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.
Indubitably, different individuals inherently possess a cornucopia types of talents; it is palpable that those who are endowed with talents of a particular field have a preponderance over others in arenas fraught with sharp competitions. Against this backdrop, educational institutions should shoulder the responsibility to help students identify and develop their potential. However, such fact is not tantamount to according these institutions rights to usurp students’ personal pursuits. After all, success can be an elusive concept that takes an amorphous form when scrutinized. Students may simply pursue their interest despite their lack of talents. Moreover, they may eventually succeed through dogged determination, instead of their inherent caliber.
Above all else, we must accede to the fact that students should, ideally, develop their potential fully to become useful members of societies, and they are more likely to succeed with their natural talents and potential fully unleashed. For instance, contrary to many people’s notion that Einstein did not do well in mathematics, Einstein’s results in math exams were actually outstanding. As becoming a scientist usually entails one’s logical-reasoning capacity, it will be hard for an inherently daft person to become a scientist and understand numbers and equations of intricate and esoteric nature. Therefore, in this case, if the student is both interested and talented in other areas, it will be unimpeachable for the school to advice the student to pursue his interest and try to succeed in other fields.
However, on the flip side, it will be rather difficult to define success in an unequivocal way. Success, of diaphanous nature, can neither be defined as “earn a lot of money”, nor “notch numerous achievements”. In fact, different people can have a plethora of ways to understand success, and more often than not, when students simply pursue what they like without any monetary agenda, but with pure passion, it will be too facile to simply dismiss the student as a failure. Henry Isban once penned: “Money is the husk of many things, not the kernel. .., It brings food, but not appetite, … material, but not days of euphoria and happiness. ” Therefore, schools should not dictate the students on what to do, for happiness and interest may be of larger consequence.
Last but not least, more often than not, people achieve the great not because they are inherently gifted, but because of their unwavering faith in achieving their goals. In fact, determination and tenacity would be more imperative to a person, instead of their talents. Who would ever think that Helen Keller would go to Harvard and publish her own book, becoming a source of inspiration, as a person with severe physical impairment? Therefore, some people may not be talented, and can even be handicapped in their ability, but all these do not preclude them from becoming the success.
On the whole, we rarely find inspiration in those infallible and ingenuous. Rather, most of us are commoners with our inherent flaws, most of our talents naturally unexceptional. However, it is always up to us to define what success is, and live the way we want our life to be. In this vein, schools should not temper with what students choose in many cases.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 74, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in an unequivocal way" with adverb for "unequivocal"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...l be rather difficult to define success in an unequivocal way. Success, of diaphanous nature, can nei...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 576, Rule ID: DOUBLE_PUNCTUATION
Message: Two consecutive dots
Suggestion: .
...he husk of many things, not the kernel. .., It brings food, but not appetite, … ma...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, however, if, may, moreover, so, therefore, well, after all, for instance, in fact, in many cases, on the whole
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 44.0 33.0505617978 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 71.0 58.6224719101 121% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2819.0 2235.4752809 126% => OK
No of words: 530.0 442.535393258 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31886792453 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79809637944 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01716897333 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 288.0 215.323595506 134% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.543396226415 0.4932671777 110% => OK
syllable_count: 872.1 704.065955056 124% => 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: 0.0 4.99550561798 0% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 10.0 1.77640449438 563% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 12.0 4.38483146067 274% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.1928722249 60.3974514979 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.458333333 118.986275619 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0833333333 23.4991977007 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.20833333333 5.21951772744 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 21.0 10.2758426966 204% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.103890255624 0.243740707755 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0309337452693 0.0831039109588 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0378285094868 0.0758088955206 50% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0622644430824 0.150359130593 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0420551007973 0.0667264976115 63% => 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: 13.58 12.1639044944 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 149.0 100.480337079 148% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.