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.
The author in the argument has said that the due to implementation of a new procedure in whihch students were supposed to evaluate the effectiveness of all their professors is wrong. The procedure was implented fifteen years ago. Now the employers are not giving as much jobs to the students at Omega university than at Alpha University. The conclusion that has been provided by the author is that to enable the graduates to secure better jobs, the Omega University should terminate student evaluations of professors. In my argument, I would like to suggest that the author has failed to provide the exact reasonings and might have connected the roads that might not lead to the same destination.
Firstly, the author has not provided enough information that the mount in the marks of the students is particularly due to the procedure of teaching effectiveness program. There might be a possibility that there was sudden change in the curriculum which turns out to be way simpler than the previous one that has proliferated the overall results of the students. This lead to the reasoning that evaluation of teachers should not be wronged completely.
Secondly, the evaluation program was implemented years ago. During this time span it might be possible that a lot of teachers had been got retired and the teachers who replaced them were serious regarding the evaluation process and did not increase the marks of the students. Hence, it is not right to blame the process given by the university.
Thirdly, the author has also failed to provide any direct reference on the reduction of the potential employers in the Omega University. No factors regarding the selection has been discussed in the argument. The author has also stated that the employers consider Alpha University over Omega due to the discrepancy in the marks system. There is also a possibility that Alpha University might have introduced some student courses that help students to get selected by the potential employers. The author has not discussed regarding the relations of the Omega University with the employers. Therefore it might be wrong to blame the evaluation system alone.
In the end, I would like to conclude that the author throughout his/her argument has considered that the evaluation program is not good and all the wrong deeds that are happening in the university should be accused of that only. There can be other differences involved on which the author has made light of but can provide direct reasoning with the issues.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 417 350
No. of Characters: 2062 1500
No. of Different Words: 176 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.519 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.945 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.743 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 142 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.947 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.87 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.579 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.353 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.55 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.1 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 267, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
...go. Now the employers are not giving as much jobs to the students at Omega universit...
^^^^
Line 7, column 322, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'marks'' or 'mark's'?
Suggestion: marks'; mark's
...ver Omega due to the discrepancy in the marks system. There is also a possibility tha...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 589, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...he Omega University with the employers. Therefore it might be wrong to blame the evaluati...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2105.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 416.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.06009615385 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51620172871 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80315982783 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.432692307692 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 662.4 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.9672277078 57.8364921388 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.789473684 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8947368421 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.05263157895 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.255453715516 0.218282227539 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0829646151471 0.0743258471296 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0792176156176 0.0701772020484 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134635780535 0.128457276422 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0997888004398 0.0628817314937 159% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.