READING
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 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.
LISTENING SCRIPT
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? 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 and lecture are both about the television appearances of professors. The author is of the opinion that these television appearances are of great benefit to the professors themselves as well as to their universities also; howbeit, the lecturer challenges the claim made by the author. He is of the opinion that these television appearances harms the reputation of professors. The lecturer cast doubt on the main point made in reading by providing three reasons.
To begin with, The author argues that professors acquire reputations as authorities in their academic field; furthermore, he feels that if a professor publishes views in an academic journal, only other scholars will learn about it, whereas if a professor appears on TV, thousands of people will learn about it; nevertheless, this argument is challenged by lecturer. He claims that TV appearances harm the reputation of professors especially towards their fellow-professors and these professors are also not invited for the academic conference.
Besides, the reading states that universities are getting benefit from such appearances. He believes that universities receive positive publicity when their professors appear on TV; Nonetheless, the lecturer rebut this by mentioning that TV appearances take a lot of time of professors related to what to present? how to present?. This also takes away professors from academic study.
Finally, the author posits that the public gets to benefit from professors appearances on TV; however, the lecturer believes that TV broadcast does not want to provide intellectual knowledge, but they provide the only summary of academic gist. He further states that such gist can be provided by the reporter. Therefore, Public do not get benefit from professors' appearance on Air programme.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 195, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ir professors appear on TV; Nonetheless, the lecturer rebut this by mentioning th...
^^
Line 13, column 316, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: How
... professors related to what to present? how to present?. This also takes away profe...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, finally, furthermore, however, if, nevertheless, nonetheless, so, therefore, well, whereas, as to, as well as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1542.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 278.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.54676258993 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08325423946 2.5805825403 119% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.517985611511 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 470.7 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 95.7729687253 49.2860985944 194% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.615384615 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3846153846 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.0769230769 7.06452816374 157% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.113457602113 0.272083759551 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0491793755267 0.0996497079465 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0332131025364 0.0662205650399 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0801333813873 0.162205337803 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0238561120215 0.0443174109184 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 13.3589403974 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 53.8541721854 77% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.91 12.2367328918 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => 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.