Educational institutions should actively encourage their students to choose fields of study that will prepare them for lucrative careers.
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.
Educational institutions have a duty too make sure that the kids they impart knowledge to, get the right kind of information which will help develop themselves as eligible indviduals in the job market today. Educational institutions should encourage their students to choose fields of study that will prepare them for lucrative careers. I disagree with this statement and I provide the reasoning for the same in the paragraphs below.
A field of study can only turn out to be a lucrative career for the pupil if he or she portrays interest in it. For example, a kid with an affinity for literature should be encouraged to take up courses that will help him or her excel in that field. It is often the choice of the parents which they force upon their kids to take up careers that are in trend in the current scenario. What they fail to understand is that it is the kid who can be the difference between a lucrative career and a vapid career. If a kid with an affinity for history is made to pursue a engineering career. He or she is bound to fail or perform poorly at his or her tasks. On the contrary, if the kid does become an archaeologist, it could very well turn out to be a lucrative career for the child.
Moreover, the world we live in everchanging due to the progress being made in every domain be it science, mathematics, literature and all the other sub-fields that come under these various domains. It is a daunting task to accurately predict whether a career in the current scenario will stay lucrative ten years down the line. During the 1960's and 1970's when the nuclear race between nations was heating up. A nuclear physicist was a lucrative career due to the sheer demand of such indviduals back then. Sadly, owing to the criticism faced by nuclear power as well as the ill-effects faced by people working in this domain due to job hazards, it is fair to say that a job in the nuclear domain is by no means lucrative choice currently. Therefore, picking a career choice just because it will lead to a lucrative career is a wrong thought process since no one can categorically outline the sustainability of a particular career, ten years down the line.
On the flip side, people can argue that a kid should not be allowed to take decisions on their career since they are still immature to do so and have no clear idea about the job market around them. I would partially agree with such a thought. But if the child's area of interest is not taken into consideration while he or she decides their career track, it could be detrimental for the child in the long run. Counselors can be arranged in colleges that can make the student understand the pro's and cons's of each career track and then let the student decide the way ahead. It should be taken care that the counselors do not impart prejudiced information which can cloud the thinking of a kid.
In sum, I would still disagree with the statement that educational institutions should actively encourage their students to choose fields of study that will prepare them for lucrative careers. Rather, it should be the kid's decision to choose a career track which interest's and suit's them the best.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 38, Rule ID: TOO_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'to make'?
Suggestion: to make
Educational institutions have a duty too make sure that the kids they impart knowledg...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 564, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... affinity for history is made to pursue a engineering career. He or she is bound ...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, moreover, so, still, then, therefore, well, while, for example, kind of, as well as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.4196629213 185% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 56.0 33.0505617978 169% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 74.0 58.6224719101 126% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2608.0 2235.4752809 117% => OK
No of words: 565.0 442.535393258 128% => OK
Chars per words: 4.61592920354 5.05705443957 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87542086881 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62085349684 2.79657885939 94% => OK
Unique words: 257.0 215.323595506 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.454867256637 0.4932671777 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 813.6 704.065955056 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59117977528 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.4029134694 60.3974514979 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.391304348 118.986275619 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5652173913 23.4991977007 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.73913043478 5.21951772744 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.32798483827 0.243740707755 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.108947867937 0.0831039109588 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.118883351704 0.0758088955206 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.243306890989 0.150359130593 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.145315629516 0.0667264976115 218% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.1392134831 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.04 48.8420337079 131% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.81 12.1639044944 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.45 8.38706741573 89% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 100.480337079 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.