Formal qualifications are now considered to be one of the most decisive elements in the recruitment processes of many organizations since they are thought to be the best indicator of an individual's ability. I believe that this trend is a negative development as it shifts students' focus from real knowledge gains to ways of achieving higher scores, which results in many social issues.
Formal academic qualifications are now prefered because they are proof of a candidate's competence, and even sometimes excellence. Univeristy curriculums are carefully designed with the ultimate goal to generate a quality workforce for the labor market. As these courses are usually demanding and challenging, students have to exert themselves to complete their study and obtain a degree, This means that qualification holders, especially the top achievers, have been equipped with sufficient specialized knowledge, enabling them to work well. This is particularly the case for research- related jobs in which knowledge foundation and academic excellence, rather than skills or experience, is of great importance.
Although a focus on qualifications may make the recruitment efficient and effortless, i am concerned that this is a negative trend. An increasing emphasis on formal academic qualifications may discouraging students from improving practical skills nor accumulating hands on working experience, generating an unskilled and unexperienced workforce. Indeed, when employers recruits a person only based on their qualifications, this may convey a misleading message among undergraduates that being able to pass exams at schools is enough to find a job. Such belief, in reality, has given grounds to the birth of a huge proportion of graduates with underdeveloped skills, who then went unemployed in Vietnam. Stories about university vale- dictorians becoming jobless for years are ironically common in the country, raising the issue of skills training for the youth.
In conclusion, the preference for formal academic qualifications among employers are understandable as they truly refect job applicants' ability in some extent. However, on a broader scale, this is a negative developement as it undermines the importance of hands on skills and working experience, giving birth to an unskilled workforce and even higher youth unemployment rates.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 187, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'individuals'' or 'individual's'?
Suggestion: individuals'; individual's
... thought to be the best indicator of an individuals ability. I believe that this trend is a...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 77, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'candidates'' or 'candidate's'?
Suggestion: candidates'; candidate's
...ow prefered because they are proof of a candidates competence, and even sometimes excellen...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 87, Rule ID: I_LOWERCASE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'I'?
Suggestion: I
...e recruitment efficient and effortless, i am concerned that this is a negative tr...
^
Line 4, column 356, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nskilled workforce and even higher youth unemployment rates.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, may, so, then, well, even so, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.5418719212 171% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 6.10837438424 49% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 8.36945812808 119% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 5.94088669951 135% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 20.9802955665 105% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 31.9359605911 141% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 5.75862068966 295% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1998.0 1207.87684729 165% => OK
No of words: 351.0 242.827586207 145% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.69230769231 5.00649968141 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32839392791 3.92707691288 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.31145570927 2.71678728327 122% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 139.433497537 153% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.606837606838 0.580463131201 105% => OK
syllable_count: 633.6 379.143842365 167% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.6157635468 130% => OK
Article: 2.0 1.56157635468 128% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.71428571429 175% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.931034482759 107% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 3.65517241379 82% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 12.6551724138 103% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 20.5024630542 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 44.2803067077 50.4703680194 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 153.692307692 104.977214359 146% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0 20.9669160288 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.30769230769 7.25397266985 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.33497536946 75% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 6.9802955665 100% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 2.75862068966 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 2.91625615764 34% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.246876057075 0.242375264174 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0813029828608 0.0925447433944 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0524049362642 0.071462118173 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148624565683 0.151781067708 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0454346806748 0.0609392437508 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.9 12.6369458128 150% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 27.15 53.1260098522 51% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 10.9458128079 148% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.02 11.5310837438 139% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.28 8.32886699507 123% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 55.0591133005 214% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 9.94827586207 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.3980295567 123% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.5123152709 152% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 72.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.