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.
Recently, the Educational institutions have been bogged down in the maze of the conundrum of the reponsibility of dissuading students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed. The news articles on this issue has polarised people on this lines while a minority speaking for and several supporting against the motion. The onus of the choice of the field of study entirely lies on the students' and the educational instituitions must engender a platform to provide them all the opportunities they require and not dissuade them based on the absolutely unpredictable success of the field.
Success is infact an abstruse term and cannot be defined by a particular universal definition. It's a holistic approach and largely relative- a mere job satisfaction must be success for some while an exorbitant salary package for others. With such an ambiguous approach to success, on what basis will the Educational institutions be able to access the probable success of each particular individual in a specific field? Not only is it impossible to gauge success as a measurement tool, an attempt to do so would result in a fallacious outlook.
Firstly, a student is inclined to a particular field owing to his innate propensities and curiosity oriented to that direction and it is the responsibility of the Educational institutions to furnish such a student with all possible opportunities to grow and enhance them. Immaterial to the amount to package a student might earn as his salary, it is the job satisfaction which is of paramount importance and this is utterly thwarted when one is subjected to fields unrelated to one's interest. A student with an innate proclivity to become an artist, if dissuaded from pursuing that field due to the lower probability of success, and coerced to reconcile to an uninteresting field to him ( though a field with higher probability of success ) is not only morally demolished but the growth and creativity of the mind comes to a hault! Is this what the nation wants to achieve- metamorphosis of the assets of the nation into liability due to the sheer prohibition of allowing them to choose their fields of study due to plausible low success rates ?
While skeptics have opined that a student must definitely be dissuaded from pursuing fields in which they are unlikely to succeed, with their tenuous claims that students are not mature enough to decide the right and wrong for them and thence it lies on the shoulders of the Educational institutions to dissuade them from choosing such fields. But the erudite scholars have decried such a flawed proposition quoting that it is completely vague and impossible to assess the likelihood of success with respect to every particular student and the Educational institutions are incapable of this with the current technology and limitations.
Therefore, Educational institutions which happen to play a pivotal role in the life of a student must definitely allow and infact encourage them in pursuing their fields of interest and only this would foster the multidimensional growth and augment the probability of success.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 96, Rule ID: IT_IS[17]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: It's; It is
...d by a particular universal definition. Its a holistic approach and largely relativ...
^^^
Line 5, column 479, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...one is subjected to fields unrelated to ones interest. A student with an innate proc...
^^^^
Line 5, column 687, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...concile to an uninteresting field to him though a field with higher probability o...
^^
Line 5, column 738, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...field with higher probability of success is not only morally demolished but the g...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, hence, if, look, so, then, therefore, while, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 83.0 58.6224719101 142% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2616.0 2235.4752809 117% => OK
No of words: 509.0 442.535393258 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1394891945 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74984508646 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04717238035 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.4557956778 0.4932671777 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 842.4 704.065955056 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 20.2370786517 64% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 39.0 23.0359550562 169% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 115.203601604 60.3974514979 191% => OK
Chars per sentence: 201.230769231 118.986275619 169% => OK
Words per sentence: 39.1538461538 23.4991977007 167% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.23076923077 5.21951772744 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.83258426966 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.287970883542 0.243740707755 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.114006012331 0.0831039109588 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.114941135094 0.0758088955206 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.184019305023 0.150359130593 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0926596369648 0.0667264976115 139% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 22.4 14.1392134831 158% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 23.43 48.8420337079 48% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 14.6 7.92365168539 184% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 19.7 12.1743820225 162% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.67 8.38706741573 115% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 100.480337079 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 21.0 11.8971910112 177% => OK
gunning_fog: 17.6 11.2143820225 157% => OK
text_standard: 21.0 11.7820224719 178% => 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.