Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.
Through the history of humanity, there has hardly been a living soul that was equally succesuful in both humanities and science. From early age we tend to lean towards literature and languages or math and physics. But does that mean that we are destined to fail if we try to give our best in other fields? Certainly not. That is why educational institutions should not dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.
First, let us analyze the term „unlikely to succeed“. How can anyone know if a student will accomplish great results in a certain field or fail miserably? It is possible to make assumptions based on past results, but that does not mean that future results are going to be same. Mila Veljic, a former student from Belgrade, Serbia, has had severe problems with math in her highschool. Nevertheless, she decided to study Electroengeneering, a field that requires an expert level of math knowledge. Her teachers were against her decision, but four years later she proved them wrong, graduating with top grades. This illustrates how hard it is to project someones success or failure.
Furthermore, trial and error is the best method for students that vacillate between different options. Say we have a student who is bad at English, but finds the idea of teaching English to children in China very tempting. The best way for this person to figure out what to do is to try to study English, even if it does not turn out well in the end. If his teachers try to persuade him not to do so, he will never know for sure if he would become a good English teacher.
Thirdly, freedom of choice is something that has to be guaranteed for students, same as for everyone else. If an educational institution would try to dissuade students from studying something they are not so good at, that would represent a breaking of their freedom of choice. Through history, women were often advised not to pursue careers in „typically male“ fields such as science. Some professions were even prohibited for them. But if these remarkable women had indeed followed the rules, we would never have brilliant minds such as Mileva Einstein and Marie Curie. Some could argue that these women should have dedicated their energy to something they were good at in the first place, but then these outstanding scientists would have stayed stranded in the kitchen, making soup.
Considering all the examples given, I strongly believe that educational institutions do not have the right to make decisions for their students. Students need to make their own choices when it comes to fields of study and future professional development.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 32, Rule ID: EN_QUOTES[4]
Message: Possibly wrong smart opening quote: '“'.
Suggestion: “
...ceed. First, let us analyze the term „unlikely to succeed'. How can anyon...
^
Line 7, column 345, Rule ID: EN_QUOTES[4]
Message: Possibly wrong smart opening quote: '“'.
Suggestion: “
... often advised not to pursue careers in „typically male' fields such as scie...
^
Line 9, column 21, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'examples'' or 'example's'?
Suggestion: examples'; example's
...en, making soup. Considering all the examples given, I strongly believe that educatio...
^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'furthermore', 'if', 'nevertheless', 'so', 'then', 'third', 'thirdly', 'well', 'as for', 'as to', 'such as', 'in the first place']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.218253968254 0.240241500013 91% => OK
Verbs: 0.19246031746 0.157235817809 122% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0714285714286 0.0880659088768 81% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0595238095238 0.0497285424764 120% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0595238095238 0.0444667217837 134% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.109126984127 0.12292977631 89% => OK
Participles: 0.0416666666667 0.0406280797675 103% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.73799431895 2.79330140395 98% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0456349206349 0.030933414821 148% => OK
Particles: 0.00396825396825 0.0016655270985 238% => OK
Determiners: 0.0595238095238 0.0997080785238 60% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0218253968254 0.0249443105267 87% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0238095238095 0.0148568991511 160% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2675.0 2732.02544248 98% => OK
No of words: 452.0 452.878318584 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.91814159292 6.0361032391 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61088837703 4.58838876751 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.329646017699 0.366273622748 90% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.261061946903 0.280924506359 93% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.194690265487 0.200843997647 97% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.108407079646 0.132149295362 82% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73799431895 2.79330140395 98% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 219.290929204 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.557522123894 0.48968727796 114% => OK
Word variations: 66.9845232434 55.4138127331 121% => OK
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6194690265 116% => OK
Sentence length: 18.8333333333 23.380412469 81% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.7061579941 59.4972553346 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.458333333 141.124799967 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8333333333 23.380412469 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.583333333333 0.674092028746 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.21349557522 58% => OK
Readability: 44.9395280236 51.4728631049 87% => OK
Elegance: 1.1847133758 1.64882698954 72% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.414471606754 0.391690518653 106% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0897093978286 0.123202303941 73% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0760680726742 0.077325440228 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.437459509185 0.547984918172 80% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.150613882773 0.149214159877 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.128006762248 0.161403998019 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.138680642468 0.0892212321368 155% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.273572458714 0.385218514788 71% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0262517328872 0.0692045440612 38% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.263175685317 0.275328986314 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0844663784609 0.0653680567796 129% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.4325221239 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.30420353982 57% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.88274336283 184% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 9.0 7.22455752212 125% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 3.66592920354 55% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.70907079646 185% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 13.5995575221 118% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.