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.
Narrator
Now listen to part of a lecture on the topic you just read about.
Professor
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.
Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they oppose specific
points made in the reading passage.
The article introduces the topic of professors' appearance on television programs. In particular, the author claims that it will be better for professors, universities and mass audiences if professors talk about various events on TV. On the contrary, the lecturer in the listening passage disagrees. She believes that giving interview on a television program is not beneficial for professors, universities or normal people and attacks each of the claims made in the reading passage.
First and foremost, the author begins by stating that if professors share their opinion about latest events of the world in TV, then they will acquire reputation, as larger people will be able to know them. The lecturer, however, disapproves of this viewpoint by contending that appearance on TV shows reduces professors' reputation from their colleagues. She goes on too say that, the researchers who appear on TV are not taken seriously enough in the university. So, they are not invited in important conferences and as their reputation decreases, they get less funds for projects.
Furthermore, the author thinks that teachers' appearance on TV is beneficial for their own universities. Again, the lecturer believes there are flaws in this statement. She holds that if professors give talk shows, then they waste their valuable time which could be spent in taking classes, doing research activities. As professors get less time for those activities for preparing for TV shows, university does not get proper service from the professor.
Last but not the least, the writer asserts that general people are benefitted if professors participate in TV shows. Not surprisingly, the speaker argues the statement to be inaccurate. She points out that there are no in depth conversation on TV, because that can not attract large audience, So in TV shows, every topic is made simple so that ordinary people may understand that. The speaker says that, to give such simple overviews, normal reporters are enough, professors are not needed for that.
To conclude, the writer and the speaker have conflictiing views about university teachers' appearance on TV shows. It is clear that they will have trouble finding common ground on the issue.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 89, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'about the latest'.
Suggestion: about the latest
... that if professors share their opinion about latest events of the world in TV, then they wi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 559, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun funds is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...as their reputation decreases, they get less funds for projects. Furthermore, the...
^^^^
Line 5, column 37, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'teachers'' or 'teacher's'?
Suggestion: teachers'; teacher's
... Furthermore, the author thinks that teachers appearance on TV is beneficial for thei...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 370, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s get less time for those activities for preparing for TV shows, university does ...
^^
Line 7, column 217, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...accurate. She points out that there are no in depth conversation on TV, because th...
^^
Line 7, column 217, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'noes', 'nos'?
Suggestion: noes; nos
...accurate. She points out that there are no in depth conversation on TV, because th...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, then, in particular, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 22.412803532 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1872.0 1373.03311258 136% => OK
No of words: 354.0 270.72406181 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28813559322 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33761313653 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86911657726 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 145.348785872 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.522598870056 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 557.1 419.366225166 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.4012651221 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.0 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6666666667 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.61111111111 7.06452816374 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
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: 0.192807186365 0.272083759551 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0648563159619 0.0996497079465 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0381909459163 0.0662205650399 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113376292625 0.162205337803 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0506618286298 0.0443174109184 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.