Educational Institutions Should Dissuade Students From Pursuing Fields Of Study In Which They Are Unlikely To Succeed.
Deciding whether educational institutions should persuade students to give up from pursuing a field of study they are unlikely to thrive in is a convoluted issue; both sides have their pros an cons. Nevertheless, I believe educational precincts should deviate students from areas of study they are most likely to fail at, because the sooner students get to know about their possible wrong decisions, the better. Furthermore, students could be exposed to alternative fields of study and could be precluded from strong parental influence on their careers.
First, if schools let students know of their possible struggle at their future career early, they can look for other fields of study and they can spare time by not pursuing domains that they would likely end up quiting in the future. If these students only figure out about their lack of competence late, when in college, for example, they may feel frustrated and may not succeed in their undergraduate studies.
Also, if students are heralded that they may not succeed in their fields of study, they may start to explore other domains, which is salutary to them, as this broaden their choices of career to pursue. If students think they are well suited for the fields they have chosen, they may not have the opportunity to face alternative universes, which could be even more adequate to them.
Still, students may choose to pursue a field of study because of strong influence of their parents. For example, offspring of doctors may feel compelled to follow their parents` path and they may focus their studies in medicine. However, aptitude is not a matter of genetics. It is not warranted that those individuals will succeed in their careers just because their parents did. By dissuading students who seem inept to fulfill their duties as doctors, educational institutions would not only help these students to find a more appropriate field of study to them, but also they would help prevent the insertion of bad professionals in society.
Yet, some may allege that students may be frustrated and discouraged to pursue any field of study if they are discredited by educational instututions. Conversely, such disappointment could also happen if these students tardily realize that they are not able to thrive in the field of study they have chosen. They may feel that they devoted too much time and attention to a carrer that is doomed to fail.
In conclusion, the argument that students should not be dissuaded from pursuing a field of study they are unlikely to trive in is flawed, because the sooner students find out about their ineffectiveness in the career they have chosen, the better. Moreover, they can broaden their range of fields if instilled in looking up for alternative areas of study. Finally, this would also prevent students from pursuing careers advocated by their parents´ will instead of by their own.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 191, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...luted issue; both sides have their pros an cons. Nevertheless, I believe education...
^^
Line 1, column 191, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'an con' or simply 'cons'?
Suggestion: an con; cons
...luted issue; both sides have their pros an cons. Nevertheless, I believe educational pr...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, look, may, moreover, nevertheless, so, still, well, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 27.0 12.4196629213 217% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 59.0 33.0505617978 179% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 75.0 58.6224719101 128% => 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: 2427.0 2235.4752809 109% => OK
No of words: 478.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07740585774 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67581127817 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68904308527 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 215.323595506 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.435146443515 0.4932671777 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 731.7 704.065955056 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.10617977528 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.3777013942 60.3974514979 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.833333333 118.986275619 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.5555555556 23.4991977007 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.94444444444 5.21951772744 152% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.445978979261 0.243740707755 183% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.167557149219 0.0831039109588 202% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105160199364 0.0758088955206 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.274673006156 0.150359130593 183% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0736409043338 0.0667264976115 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.1392134831 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.8420337079 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.1639044944 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 100.480337079 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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.