Universities should require students to take courses only within those fields they are interested in studying.
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.
The argument claims that universities should require students to take courses only within those fields they are interested in studying. This policy seems to be plausible, based on the assumptions that the students know clearly their field of interest and that taking courses they may not be interested in is meaningless. However, I would not agree with this policy as these assumptions it based on are flawed and may not hold true in many cases.
First, one might argue that focusing on students' interest is conducive to their personal development. They could save the time in wandering in the sea of subjects and spend their precious time on their interested topics. However, in reality, during this period of life, many students don't really have any specific direction they would like to pursue. Most of them give everything a chance and try to find their pursuit. In addition, their zealots could alter frequently based on their encounters. Thus, making this a requirement may be not pragmatic for students as they may regret their choice of field and unfortunately wasted the credits. Or they switch the direction and take them longer to graduate. What could be worse is that it may limit their exposure to other fields, which might be more suited for them or which may inspire them.
Furthermore, related to the uncertainty of students' interest in that the policy limited the courses to a single field, which might not be optimal for development. As we all know, the goals of university education include a comprehensive education which prepares the students for the society. Thus, this requirement might impede the students from becoming well-rounded individuals. Focusing only on one field, which might be the consequence of the policy, one could easily neglect the necessity of studying other fields basic to society, such as politics, law, computer skills, writing, critical thinking. These skills are of equal importance to the field the student has passion for as these are fundamental skills to use in any line of work.
Finally, it is very common that student changes their field of study and career after graduation. If they only study the field they were passionate about at the time and neglected to explore other fields, they might find it difficult to switch to the new field or career they later become enticed by.
In conclusion, although this university policy has a good intention to reduce students' burden and let students pursue the field they are attracted by, it may also have negative impact as to limiting students exposure to other fields and deprive their opportunities to learn basic skills for their future work. This policy did not consider the dynamic change in students' interest and decisions. Most importantly, it may minimize students' chance to alter their careers.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 285, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ring this period of life, many students dont really have any specific direction they...
^^^^
Line 5, column 560, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...basic to society, such as politics, law, computer skills, writing, critical think...
^^
Line 9, column 200, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'students'' or 'student's'?
Suggestion: students'; student's
...lso have negative impact as to limiting students exposure to other fields and deprive th...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, really, so, thus, well, as to, in addition, in conclusion, such as, in many cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.4196629213 169% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 54.0 33.0505617978 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 58.6224719101 101% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2355.0 2235.4752809 105% => OK
No of words: 462.0 442.535393258 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0974025974 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63618218583 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63896135852 2.79657885939 94% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 215.323595506 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.467532467532 0.4932671777 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 720.0 704.065955056 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.1060879798 60.3974514979 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.142857143 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 23.4991977007 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.38095238095 5.21951772744 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.257358084599 0.243740707755 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0925800391141 0.0831039109588 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0860854063761 0.0758088955206 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171799559988 0.150359130593 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0624484669265 0.0667264976115 94% => 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: 12.3 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 100.480337079 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.