Universities and colleges should require all faculty to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach
The author suggests implementation of a new policy, under which all the faculty memebers at different colleges and universites will be required to work as professionals, rather than being confined to academic environment.
Faculty members working outside the academic world, will help them be updated with the current world. The industries or corporates definately have better understanding of the current demands, and working with them, the faculty members can gain this knowledge. This will help them keep the curriculum updated according to the requirement. Thus, the students graduating will be better equipped to tackle the challenges, which will be beneficial for the students as well as companies.
Besides, working as professionals will provide faculities with more networking opportuinities. This will help in building strong academia-industry collaboration. The stronger collaboration would help both industries as well as academic institutions to better reap benefit from each others expertise in the same domain. The academic institutions can extend their extensive fundamental knowledge and research facilities to companies, and companies can provide academic institutions with the funding.
The proposed policy can draw criticism from the time perpective. The faculty members working in professions outside academic world will require them to dedicate significant amount of time. This would either create budden on them, or will effect their work in academic world, i.e., either happering their teaching or reasech. This can addressed by increasing the number of faculty positions. The ratio between the number of available faculty position and PhD graduating is significantly high, thus there is no scarcity of the required skill set. The additional faculty position will increase the spending of the universities, but implementation of this would lead to significant increase in funding from industry. Besides, the leave granted to faculty memebers to work as proffesionals need not be fully paid, as they would be earning from their work in outside environment.
I would support author's recommendation of new policy to make it compulsory for faculty memebers to work as profesionals outside academic setting, in relevant feild.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 217, Rule ID: BOTH_AS_WELL_AS[1]
Message: Probable usage error. Use 'and' after 'both'.
Suggestion: and
...ollaboration would help both industries as well as academic institutions to better reap be...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 283, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'others'' or 'other's'?
Suggestion: others'; other's
...utions to better reap benefit from each others expertise in the same domain. The acade...
^^^^^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...mic institutions with the funding. The proposed policy can draw criticism from...
^^^
Line 13, column 66, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...raw criticism from the time perpective. The faculty members working in professions ...
^^^
Line 13, column 239, Rule ID: AFFECT_EFFECT[6]
Message: Did you mean 'affect'?
Suggestion: affect
...d either create budden on them, or will effect their work in academic world, i.e., eit...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, if, so, thus, well, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.5258426966 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.4196629213 169% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 11.3162921348 18% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 33.0505617978 54% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 58.6224719101 77% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1931.0 2235.4752809 86% => OK
No of words: 334.0 442.535393258 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.78143712575 5.05705443957 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27500489853 4.55969084622 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1617234278 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 215.323595506 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.51497005988 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 587.7 704.065955056 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.5886233104 60.3974514979 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.588235294 118.986275619 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6470588235 23.4991977007 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.58823529412 5.21951772744 50% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.277775327233 0.243740707755 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0934344021436 0.0831039109588 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0913938890662 0.0758088955206 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154094650756 0.150359130593 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0701998099192 0.0667264976115 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 48.8420337079 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.24 12.1639044944 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.02 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 100.480337079 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 11.8971910112 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.7820224719 136% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.