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.
This topic raises the controversial issue of whether the educational system must play a role in determining students’ future educational choices. Indisputably, educational institutions can understand and observe the student up closely. Nevertheless, these institutions should not put off student’s desires and motivation to pursue a particular field of study. Therefore, I strongly disagree with the statement that the responsibility of dissuading students from achieving their educational goals should be within the educational institution, and would argue that the educational system should not intervene in their students’ choices.
First, educational system’s roles are not only defined in teaching new knowledge but also to be an inspirational place for students to evolve, to build their character, and to have spread their interest. Education departments should be based on principles of self-development, motivation and positive attitude. Teachers, school counselors and other faculties encounter thousands of students every year, who are emerging from diverse realities and mentalities, and dreaming to become significant individuals in the society. Educational systems should embrace them, not discourage them.
Second, peoples’ personalities, traits, behavior and intelligence are changeable and always dynamic as they grow and in reactance to environmental demands and needs. For example, the famous scientist Einstein, whose had seriously communication and learning problems during his childhood did not indicative of a lack of intelligence. Similarly, the case with intelligence, research in validating different intelligence and IQ tests has shown that as they aged, people get smarter, their common knowledge is broader and their attention gets better. For that reason, schools and universities should believe in their students’ process and help them fulfill their full potentials in every step of the way.
Finally, opposite opinions of this matter would raise the fact that some students’ dreams and goals are not in accordance with their capacities, so that educational systems as being part of society should address those students and mold them to fit societal needs and expectations, so as to improve employment difficulties due to their poor academic performances. Although this opinion has some valid points, the question remains is what kind of society are we expecting? America is a society focused on training diverse people, not a factory that try to build robots without their self-awareness. It is biased to urge educational institutions to predict the future of students based on educators’ experiences.
In conclusion, for educational systems to lead students for better and compatible options in academic studies, it could be a place where different options are presented to fit the student’s personality, abilities, traits and conditions, but never abuse its power to turnover whatever hope relies within each student. In fact, leading students to understand better themselves and the academic subjects that are most suitable for their ambitions would lead to the best outcomes individually and socially.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 288, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO
Message: Use simply 'to'
...to fit societal needs and expectations, so as to improve employment difficulties due to ...
Line 13, column 293, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
...t societal needs and expectations, so as to improve employment difficulties due t...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, nevertheless, second, similarly, so, therefore, for example, in conclusion, in fact, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 26.0 14.8657303371 175% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 33.0505617978 115% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 58.6224719101 97% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2744.0 2235.4752809 123% => OK
No of words: 463.0 442.535393258 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.92656587473 5.05705443957 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63868890866 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.35030487086 2.79657885939 120% => OK
Unique words: 267.0 215.323595506 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.576673866091 0.4932671777 117% => OK
syllable_count: 838.8 704.065955056 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 79.0771813944 60.3974514979 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 152.444444444 118.986275619 128% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.7222222222 23.4991977007 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.83333333333 5.21951772744 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => 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: 0.133580808463 0.243740707755 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0478505386576 0.0831039109588 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0436698917589 0.0758088955206 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0804236379007 0.150359130593 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0547552490319 0.0667264976115 82% => OK
automated_readability_index: 19.4 14.1392134831 137% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 48.8420337079 60% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.1743820225 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.41 12.1639044944 143% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.89 8.38706741573 118% => OK
difficult_words: 147.0 100.480337079 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
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.