Professors are normally found in university classrooms, offices, and libraries doing
research and lecturing to their students. More and more, however, they also appear
as guests on television news programs, giving expert commentary on the latest
events in the world. These television appearances are of great benefit to the professors
themselves as well as to their universities and the general public.
Professors benefit from appearing on television because by doing so they
acquire reputations as authorities in their academic fields among a much wider
audience than they have on campus. If a professor publishes views in an academic
journal, only other scholars will learn about and appreciate those views. But when
a professor appears on TV, thousands of people outside the narrow academic
community become aware of the professor's ideas. So when professors share
their ideas with a television audience, the professors' importance as scholars is
enhanced.
Universities also benefit from such appearances. The universities receive positive
publicity when their professors appear on TV. When people see a knowledgeable
faculty member of a university on television, they think more highly of that
university. That then leads to an improved reputation for the university. And that
improved reputation in turn leads to more donations for the university and more
applications from potential students.
Finally, the public gains from professors' appearing on television. Most television
viewers normally have no contact with university professors. When professors
appear on television, viewers have a chance to learn from experts and to be
exposed to views they might otherwise never hear about. Television is generally
a medium for commentary that tends to be superficial, not deep or thoughtful.
From professors on television, by contrast, viewers get a taste of real expertise and
insight.
In her lecture, the professor completely repudiates the idea conveyed in the reading passage. She provides specific reasons why the professors appearing on TV shows yield no benefit; to themselves, to their institution and even the public.
Firstly, she asserts that it is indecorous for professors to appear in the television from their professional standpoint. It sabotages the reputation of professor in the academic community as someone who is not serious. It makes them entertainer rather than educators. While they may reach to the wider audience through TV, the deteriorated image among the scholars might exclude such professors from important conferences and meetings. As a result, their plausibility of getting research fund decreases.
Secondly, she claims that those professors who opt to appear on the TV shows can afford less time for the university activities. Presentation in shows requires a significant amount of time for preparation and rehearsal; in addition to the time required to travel to the studio and appearance on the show itself. This time is in fact cut off from the academic time of the professors: they can allocate less time for their research, students and other educational pursuits. The importance of academic activities for professors can in no respect considered comparable to the media related events.
Thirdly, the lecture refutes the very idea that professors, through TV shows, can benefit the public. While the professors have deep knowledge and insight on the given issue, the content of media programs are limited to surface idea. In fact, they are titular as compared to the academic discussions. The hosts (journalists) of these shows are also limited in expertise and interest about the profound research topics. As a consequence, in no aspect it can benefit the public lucidly.
Thus, adhering to the logical reasoning, the professor in the lecture successfully debunks the concept that academicians in TV shows can benifit themselves, their university and the public.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 191, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...elves, their university and the public.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, while, in addition, in fact, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1707.0 1373.03311258 124% => OK
No of words: 317.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38485804416 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21953715646 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98145141384 2.5805825403 116% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.539432176656 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 531.9 419.366225166 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.0207138156 49.2860985944 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.411764706 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6470588235 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.76470588235 7.06452816374 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.107020694243 0.272083759551 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0369475432938 0.0996497079465 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0261267140894 0.0662205650399 39% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0691165571101 0.162205337803 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0226071947241 0.0443174109184 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 13.3589403974 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 53.8541721854 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.56 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 63.6247240618 159% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.