Recently, the phenomenon of practical training in universities and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that substituting theoretical courses with practical ones is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that increasing students abilities via non-theoretical training can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From the academic standpoint, learning practical abilities can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that the market demand, as well as university study, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a student, I performed a general experiment which discovered more job opportunities. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both cognitive skills and professional career apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of community, expanding theoretical knowledge might increase the consequences of lack of skilled labor force. Moreover, fundamental aspects of experienced university graduates relate to this reality that the demerits of theory-based courses pertain to the cultural shock. As a tangible example, a scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of practical experience is correlated negatively with social demand. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of university policies.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of increasing practical training courses in universities far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of this type of education prove the significance of change, but also pinpoint economical implications.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 6.10837438424 82% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 20.9802955665 91% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 31.9359605911 106% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.75862068966 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1559.0 1207.87684729 129% => OK
No of words: 264.0 242.827586207 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.9053030303 5.00649968141 118% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03089032464 3.92707691288 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.3829786994 2.71678728327 125% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 139.433497537 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.659090909091 0.580463131201 114% => OK
syllable_count: 502.2 379.143842365 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.57093596059 121% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 2.0 1.56157635468 128% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.5024630542 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.4665718209 50.4703680194 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.916666667 104.977214359 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 20.9669160288 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.41666666667 7.25397266985 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 6.9802955665 100% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 2.91625615764 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.207174632903 0.242375264174 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0644128910867 0.0925447433944 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0314256069198 0.071462118173 44% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113884269864 0.151781067708 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.025538153608 0.0609392437508 42% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 12.6369458128 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 23.77 53.1260098522 45% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 10.9458128079 141% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.0 11.5310837438 147% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.13 8.32886699507 134% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 55.0591133005 194% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 9.94827586207 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.3980295567 104% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.5123152709 162% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.8888888889 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 80.0 Out of 90
---------------------
Note: 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.