Skewed look at college entry is price of "Admission"

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/26/opinion/mills-college-admissions/index.html?hpt=op_mid

In the article, Nicholaus Mills argues that the new movie, Admission,  Shows admissions officers and the admissions process in a bad light. However, his argument is jumbled and disorganized as her never actually states what he's trying to prove and his opinions continually fluctuate like he hasn't even made up his own mind yet. At first he criticizes the moving, saying ''admissions officers are a lot smarter than "Admission" suggests.'' because most of them are able to identify promising, ''diamond in the rough'' students who might otherwise be disregarded. Then in the next sentence, he contradicts his previous argument by agreeing with the movie in that colleges don't fairly choose applicants because ''At the country's most selective colleges and universities, only 3 percent of the students come from the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder''. The author goes against his previous opinion, creating an equivocal argument that lacks direction or purpose. The authors attempts to use logos and ethos to strengthen his argument, but fails because he does not use them effectively. He tries to use logos by identifying the ratio of guidance counselors to students as 460:1; however this piece of data is not relevant to his original topic at all so it doesn't help his argument. He also attempts to used this by identifying himself as an admissions officer, a former Harvard graduate, and a literature professor. However he loses his credibility as he makes several grammar mistakes despite being an ivy-educated literature professor. For example he describes the movie saying,"What had me squirming was the focus of "Admission," Portia's efforts to get into Princeton Jeremiah Balakian, a brilliant student, who was a screwup at his local New Hampshire high school but who has found himself at Quest, a nearby progressive, prep school." the awkward sentence structure and lack of correctly placed punctuation take away his credibility as an English teacher. I think the problem with this article was its complete lack of focus. The author seems to prattle on about nothing, jumping quickly from one topic to the next without ever really delving in. I also think it is a little ridiculous that he's examining a romantic comedy like some critical satire of today's society.