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.
The lecture and the conversation both talk about the growing popularity of calling professors on TV channels and presentations. While, the writer of the article argues that, calling professors is beneficial for everyone but the lecturer seems to dispute the claims of the article. Their position is that no one except the television channels are to benefit from this PR stunt.
Firstly, according to the article, the writer's principal point was stated that this fame was highly advantageous for the teachers. Building on that, the article goes onto mention that these appearances increase the reach and public popularity of the professor. Initially, when the writer published any work, their work was limited to their academic circle, but these TV spots might help them gain public and scholarly credibility. The lecturer challenges this specific argument, when they argue that TV professors are usually considered frivolous scholars who prefer to entertain masses over educating them. Additionally, they also point out that these gigs lead to a decline in invites to important conferences and meetings which eventually leads to a heavy fall in their annual research funding.
Secondly, the author also argues that these TV presentations are good for the university’s reputation, as they offer a chance for people to know and get a look at the university's talent and research personnel. Article also goes onto note that, this increase of clout may cause an increase in potential donors and help them attract more skilled applications for the next years. Although, the speaker asserts that these appearances might take valuable time away from the professors, time that they could use in planning their course, helping the students, or doing university business.
Finally, the author also views these gigs to be of significant help to the general masses. As most of the people do not have access to such educated insights, calling teachers on TV might help them get views and perspectives they have never seen before. In contrast, the lecturer denies that, and states these gigs are nothing but photo-ops for TV channels to hoard from the academic credibility of the panellist. They claim that the content shown post channel's approval, is not majorly different from a skilled and keen reporter's research.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 362, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this TV' or ''?
Suggestion: this TV;
...s limited to their academic circle, but these TV spots might help them gain public and s...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, while, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 22.412803532 174% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1941.0 1373.03311258 141% => OK
No of words: 369.0 270.72406181 136% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26016260163 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38284983912 4.04702891845 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74430356063 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 145.348785872 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552845528455 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 582.3 419.366225166 139% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.0045076462 49.2860985944 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.4 110.228320801 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.6 21.698381199 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.06666666667 7.06452816374 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 4.33554083885 277% => Less positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.161526848776 0.272083759551 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0540931095284 0.0996497079465 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0260810320068 0.0662205650399 39% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100409174665 0.162205337803 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.029307317105 0.0443174109184 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 13.3589403974 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 63.6247240618 159% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.