College and university should require all faculty to spend time working outside the academic world in profession relevant to the courses they teach.
Should colleges and university faculty be encouraged to work outside the academic field which they have relevant courses to teach? From my point of view, at first glance I agree with this recommendation because the professor will be given more opportunities for their career development. However, it is also worth pointing out the probability of decline that teacher will put less focus on the students, as a result of which the teaching task will be despised.
Before going any further, it needs to clarify that behind the claim that college should require teachers to work outside their academic world, lying an assumption that it is possible to determine professor from all the academic field to do so. This assumption, however, does not always hold true. For example, in the field of philosophy, not a job-oriented subject, it is not reasonable to require those teachers striving for theory innovation to work outside their research field. Also, it is not a desirable career choice for them. As a result, only divide the academic field into applicant subject and theory subject can we discuss this ramification.
For the theoretic subjects, without any denying, requiring professor to work outside the academic field pale in significance in comparison to providing academic atmosphere for theoretic research. In other words, it is evident that some theoretic fields such as logistics, theoretic mathematics, and theoretic sociology are not suitable for the job-oriented fields. What’s worse, trivial by working outside the academic field will weaken their boiling mind and powerful critical innovation, leaving no good for both the career and the academy. Imagine the most famous theoretic sociologist, Carl Max, not thinking about the relationship between capitalism and the working class, but stretching the screw on the flow line. How can we hear the determining voice in support of the workers in the class struggle? To summarize, requiring faculty form theoretic field will neither benefit the academy nor the society.
For applicant subjects, it is vital significance for those faculty to work outside the school because their research will powerful benefit people and industry. Those professor struggling for combine the academic research with practise in order to create social benefit should be greatly rewarded with both reputation and substance. For example, in the field of astronomy, the outcomes of how to update the system of spaceship may have little influence in the astronomy theory but will make impressive contribution to the astronomic development. In addition, the increasing evoluted techniques of dentist may leave tiny impact on the whole medical science but it has a far-reaching effect on treating those worried patients. At the same time, their students also benefit from the abundant clinical experience. In short, it is faculty in such applicant subjects that required to be more active outside the academic field because they will contribute significantly to the society from many aspects.
In conclusion, it is also necessary to address that professor researhing in applicant and theoretical field do not constitute a irreconcilable dichotomy in terms of whether should be encouraged to work outside the academic filed. In fact, from my perspective, the applicant research originates in the theoretic thinking, transfering its profitable findings into applicant practis
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 54, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this faculty' or 'those faculties'?
Suggestion: this faculty; those faculties
... subjects, it is vital significance for those faculty to work outside the school because thei...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 161, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this professor' or 'Those professors'?
Suggestion: This professor; Those professors
...l powerful benefit people and industry. Those professor struggling for combine the academic res...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 127, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...and theoretical field do not constitute a irreconcilable dichotomy in terms of wh...
^
Line 8, column 231, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ged to work outside the academic filed. In fact, from my perspective, the applican...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, so, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, in short, such as, as a result, in other words, on the whole
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.5258426966 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2508.0 2235.4752809 112% => OK
No of words: 454.0 442.535393258 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.52422907489 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61598047577 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91110774665 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 237.0 215.323595506 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.522026431718 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 782.1 704.065955056 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.740449438202 135% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 12.0 4.38483146067 274% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.966471775 60.3974514979 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.0 118.986275619 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8947368421 23.4991977007 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.52631578947 5.21951772744 144% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.275787098865 0.243740707755 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0820373770302 0.0831039109588 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0823240673748 0.0758088955206 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.172456323365 0.150359130593 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0311482362559 0.0667264976115 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 14.1392134831 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.03 12.1639044944 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 100.480337079 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.