Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.
Educational instituitons are instrumental in shaping the life of students. Be it along or after the learning process, most people exalt professors when they are fascinating, or loath them because of soporific, hackneyed speakings. This dichotomy highlights the defining impact of the teaching profession on the path chosen by students, leading me to disagree with the author's stance. I then reckon that instructors have the same responsibility and role to play as Anne Sullivan did in the development of Helen Keller.
Mistakenly does the statement imply that many students set goals for themselves far beyond their capacities or talents. Some might be overly diffident, or do not properly burgeon due to pressure, inadequate surroundings, or plethora of other reasons. Scholastic underachievement does not necessarily stem from pupils' proclivity of being undisciplined, lazy, intellectually limited. These institutions, through professors or psychologists, are then required to pinpoint the needs, potential and slip out the best of every student. It thus comes under their responsibility and duty to unravel the conundrums concatenated to failure and provide resources for students to succeed.
It is also important to note that no one can utterly predict the outcome of a student pursuing one field or another. Educational institutions having responsibility to dissuade anyone would amount to exert an awkward form of authority over students' future, and this is erroneous for two reasons. Pedagogues might not be the best accoutered for assaying the full potential of pupils. Ranging from Michael Jordan to Jack Ma, instances abound amid great scholars, entrepreuneurs or athletes, who have been detered from choosing a path, before going on to become stellar leaders of their respective areas. Thus, not pursuing a will nay a dream because of an error of judgement is deplorable, and would have deprived history of such talents.
On the other hand, while some might be precocious and display eminent qualities, others need additional time to comprehend a topic, no matter how they enjoy studying it. This does not preclude them from being successful scholars either as most students blossom once entering college. Therefore, dissuading them instead of conveying abnegation sends a laconic, negative message. No successful human being would have culminated in his apotheosis without committing a mistake, learning from it and subsequently adapt apt methodologies and behaviors. Such a myopic view would be akin to giving up as soon as one faces hurdles and denotes deleterious impacts, extended beyond the only scope of education.
The author also overlooks a main component of success i.e passion, which accompany people through the most awe-inspiring achievements. By nature, we are attracted by subjects kindling our curiosity even before the cognizance of whether Mother Nature had endowed us with a predisposition in this area. If it is not the case, it should not be up to educational institutions to ascertain the field of study in which one is likely or not to succeed and sharply orientate his choice. Their responsibility, though, is to acquaint students with the possible hindrances of a field by bringing about transparent informations and accurate methodologies related to it. Both would engage in a symbiotic and collaborative process, and students would be able to realize their potential alone, from which success would naturally flow.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 369, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...udents, leading me to disagree with the authors stance. I then reckon that instructors ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, look, so, then, therefore, thus, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 58.6224719101 133% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2931.0 2235.4752809 131% => OK
No of words: 536.0 442.535393258 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.46828358209 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81161862636 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14511237833 2.79657885939 112% => OK
Unique words: 321.0 215.323595506 149% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.598880597015 0.4932671777 121% => OK
syllable_count: 912.6 704.065955056 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.2205668876 60.3974514979 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 122.125 118.986275619 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3333333333 23.4991977007 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.79166666667 5.21951772744 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
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: 0.289334437028 0.243740707755 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0649233413086 0.0831039109588 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.060023372837 0.0758088955206 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140328344565 0.150359130593 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0598615857934 0.0667264976115 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.8420337079 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.74 12.1639044944 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.12 8.38706741573 121% => OK
difficult_words: 183.0 100.480337079 182% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => 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.