Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall student grade averages at Omega have risen by 30 percent. Potential employers, looking at this dramatic rise in grades, believe that grades at Omega are inflated and do not accurately reflect student achievement; as a result, Omega graduates have not been as successful at getting jobs as have graduates from nearby Alpha University. To enable its graduates to secure better jobs, Omega University should terminate student evaluation of professors.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
With the implementation of a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors, fifteen years ago. Since that time, overall student grade averages have risen by 30 percent. However, potential employers believed that grades at omega university are inflated, that does not mean it reflects student achievement. They compared graduates of Omega university unable to get jobs in comparison to Alpha university and finally led to conclusion that omega university should terminate student evaluation process of professors to get better job secured. However, potential employers resulted in conclusion without evaluating unstated assumptions which creates loopholes in above arguments.
Although, the new procedure has been implemented fifteen years ago to encourage students to evaluate the professors for better effectiveness, it is not mentioned in the arguments that it is validated till date. Due to fear of failure in evaluation process, professor starts giving proper timing and starts extra classes to overcome doubtful problems. Because of fear of low rank in evaluation test, professor may provide extra notes regarding course contents. Even the bond between professor and students may have increase which motivates the student to focus on their career path. All these unstated assumptions are further needed to evaluate to ensure better grade in their classes.
It is unstated that how the potential employers came into conclusion although the grades at Omega are inflated but they rely that student do not reflect achievement. As these employers required very good interview session along with academic qualification. These Omega students are poor while attending interview session rather than academic knowledge. Thus, university should hire counselor to train their students for interview purpose along with good qualification remarks. Employer became prejudiced while comparing with Alpha university. Employer preferred student from alpha university in comparison with Omega university. It is not mentioned in the argument that Either alpha university train their student for interview session with the help of sound counselor and they provide training to their student according with the requirement of outside jobs along with the academic session.
Moreover, it is not mentioned in the argument that either similar procedure to evaluate their professor is going on Alpha university or not. It is not mentioned that although their students are with the similar practice as that of omega college are devoid of achieving good academic knowledge. It is not mentioned that employer initially thought alpha student are good but later realize that they do not have any good academic knowledge which might affects their products, their design and reliability. All these pre assumption need to be explained before drawing any conclusion.
Therefore, without considering all these loopholes, it is prejudiced to draw any conclusion. If the author is able to answer all these unwarranted assumptions and provides more evidence in the form of systematic research, then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the purposed recommendation to terminate these evaluation process of professors.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 489 350
No. of Characters: 2724 1500
No. of Different Words: 223 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.702 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.571 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.821 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 217 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 191 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 145 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 95 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.261 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.665 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.565 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.304 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.304 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.123 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 166, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...hat student do not reflect achievement. As these employers required very good inte...
^^
Line 5, column 323, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this evaluation' or 'these evaluations'?
Suggestion: this evaluation; these evaluations
...he purposed recommendation to terminate these evaluation process of professors.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, then, therefore, thus, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 28.8173652695 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2772.0 2260.96107784 123% => OK
No of words: 489.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.66871165644 5.12650576532 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70248278971 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89824043033 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.466257668712 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 885.6 705.55239521 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.1591584591 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.52173913 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2608695652 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.34782608696 5.70786347227 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.446472932525 0.218282227539 205% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.135862016992 0.0743258471296 183% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.107565284171 0.0701772020484 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.255683202543 0.128457276422 199% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.14675992435 0.0628817314937 233% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 48.3550499002 69% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.61 12.5979740519 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 98.500998004 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 12.3882235529 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.