Fern Valley is facing a decline in number of enrollments, this according according to the assumption is due to negative reviews by currently enrolled students that crticise the institutes poor teaching and library facility. As a solution to this the university came forward with an alumni fund raising campaign that could expand the range of subjects taught and aid library facilities.
There however is a mismatch - the campaign would focus on expanding range of subjects but the issue however lies in the teaching method or in teachers. Adding advanced subjects with inexperienced faculty might lead to even greater issue. It could be a case where with adequate funds the institute might be able to hire teachers with better portfolio and work experience but this might not be the ultimate solution.
Alumni who are masters in their respective fields could also participate as guest lecturers - this could be an add-on to the campaign. Many with their personal experience with teaching in the college would be able to give personal suggestions to college faculty. Alumni consists of the passed out students who might be in working class, pursuing higher studies, entrepreneurs etc. This could provide a practical judgement related to suggestions on course review even though it was not a part of the problem expressed by students.
For Library Facilities, with alumni funding campaign the university could also start the donation services where each alumni would be able to donate their study material to the college library. Improvement of library would majorly rely on the amount generated. Encouraging donation of both books and money and making e-books available could be an overall solution for this issue.
Alumni can hence help with their economy and experience altogether.
Both of the mentioned could be solved to major extent with modifying the campaign as specified earlier but the question lies in ensuring enough collection of funds for both. With many alumni out of reach, some still studying and many still struggling in the industry as freshly graduate the possibility of generating enough funds only via them might be a challenge. We could expand the nature of campaign here - we could aid from alumni and there contacts both. Attract them with schemes like allowing many alumni-based startups to recruit potential employees on campus etc. Conduct reunion and reconnects frequently.
To sum up - the argument provided by Fern Valley could be the solution but needs to consider many factors. They could use the potential benefits from alumni and maintain this for years to come which ensures better educational facilities and additional benefits for its students even after graduating.
e-rater score report
Somehow out of topic.
=================
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 11 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 10 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 444 350
No. of Characters: 2328 1500
No. of Different Words: 230 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.59 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.243 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.609 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 183 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 146 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 106 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.368 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.81 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.368 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.313 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.313 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.102 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 378, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
...r portfolio and work experience. Alumni who are masters in their respective fields coul...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 506, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Many
...his could be an add-on to the campaign. many with their personal experience of teach...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, so, still, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 24.0 12.9520958084 185% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2369.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 444.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33558558559 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5903493882 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68861861954 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.515765765766 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 730.8 705.55239521 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.5926949242 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.681818182 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1818181818 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.31818181818 5.70786347227 41% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.0756143943773 0.218282227539 35% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0240703702898 0.0743258471296 32% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0362068886059 0.0701772020484 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0428927230884 0.128457276422 33% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0375031229433 0.0628817314937 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.25 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 130.0 98.500998004 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.