Colleges and universities should require all faculty to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach.
Because of the technology and the advancement in the 21th century, all of us have a lot of chances and time to explore the world. Definitely, school is the best place where we learn, we study and we change, so the professors’ proficiency is indispensable in the university. It’s important that the more knowledge the professors have, the better way we learn. Those knowledge includes the academic world and its outsider. However, I don’t totally agree that the school should require “all” the faculty to spend their time on the outside relevant field. In my view, encouraging certain professional fields is a better choice to foster people to get the new ideas.
Admittedly, what we learn on the world is not only the academic region but also numerous life experience in our daily lives. If we can incorporate theory and pragmatic skills when we study, it can bring us unexpected explosions and innovative points. For example, in the chemistry, we usually use the formulas and the equations as foundations that we come up with new products. We have to confirm that the product could be utilized in the real world. So if we just sit in the lab and do the research without embodying the idealistic and the realistic, we might design an improper and impracticable thing. Thus, it’s wise that the university require chemistry professors to have practical experience.
However, there would be some subjects that didn’t improve with the real world. Those subjects need equipment and labs to observe their phenomena and record their data. For instance, the electromagnetism is invisible, so we could not just watch it with our eyes on the street and explain how does the electromagnetic work. The true feelings or the work experience couldn’t help us, nonetheless, amount of data and calculation are necessary for us to understand it.
Furthermore, we would get the wrong information from the real world without examining it. Anecdotes and legends sometimes are unimpeachable, and we even did not have the chance to scrutinize them because everyone has already believed and accepted them for many years. If we have opportunity to correct a myth through a scientific view, we might bring another benefits and accurate facts to people. For example, some people believed that dreams were kinds of views that portended our futures. These views could make people to prepare or forestall what might be happened. There wasn’t any science proof to show these signs. However, the recent scientific paper indicates that people dream because we put what we were thinking about and what we ignored in real world to our dreams. Thus, the dreams seem real and make us convince that dreams are specific and special predictions in our lives. Dream is a review about what we experienced rather than what might be happen. Therefore, it is not compulsory for professors to accept fables from the outside academic world before they begin their research.
In conclusion, it is reasonable that the schools require faculty to get new expertise from the outside academic field, but the school should also considerate which subject did indeed need the experience. Without careful circumspect, the university may lead some confusion to professors why their savvy is related to pragmatic world.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 371, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this knowledge' or 'Those knowledges'?
Suggestion: This knowledge; Those knowledges
...ofessors have, the better way we learn. Those knowledge includes the academic world and its out...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 114, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[4]
Message: The adverb 'sometimes' is usually put after the verb 'are'.
Suggestion: are sometimes
...out examining it. Anecdotes and legends sometimes are unimpeachable, and we even did not have...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'nonetheless', 'so', 'therefore', 'thus', 'for example', 'for instance', 'in conclusion', 'in my view']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.205741626794 0.240241500013 86% => OK
Verbs: 0.154704944179 0.157235817809 98% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0861244019139 0.0880659088768 98% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0462519936204 0.0497285424764 93% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0797448165869 0.0444667217837 179% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.0893141945774 0.12292977631 73% => OK
Participles: 0.0143540669856 0.0406280797675 35% => Some participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 2.90296014842 2.79330140395 104% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0287081339713 0.030933414821 93% => OK
Particles: 0.00159489633174 0.0016655270985 96% => OK
Determiners: 0.097288676236 0.0997080785238 98% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0223285486443 0.0249443105267 90% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0207336523126 0.0148568991511 140% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3313.0 2732.02544248 121% => OK
No of words: 538.0 452.878318584 119% => OK
Chars per words: 6.15799256506 6.0361032391 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81610080973 4.58838876751 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.373605947955 0.366273622748 102% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.28624535316 0.280924506359 102% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.208178438662 0.200843997647 104% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.152416356877 0.132149295362 115% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90296014842 2.79330140395 104% => OK
Unique words: 276.0 219.290929204 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.513011152416 0.48968727796 105% => OK
Word variations: 62.3265378737 55.4138127331 112% => OK
How many sentences: 28.0 20.6194690265 136% => OK
Sentence length: 19.2142857143 23.380412469 82% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.4435992034 59.4972553346 60% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.321428571 141.124799967 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2142857143 23.380412469 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.5 0.674092028746 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.21349557522 38% => OK
Readability: 47.8388210303 51.4728631049 93% => OK
Elegance: 1.10227272727 1.64882698954 67% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.413279996919 0.391690518653 106% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0939116796512 0.123202303941 76% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0672483611179 0.077325440228 87% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.488232973883 0.547984918172 89% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.157432662067 0.149214159877 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.15199884968 0.161403998019 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0848413133786 0.0892212321368 95% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.43005191683 0.385218514788 112% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.134169547634 0.0692045440612 194% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.300265003901 0.275328986314 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0773706219027 0.0653680567796 118% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.4325221239 163% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.30420353982 57% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.88274336283 164% => OK
Positive topic words: 15.0 7.22455752212 208% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 3.66592920354 82% => OK
Neutral topic words: 8.0 2.70907079646 295% => OK
Total topic words: 26.0 13.5995575221 191% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. The e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.