Some people think that universities should not provide so much theoretical knowledge but give more practical training throughout their courses
Recently, the phenomenon of some people think that universities should not provide so much theoretical knowledge but give more practical training throughout their courses and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of theory-based program in universities is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that abstract and pure science topic can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, practical training can provide the society with some noticeable effects, which are rooted in the fact that crucial issues for deep learning, as well as the solution to modern humans' challenges, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment, which discovered current theory related to correct practice. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both knowledge-based kinds of research and accordingly studies and discovery of resorts apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of a public arena, lack of in-depth knowledge based on theoretical knowledge might increase the consequences of more mistakes and problems. Moreover, fundamental aspects of separations of academicals and vocational relate to this reality that the demerits of less theoretical pertain to low-level skills. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of low skill is correlated negatively with low confidence. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notions of this remarkable theory.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of more theoretical knowledge far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of this unique phenomenon prove the significance of total outcomes, but also pinpoint thorny issues' potential implications.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, apparently, but, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 6.10837438424 98% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 8.36945812808 119% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 5.94088669951 185% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 20.9802955665 105% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 31.9359605911 122% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.75862068966 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1730.0 1207.87684729 143% => OK
No of words: 301.0 242.827586207 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.74750830565 5.00649968141 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 3.92707691288 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.24742291142 2.71678728327 120% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 139.433497537 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.647840531561 0.580463131201 112% => OK
syllable_count: 546.3 379.143842365 144% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 1.0 1.56157635468 64% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.5024630542 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 42.3263609744 50.4703680194 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.166666667 104.977214359 137% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0833333333 20.9669160288 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5 7.25397266985 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 6.9802955665 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 2.75862068966 109% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 2.91625615764 137% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.352178306112 0.242375264174 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.105460058146 0.0925447433944 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.18944799392 0.071462118173 265% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.184230952391 0.151781067708 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.155488565076 0.0609392437508 255% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.2 12.6369458128 144% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 53.1260098522 55% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 10.9458128079 141% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.37 11.5310837438 142% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.07 8.32886699507 133% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 55.0591133005 214% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.94827586207 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.3980295567 115% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.5123152709 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.8888888889 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 80.0 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.