Educators should find out what students want included in the curriculum and then offer it to them.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
It is without doubt that the decision upon the selection of the major for a student is not straightforward. This is also due to the fact that curricula often lack in subjects that student would like to attend. Hence, in order to ease this task, someone may concur that schools should integrate to ordinary programs students’ suggestions or provide at least the possibility to let scholars selecting additional subjects. In my opinion, the scholastic system should adopt this practice as it may yield several benefits.
The first upside to consider is the wellness of students. Listening to and realising scholars’ needs may increase the happiness of students, which usually struggle in their academic years. In addition, academies may also take advantage from this choice. If the school is able to provide for pupils’ requests, such as - for instance - the will to learn to play an instrument or the inclusion of political and economic debates, scholars will be more joyful, which could also affect positively academic performance. This is since being in a context in which juveniles can develop their passions and interests may reduce students’ stress, bringing serenity, as they would have the opportunity to deepen what they mostly like. Therefore, hearing to pupils’ proposal could benefit both students and the education system.
Furthermore, another plus point regards the fact that, through this process, juveniles may understand better themselves - namely what they prefer or which their aspiration are - developing a solid idea on the role to assume in the future. For instance, numerous well-known universities, from Harvard to Cambridge, use to have a curriculum in which students are allowed to select one or two subjects. In this way, scholars can discern which topic to deepen and which to avoid, specialising their studies and increasing their competitiveness on the job market. What proposes the claim may help youngsters to understand in an early stage their preferences and thus what they want to achieve. This could concern a particular subject or, conversely, a dreamy job. This practice would help scholars to identify more efficiently their path.
Notwithstanding, a legitimate objection to what has been said so far is that students - especially youngest - do not have a clue on what they like. In some cases, they do not even want to express their preferences as they do not care about their education. Hence, the opposition may rise the following objection. How could educators be able to attempt the research implied by the statement if students were not collaborative? Even though it seems a strenuous job for teachers, they should employ all their resources in order to make sluggish students more aware of their concerns and future. They can succeed in this assignment through simple communication or - in a worse scenario - via the imposition of choices, in order to empower juveniles.
To conclude, the idea that students should have a voice on the composition of their major seems correct. Even though some difficulties may arise in its application, educators must use all their energy in order to listen students and give them responsibilities.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 315, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
...niversities, from Harvard to Cambridge, use to have a curriculum in which students ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, first, furthermore, hence, if, may, so, therefore, thus, well, at least, for instance, in addition, such as, in my opinion, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 26.0 12.4196629213 209% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 33.0505617978 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 70.0 58.6224719101 119% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2683.0 2235.4752809 120% => OK
No of words: 509.0 442.535393258 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27111984283 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74984508646 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95779277489 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 271.0 215.323595506 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.532416502947 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 814.5 704.065955056 116% => 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: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.2348521215 60.3974514979 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.791666667 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2083333333 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.45833333333 5.21951772744 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => 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: 0.135618717023 0.243740707755 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0410641422504 0.0831039109588 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.027674932663 0.0758088955206 37% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0832352942092 0.150359130593 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0204946993855 0.0667264976115 31% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.1392134831 99% => 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: 13.29 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 144.0 100.480337079 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.