Educational institutions should dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.
Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.
This statement has both its merits as well as its demerits. In a practical sense, there is a kernel of truth behind these words in that as a student, you are paying an educational institution to provide you with a service; that service being to provide you with the best guidance and educational foundation possible in order to enjoy a prosperous career path. However, overall this statement that an institution should dissuade students in any way simply based on the assumption that they won’t find success is fallacious.
First and foremost, it is difficult to quantify success itself. When observing a pianist for example, one may conclude that they are the very definition of unsuccessful since they spend their nights playing jazz piano in bars, pandering to the requests of onlookers and seemingly cadging for tips. However, in the eyes of the pianist they may be successful beyond their wildest dreams. They have found a way to make their hobby their profession. To the pianist, he may feel he has never worked a day in his life, and considers himself the epitome of success. But if he had listened to his advisors in high school and college, they may have advised against this career path because it is not lucrative and hence “unsuccessful” in their eyes.
Compounding upon this point, the duty of an educational advisor should be to cultivate passion and not success. This same pianist may have had the aptitude to become an extraordinary investment banker, but may have hated every day he spent in his corporate office. Once again, paying for an education is paying for a service, and it would be a disservice to any student to discourage them from following their passion for the sake of financial success.
However, educational institutions have access to more resources than the individual. Due to this fact, their advice does hold some significant weight. An educational institution is a sprawling network of educators and professionals with a collective abundance of knowledge about many different career paths and job outlooks. Perhaps an advisor in the department of music plays jazz piano as well, and knows that there is a declining demand for it in that area. In this instance, the advice of the educational institution would be valuable in persuading students away from potential failure.
However, ultimately even this advice may not withstand the passage of time. When the aspiring pianist graduates, the job market may have changed, and jazz pianists may be of tremendous value. No matter how well-informed the advice from advisors may be, even they cannot tell the future. So succinctly, educational institutions should not dissuade students from entering fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed. While supportive advice is included in the service that students pay institutions for, this advice may not stand the test of time, no matter how well-intended it may be. In addition, students should define success for themselves instead of letting educational advisors define it for them, and follow their true passion. To dissuade any student from their passion on the grounds that they may not succeed based on a contrived definition of success would be a disservice to any student.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 36, Rule ID: BOTH_AS_WELL_AS[1]
Message: Probable usage error. Use 'and' after 'both'.
Suggestion: and
This statement has both its merits as well as its demerits. In a practical sense, the...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 281, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
...collective abundance of knowledge about many different career paths and job outlooks. Perhaps ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, if, look, may, so, well, while, for example, in addition, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.4196629213 169% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 60.0 33.0505617978 182% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 68.0 58.6224719101 116% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2706.0 2235.4752809 121% => OK
No of words: 532.0 442.535393258 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08646616541 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80261649409 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85029848983 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 257.0 215.323595506 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.483082706767 0.4932671777 98% => OK
syllable_count: 840.6 704.065955056 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.77640449438 394% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.6524548962 60.3974514979 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.75 118.986275619 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1666666667 23.4991977007 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.21951772744 77% => 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 : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => 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: 0.190176625055 0.243740707755 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0630546013719 0.0831039109588 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0843294709439 0.0758088955206 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115422157962 0.150359130593 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0518353877617 0.0667264976115 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.1392134831 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 100.480337079 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.