Educational institutions should actively encourage their students to choose fields of
study that will prepare them for lucrative careers.
I strongly disagree that students should be encouraged to choose their study areas for future lucrative careers for two reasons. First, no studies in any given fields can guarantee the so-called lucrative careers in the future; moreover, students who choose the fields with the hope of lucrative careers may not enjoy their studies and their future works. While the educational institutions may be interested in cultivating future successful alumni, this policy may lead to dissatisfaction among the graduates.
To begin with, there are no such majors that can ensure that the graduates will necessarily enjoy a lucrative career later in their lives. To get a well-paid job and a successful career requires a combination of many things including a good degree with solid knowledge, a booming industry in which the graduates work, good interpersonal skills and a large amount of luck. Maybe pursuing a major in certain fields such as computer science and finance can increase the chance of getting into a field where more people can have lucrative careers. But the graduates also need many other things mentioned above to become successful. In other words, the notion that certain fields of study can “prepare” students for lucrative careers is nothing but wishful thinking.
Another reason why this policy is not desirable is that students may end up studying something they are not interested in. Without genuine interests in the field but driven by the extrinsic motivation from the promise of future “lucrative” careers, the students may find it difficult to understand the materials or commit themselves to the studies. Their academic performance may not meet the standards expected by the future employers and, as a result, they may not get good jobs in the fields. Even they do manage to start their careers in the fields, they may not enjoy their work and the lack of job satisfaction would render the “lucrative" careers less meaningful for the graduates. Their chance for long-term success will also be very small.
Some people may argue that by encouraging the students to choose majors that lead to lucrative careers the universities may cultivate future alumni with higher income, who will then donate more money to the institutions. With stronger financial support from the alumni, the schools will have more resources to improve their education and attract better faculty members and students. What is overlooked in the reasoning is the possibility that students who cannot find lucrative careers after studying majors they were encouraged to choose or do not enjoy their careers due to the lack of interests may not be willing to donate any money to the schools.
In conclusion, while it is understandable that educational institutions may want to encourage students to prepare for lucrative careers by choosing certain majors, this policy is not helpful for students as there are no majors that can guarantee lucrative careers in the future and students may end up with careers they do not enjoy if they follow the advice of the institutions rather than their hearts.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, look, may, moreover, so, then, well, while, as for, in conclusion, such as, as a result, in other words, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 27.0 12.4196629213 217% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2625.0 2235.4752809 117% => OK
No of words: 501.0 442.535393258 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23952095808 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73107062784 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94202503943 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 215.323595506 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.451097804391 0.4932671777 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 807.3 704.065955056 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => 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: 29.0 23.0359550562 126% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 78.0222220142 60.3974514979 129% => OK
Chars per sentence: 154.411764706 118.986275619 130% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.4705882353 23.4991977007 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.23529411765 5.21951772744 158% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.83258426966 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.314489757704 0.243740707755 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.115203164512 0.0831039109588 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0849065532313 0.0758088955206 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.208865556564 0.150359130593 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0669335762633 0.0667264976115 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.0 14.1392134831 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 48.8420337079 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.2143820225 121% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.