Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
Deciding on a field of study by the time students have entered the high school age is a difficult and yet life-altering task. In a place like Pakistan, students are mostly presented with two choices: they could either become a doctor or an engineer, since the technological revolution in the world means engineers are valuable everywhere and since health care is a universal matter. However, many students feel that neither of these options suits them, they find it more satisfying and engaging to make paintings, to take up a brush and a palette and paint complex portraits. Some find it liberating to be able to create music and write songs that lull the senses. Some realize that words flow from the tips of their pens like water rushing from a waterfall. Therefore, I believe that the liability of the educational institutions is not to dissuade students from pursuing certain fields of study with low success rates, but to rather invest in and develop their counseling services to allow students to make the correct decisions.
In Pakistan, the fields considered to have low rates of success include the likes of art, music and writing. The reason there is a low success rate is that entry into these fields is highly objected against: families pile up pressure, reasoning that artists do not make a living, that these fields do not garner much ‘respect’ from the society. As a result, people capable of excelling in these fields themselves end up becoming frustrated doctors and engineers, wasting their talents and contributing to the notions of unlikeliness of success in these fields. Therefore, educational institutions, should they begin dissuading students from pursuing these fields of study will continue to perpetuate this atrocity. Instead, the institutions should begin counselling students from a relatively young age to dissect their talents and thus place them on a better pedestal from which to make a much more informed and confident decision about their future.
It can be argued that should the students who do decide to go into these fields fail to succeed, they will spend their lives full of regret for not having chosen a path that would have led them to success. This will lead them to discourage people around them from making the same ‘mistake’ that they made. However, it should be noted that the fields that have a high likelihood of success do not innately guarantee success to all entrants. It takes a basic level of discipline, dedication and determination on the part of the student to be able to succeed anywhere, be it a field with a low likelihood of success, or a field with a high likelihood of success. Therefore, educational institutions are better of instilling valuable traits such as discipline and hard work in their students, and see them going up against artificial, piled up odds and defeating them.
Finally, were educational institutions to adopt this behavior, the progression and the diversification of society would suffer major blows. Societies thrive on art, humor, comedy, literature and making sure those with the ability to make their contributions to these essentials line up to become half-hearted doctors and engineers only sets up a society to move backwards, devoid of any free thinkers, philosophers and poets who give it an aim, who meet its spiritual needs. Not only that, it would further deteriorate the society by preventing people from utilizing their talents, leading to an undeveloped and unhappy society.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, so, still, therefore, thus, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 14.8657303371 168% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 57.0 33.0505617978 172% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 90.0 58.6224719101 154% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 12.9106741573 31% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2938.0 2235.4752809 131% => OK
No of words: 574.0 442.535393258 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11846689895 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89472135074 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92082510079 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 288.0 215.323595506 134% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.501742160279 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 912.6 704.065955056 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 23.0359550562 130% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 66.4338964978 60.3974514979 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 154.631578947 118.986275619 130% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.2105263158 23.4991977007 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.94736842105 5.21951772744 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.190275576776 0.243740707755 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0639250679952 0.0831039109588 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0539997000454 0.0758088955206 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117183841245 0.150359130593 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0517642938466 0.0667264976115 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.8 14.1392134831 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 48.8420337079 84% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.1743820225 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.01 12.1639044944 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 100.480337079 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.2143820225 125% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.