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
The author of the issue contends that the educational institutions should discourage students from chasing the programs which possess the possibility of unsuccess of the students. This is a claim with which I generally concur. Amount the countless reasons which adherence my standpoint, I will delve into the most conspicuous ones in the following paragraphs.
This first significant point which should be considered is there is no standing pattern in the student education profile. In fact, each student could show different performance during his educational period. For instance, there is the possibility of enhancing his performance in a field which he was good only by practicing. A lucid example of this reason is Einstein. Einstein during his school period was a good student and even his performance at the school pursuit him to quite the school; however, with his hard work and practice at the home he mastered his failures and become a well-known scientist. If only his weak educational performance at school was considered the possibility of winning the Nobel Prize was zero; however, his interest and practice made it happened. Consequently, by dissuading the student from different courses, there is a chance of missing the possible future Einsteins.
Another equally notable point justifying my opinion is the current structure of the educational system. The modern system of education is based on the interdisciplinary fields; which combines various fields of sciences and demolish the borders between them. In this case, the students should have a great and chasm understanding from the different fields to become successful. This fact gets emphasis in a situation which the student does show a weak performance. For instance, in the field such as the biophysics, the student should have a proliferate and holistic knowledge over physics and biology. However, in the past decades, there was the separation between these two fields, at there was the taboo that if a student is good in biology, he has a failure in physics, so the ignorance of physics by the student and full-concentration on the biology could make the student successful in his future vocation. On the other hand, it totally twisted in the current system of education. Therefore, according to the current standing of the educational system, it should be an obligation for chasing the various field of sciences.
However, they believe that this the responsibility of the schools and university to figure out the student’s talents and provide the schedule according to this configuration could make my perspective to be shaky. However, this duty is not as important as the main responsibility of educational intuitions which is providing an informative platform for the students. In another word, the schools should courage the students to attend the various courses and make them get familiar with their major content. Thus, discouragement which is mentioned in the issue is against the main responsibility of the educational system.
To wrap it up, all aforementioned arguments lead us to the conclusion that the schools should provide and pursuit the students to get familiar and learn all fields of science despite their failures.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 540, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...the biophysics, the student should have a proliferate and holistic knowledge over physics and...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 199, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...elds of science despite their failures.
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, however, if, so, therefore, thus, well, for instance, in fact, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 33.0505617978 124% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 69.0 58.6224719101 118% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2714.0 2235.4752809 121% => OK
No of words: 512.0 442.535393258 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30078125 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75682846001 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07760941113 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 215.323595506 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.4609375 0.4932671777 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 828.0 704.065955056 118% => 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: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.38483146067 251% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.9025673936 60.3974514979 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.0 118.986275619 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2608695652 23.4991977007 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.78260869565 5.21951772744 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.232052336527 0.243740707755 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0803246241075 0.0831039109588 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0578160917922 0.0758088955206 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.14037662539 0.150359130593 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0676910953236 0.0667264976115 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.1392134831 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 100.480337079 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 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.