Some people think that all university students should study whatever they like.Others believe that they should only be allowed to study subjects that will be useful in the future, such as those related to science and technology. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Colleges and universities often encounter a dilemma: how to distribute limited teaching resources and budgets on a massive amount of subjects. Regarding to this issue, some people think that universities should only teach students practical skills and knowledge like science and engineering, while others hold the opposite opinion. As far as I am concerned, it is somewhat reasonable for schools to focus more on pragmatic education, but they should never put restrictions on students' personal choice.
To begin with, there is no doubt that some students are merely allowed to learn practical disciplines in certain schools. What I'm trying to say is that some universities are determined to cultivate specialists in the spheres of science and technology, and thereby these schools are only apt to offer pragmatic trainings such as vocational training which will help students with their future career development. To sum up, it is more or less justifiable for a couple of schools to provide practical education only if students have the same intention either.
However, what if students themselves crave to learn useful subjects? There is a paradox between these two perspectives about studying whatever they like or useful skills. To be specific, some students' interests are on these pragmatic skills, science and technology in particular, so in this occasion, there are inevitable overlaps as to whether universities should only offer practical disciplines or allow students to choose their favorable curriculums.
For another angle, students should never be subject to study limited subjects regardless of their interests. Otherwise universities are likely to loose their unique attractions as they are supposed to provide comprehensive development according to students' personalities and individualities. In other words, universities should never give up the wide diversity of subjects although some of them, arts and literature for instance, are less practical compared with science subjects.
In conclusion, it is unavoidable for universities to emphasize more on vocational training considering students' future development, yet students should also have the right to get access to other disciplines that they are interested in if they have spare time. There is also an old saying 'Knowledge is not a burden'.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 128, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: I'm
...al disciplines in certain schools. What Im trying to say is that some universities...
^^
Line 5, column 332, Rule ID: WHETHER[6]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "as to"?
Suggestion: whether
...occasion, there are inevitable overlaps as to whether universities should only offer practica...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 110, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Otherwise,
...subjects regardless of their interests. Otherwise universities are likely to loose their ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 147, Rule ID: LOOSE_LOSE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'lose' (= miss, waste, suffer the loss etc.)?
Suggestion: lose
...s. Otherwise universities are likely to loose their unique attractions as they are su...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, regarding, so, while, as to, for instance, in conclusion, in particular, no doubt, such as, in other words, more or less, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 41.998997996 121% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1973.0 1615.20841683 122% => OK
No of words: 353.0 315.596192385 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.58923512748 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33454660006 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0877485243 2.80592935109 110% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 176.041082164 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.541076487252 0.561755894193 96% => OK
syllable_count: 627.3 506.74238477 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 71.3031756456 49.4020404114 144% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.928571429 106.682146367 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2142857143 20.7667163134 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.1428571429 7.06120827912 172% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.01903807615 80% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.364114523449 0.244688304435 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.120918602825 0.084324248473 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0719249730381 0.0667982634062 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.205341896529 0.151304729494 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0721956188458 0.056905535591 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 13.0946893788 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 50.2224549098 58% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.3001002004 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.44 12.4159519038 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.58950901804 104% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 78.4519038076 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.