games, repairs in equipment, and buying equipment. Schools also have to pay for extra activities, books, and other expanses. Corporations that sponsor some of these expanses are helping the schools. The only price to pay is logos and ads.
Now school is suppose to be a safe learning environment. Children are not suppose to be exposed to other influences while they are learning. Colorful ads and logos are distracting. While schools might need the money, their should be a limit to the inference of some partnerships. Like the soda and chip companies. Vending machines with unhealthy foods should not be allowed in schools.
It is a common fact that schools need money and are influenced by their partnerships with corporations. There should be a limit to ads and logos. Having them in gymnasiums and football stadiums is okay. Having them in classrooms and other places in the school where education should be the primary and only influences is not a position schools should be in. A line needs to be drawn.
Acknowledges pros and cons of corporate sponsorship but evaluates them inadequately and superficially Moves abruptly from one position (paragraph two) to the next (paragraph 3) Presents a position on the issue, stating that there are some circumstances in which corporate sponsorship is appropriate, others where it is not Contains weak, often labored writing, showing poor syntactic control
It is true that corporations have long supported high school athletics. For one, athletics require the most outside money, due to the nature of expenses. Other than that, there is usually nothing corporate about high school. However, that is slowly beginning to change. The extent to which corporate support is unsolved in schools is increasing and is very beneficial to the school.
Schools have logos all over. Most advertise “goings-on” within the school. Others simply say “THIS IS SPARTA!” And others have corporate backings. These last ones are beneficial to schools in that they draw in money for the school. Budget cuts and things of that nature continuously seem to plague the public school system.
Demonstrates little success in evaluating and taking a position on corporate sponsorship Substitutes a simpler task than the prompt calls for, merely attempting to explain the need for corporate help rather than developing a clear position Offers little development
Shows some syntactic ability but generally weak in control of language
Essay # 9
Sponsorships between schools and corporations are indeed beneficial. There are all sorts of expenses to worry about for sports teams, and in turn the partnership helps businesses. The exposure to such business may even influence students who want to pursue a similar career.
Advertising plays a vital role in sponsorships. By seeing the logos around school and on uniforms, more customers are brought into business.
Claims support for corporate partnerships does not develop the position Does not evaluate pro and con
Uses simplistic, repetitious language