The following is an excerpt from a speech given to the School Board about a change to the curriculum:
"Because the future will be dominated by technology, we must make four years of computer programming mandatory for all high school students. If our students take these classes, they’ll all be able to get high-paying programming jobs and lead fulfilling lives because software engineers and data scientists have the best job prospects and salaries. Therefore, we must educate our students so they can secure these kinds of jobs. Even if they pursue other careers, programming will still benefit them, given that all industries are becoming more technological."
The School Board has received an excerpt about the change to curriculum which is tied to the fact that technology would dominate the world, hence the need to make computer programming mandatory, however the excerpt from this speech is weak, as the argument did not take into consideration some of the discourse below.
Foremost, making four years of computer programming mandatory for high school students may not be viable, as programming has to do with a personal flair, love, and attachment to it. The students may be forced to take the courses on programming but there is no proof that all the students would become a programmer in the nearest future. If a student does not love programming, it would be difficult to assume that the student would be a good programmer. First of all, the school will need to come up with a survey detailing interest of the students who wants to take programming as a course, rather than enforce it on them. Hence this makes the argument weak, and should not be approached.
Moreover, the excerpt contained a clause that the students would be able to get high paying programming jobs, and lead fulfilling lives. Even though most programmers earn relatively well, some still earn a meager income, despite been vast in their field. It is important to stress that in the nearest future, there would be a population explosion of programmers, which in turn would result to low wages, and the market demand would be reduced. The writer of this excerpt failed to establish the correlation between income to be earned in the nearest future, as against a saturated market full of programmers. Since the writers' argument are not strong enough to proof that programmers would still earn high enough. His argument is weak, and baseless.
Also, the writer reiterates that we must educate our students so they can secure these kinds of jobs. What happens to other kind of jobs - Managerial, Business Relationship, Product development, Digital Marketing and Product Managers, some of these roles need not necessarily be filled by programmers. A smart MBA student from Harvard, can switch careers into become a Product Manager, or a Lead Tech Instructor - an example is Erich Smidth of Google, who was appointed CEO, so as to help Larry Page in managing the business - he acted in a good capacity and only left after Larry had gotten enough tutelage from him. There are several high paying jobs that are tied to the tech industry, programmers constitute just one-eighth of the total workforce. "If every one is a programmer who would manage the business" !!!
These points made by the writer ultimately weakens the argument, and render it baseless.
Also, the writer responds that all industries are becoming technological, this is not true, and is baseless, because even though most are becoming technological, you still need the domain knowledge. A critical example is the Health Workers - Doctors, Nurses, Medical Laboratory scientists who in the wake of the Corona Virus pandemic were at the forefront saving lives, ensuring compliance, and risking all they have in ensuring that people were saved from the tsunami of the virus. If the health workers had become programmers, who would have saved human lives during the wave of the pandemic. Most recognition giving to health workers is due to their daunting challenge in meeting up with the barrage of casualties, and calamities engulfing their hospitals as a result of the Corona virus spread. One of the health workers who was involved in such fighting arguably said - "It was worth the fight, and the chance to save numerous lives" Obviously, the future never knew of a ravaging corona virus. If everyone was a programmer, who would have saved the world during the pandemic. Hence, this makes the argument, baseless, and weakens the whole idea.
While the world is becoming digital, global, and innovative with respect to technology, innovation, and idea. Programming is a good course to study, however, it is important to say that it should not be mandatory, as there are other courses of studies that would open up opportunities to all and sundry, if properly utilized. The future would be technical. Yes!!! But the future may not necessarily be for Programmers. Health workers, Business Executives, Product Managers, Social Influence Managers would be needed in the course of the advancing technical world. Until the writer comes up with proofs (strong evidence) that can assuage, and vilify the need to make the course mandatory. The writer's argument is baseless, and should not be considered.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 15 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 10 2
No. of Sentences: 34 15
No. of Words: 756 350
No. of Characters: 3698 1500
No. of Different Words: 336 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.244 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.892 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.6 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 274 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 189 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 138 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 80 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.235 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.866 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.618 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.255 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.443 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.078 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 290, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...rgument did not take into consideration some of the discourse below. Foremost, making fo...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 625, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...course, rather than enforce it on them. Hence this makes the argument weak, and shoul...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 610, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Since” 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.
...a saturated market full of programmers. Since the writers argument are not strong eno...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 620, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...d market full of programmers. Since the writers argument are not strong enough to proof...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 476, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...midth of Google, who was appointed CEO, so as to help Larry Page in managing the busines...
^^^^^^^^
Line 12, column 691, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
... need to make the course mandatory. The writers argument is baseless, and should not be...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, so, still, well, while, as to, kind of, as a result, first of all, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 43.0 19.6327345309 219% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 31.0 12.9520958084 239% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 90.0 55.5748502994 162% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3850.0 2260.96107784 170% => OK
No of words: 756.0 441.139720559 171% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09259259259 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.24361079503 4.56307096286 115% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75503423298 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 351.0 204.123752495 172% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.464285714286 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 1177.2 705.55239521 167% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 14.0 2.70958083832 517% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 17.0 1.67365269461 1016% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 19.7664670659 157% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.7388097462 57.8364921388 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.193548387 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3870967742 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.35483870968 5.70786347227 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.268415997666 0.218282227539 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0662281610266 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0803465134107 0.0701772020484 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131080876591 0.128457276422 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.117386255315 0.0628817314937 187% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 185.0 98.500998004 188% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.