Educational institutions should actively encourage their students to choose fields of study in which jobs are plentiful.
The speaker alleges that Institution's first priority should be encouraging students toward the careers in which jobs are abundant. I find this allegation to be specious. It wrongly suggests that more trending jobs should be replete always. To the contrary, provided that time changes the trends and given every individual student’s talent might not converge to the trended careers I believe the conclusion is unjustified.
To begin with, time changes the need and therefore that brings need to new occupations. For example in Canada, 50 years ago the study of Oil and relevant branches were most demanding. Nevertheless, soon they found out that the sources of Fusel fuels are low. In these circumstances, other fields of profession—such as Computer Science and Electrical Engineering— replaced the former. In short, looking at the history, it is not wise to plan our future careers based on today’s most demanding one.
Furthermore, any individual student has born with individual behavior, family and talent and, in turn, we cannot cluster students to limited jobs like the way ants divide into soldiers and workers. Beside the liberty of every individual, it is worth to note that we can say a student which chooses its own career by his/her enthusiasm, in future, may find new jobs, new ideas and as a result, we will see that different jobs are in balance.
Finally, it might be tempting to imply from the speaker’s allegation that by guiding new workers to most demanding jobs, we are improving our society in that field and therefore is of high value. However, if it is true a job is a trend then it is also true that the job is replete. Perhaps a high ratio of students voluntarily would choose jobs with higher salaries and most trending, thereby, there is no point in altering students’ future to these occupations.
In sum, although improving society in limited jobs seems justified, by no force students will choose those jobs and we should not undermine the students’ individual capability. In final analysis, to reach a developing society we should let the future generation steer the trend.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 337, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...s its own career by his/her enthusiasm, in future, may find new jobs, new ideas and as a ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, look, may, nevertheless, so, then, therefore, thus, for example, in short, such as, as a result, it is true, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 33.0505617978 103% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 58.6224719101 75% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1799.0 2235.4752809 80% => OK
No of words: 350.0 442.535393258 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.14 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32530772707 4.55969084622 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96563858973 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 215.323595506 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.571428571429 0.4932671777 116% => OK
syllable_count: 549.0 704.065955056 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => 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: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.0375082183 60.3974514979 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.4375 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.875 23.4991977007 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.625 5.21951772744 204% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.244700190647 0.243740707755 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0740319732071 0.0831039109588 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0773202692731 0.0758088955206 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132129447923 0.150359130593 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0521035223784 0.0667264976115 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.1392134831 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.1639044944 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 100.480337079 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.