The following appeared in a letter from the faculty committee to the president of Seatown University:
A study conducted at nearby Oceania University showed that faculty retention is higher when professors are offered free tuition at the university for their own college-aged children. Therefore, Seatown should institute a free-tuition policy for its professors for the purpose of enhancing morale among the faculty and luring new professors.
The letter mentions that retention rate is higher when professors are offered free tuition for their college-aged children based on a study conducted by Oceania university. However, this claim is based on questionable assumptions, so more evidences should be provided to make the recommendation valid.
First, it is unclear how was the study conducted, so the validity is dubious. It is unknown who were surveyed and how did the conclusion come out. For example, if only the professors with children are being surveyed, then the result can't really represent the factual condition in Oceania university. Also, what are some other factors being analyzed besides of the tuition dimension is also missing, so the assertion of the statement can be challenged. What I would like to emphasize here is that too few details of the study are revealed, so it is problematic to leverage an unvalidated study as the principle of making any recommendation.
Second, though the result of the study is confirmed to be true, it can still be a problem to leverage the study directly since the profile of the professors may be different in Seatown University. It is reasonable to apply the free tuition policy to retain professors who have college-aged children. However, the majority of the professors in Seatown University may be young professors who are single or with no children. If that's case, then the free tuition policy will not make the same positive impact to Seatown University. Therefore, one premise of using the study to make recommendation is that the profile of the professors in Seatown University is similar to Oceania University. Otherwise, the recommendation will not be valid since different groups of professors will value different things.
Third, from the letter, we know nothing about the professors in Seatown University. Hence, a more effective way to form the retention policy is to surveyed the professors in Seatown University directly. By doing so, more info and considerations can be collected, so a more customized retention policy can be planned. For instance, maybe the majority of professors care more about the medical insurance coverage then their children's tuition. However, the most effective considerations will not be understood if no further research of the current professors in Seatown university. Therefore, in order to achieve the efficacy of the retention plan, more research is required.
In conclusion, the missing details of the study, and the lack of the professor profile in Seatown University make it problematic to apply the study result from Oceania University directly, since the validity and the suitability are both being questioned. On the contrary, a more effective way is to research the professors in Seatown University directly to dig into the real needs and form a more relevant retention plan to truly solve professors' concerns and increase the retention rate.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 466 350
No. of Characters: 2394 1500
No. of Different Words: 197 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.646 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.137 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.932 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 178 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 156 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 111 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 78 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.19 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.022 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.81 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.359 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.55 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.11 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 234, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...ren are being surveyed, then the result cant really represent the factual condition ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 426, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
... who are single or with no children. If thats case, then the free tuition policy will...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, first, hence, however, if, may, really, second, so, still, then, therefore, third, for example, for instance, in conclusion, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 28.8173652695 49% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2455.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 466.0 441.139720559 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26824034335 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64618479453 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02759280995 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.437768240343 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 799.2 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.0469347254 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.904761905 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1904761905 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.38095238095 5.70786347227 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.245541818511 0.218282227539 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0859909918858 0.0743258471296 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0762056398462 0.0701772020484 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.16200319138 0.128457276422 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0590128466339 0.0628817314937 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.