Lately, we’ve been seeing some professors on television. Though it’s sometimes claimed to be a good thing, we should question whether anybody really benefits from it. First of all, it’s not good for the professors themselves—not from a professional standpoint. Rightly or wrongly, a professor who appears on TV tends to get the reputation among fellow professors of being someone who is not a serious scholar—someone who chooses to entertain rather than to educate. And for that reason, TV professors may not be invited to important conferences—important meetings to discuss their academic work. They may even have difficulty getting money to do research. So for professors, being a TV celebrity has important disadvantages.
A second point is that being on TV can take a lot of a professor’s time—not just the time on TV but also time figuring out what to present and time spent rehearsing, travel time, even time getting made up to look good for the cameras. And all this time comes out of the time the professor can spend doing research, meeting with students, and attending to university business. So you can certainly see there are problems for the university and its students when professors are in the TV studio and not on campus.
So who does benefit? The public? Umm . . . that’s not so clear either. Look, professors do have a lot of knowledge to offer, but TV networks don’t want really serious, in-depth academic lectures for after-dinner viewing. What the networks want is the academic title, not the intellectual substance. The material that professors usually present on TV—such as background on current events, or some brief historical introduction to a new movie version of a great literary work—this material is not much different from what viewers would get from a TV reporter who had done a little homework.
The reading states that the appearance of professors in tv news programs would lead many benefits to their university. The lecturer instead thinks that this thing would have a negative effect rather than be beneficial.
Firstly, the lecturer thinks that even if a professor appears in a TV-show as a guest would lead to reaching more people, this would tend to decrease the reputation as a scholar. furthermore, these professors could encounter some difficulties to be invited to the more important conference and they also will not get their project founded.
Secondly, the lecturer believes that all the time needed by professors to prepare their material to show, traveling on the tv stage and care for their aesthetic would be all time that they could be spent with their student and in the academic contest.
in addition, the lecturer contends that the quality of information that tv-show requires is much less in quality or at least no so different from those that a simple reporter usually gives to the medium audience.
In conclusion, the lecturer is in contrast with the reading, she argues that professor should spend more time in their class rather than on tv-stage, this is just for the benefit of the university community.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 180, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Furthermore
...o decrease the reputation as a scholar. furthermore, these professors could encounter some ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
...student and in the academic contest. in addition, the lecturer contends that th...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, furthermore, if, second, secondly, so, at least, in addition, in conclusion, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1042.0 1373.03311258 76% => OK
No of words: 206.0 270.72406181 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.05825242718 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.78849575616 4.04702891845 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66942625931 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 118.0 145.348785872 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.572815533981 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 309.6 419.366225166 74% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 7.0 13.0662251656 54% => 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: 29.0 21.2450331126 137% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 49.897036843 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 148.857142857 110.228320801 135% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.4285714286 21.698381199 136% => OK
Discourse Markers: 15.7142857143 7.06452816374 222% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.118549431957 0.272083759551 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0589758832284 0.0996497079465 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0218550964581 0.0662205650399 33% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0688892789777 0.162205337803 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0202941027779 0.0443174109184 46% => 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: 17.1 13.3589403974 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.5 53.8541721854 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.66 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.98 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 51.0 63.6247240618 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.498013245 130% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.