Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely succeed. Write a response in which you discuss to what extent you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting y

Essay topics:

Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely succeed.

Write a response in which you discuss to what extent you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

As we know, educational institutions have a responsibility to equip students with critical thinking, ways of solving problems and the knowledge needed in a field. Also, some people believe schools are responsible for dissuading students from the field that they are unlikely successful. Educational experts may know their fields of study inside out; still, they cannot predict a students’ achievements in the field for various reasons. They therefore should not interfere much with the students’ choice of their fields of study.

Very often, students are motivated to choose a field of study. Some students choose a field because of their interest. Some others choose a field because of their family background. For example, their family business needs them to have the knowledge of a certain field. These reasons are motivations which have a substantial impact on the students’ achievements. Motivated by their interest and objectives, students usually put in more efforts and hard work. As a result, students, who are be perceived lacking talent, may surprisingly succeed in the field. In this regard, it will be unfair for school professionals to convince a student to change his field because they think he lacks talent.

Another reason that educational professionals should not meddle in students’ choice of study field is their possible different understanding of “success.” Take the field of education for instance. College professors have relatively higher status in the field and therefore are believed by many school professionals to be successful. Compared with college professors, being kindergarten teachers might be perceived not as successful. However, some students who major in education are good at dealing with young students and enjoy being around children. For them, being a good kindergarten teacher is successful. In this case, if educators insist on persuading a student to change her field based on their definition of success, they will sway the student from her desired successful and happy life.

One may argue that educational institutions are responsible for helping students make the right choice on the field of study. Some students choose a field but later realize that they have chosen the wrong one, and wish someone had told them. It is unfortunate that students later realize they are not born for the chosen field after a great educational cost, such as money, time and effort. Admittedly, this issue happens. However, considering that educational institutions can by no means anticipate how well a student will do in a field, they therefore cannot solve the problem by suggesting him to change his field of study. Educational experts usually judge students based on their academic performance, which is, however, far from enough for predicting a student’s future. Van Gogh is a good example of this point. He had more than two thousand works though he only sold two of them in his lifetime. He was known and failed by his arcane style, past-impressionism. If schools had been responsible for the choice of students’ field of study, based on his performance, Van Gogh would definitely be convinced to stop painting. We would have subsequently lost a legacy. As we can see, school performance cannot be used to predict a student’s achievements in a field. So, educational institutions are not able to help students avoid the possible wrong choices.

In conclusion, educational experts may know their fields of study thoroughly. They can and should provide students with useful information about a field. However, considering schools and educators cannot objectively foresee students’ future in a field, they therefore should not interfere with students’ choice of fields of study.

Votes
Average: 5.4 (1 vote)
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 540, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...' choice of their fields of study. Very often, students are motivated to ch...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 488, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
...s and hard work. As a result, students, who are be perceived lacking talent, may surpri...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 496, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...rd work. As a result, students, who are be perceived lacking talent, may surprisin...
^^
Line 7, column 322, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to field'
Suggestion: to field
...ealize they are not born for the chosen field after a great educational cost, such as...
^^^^^

Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'still', 'therefore', 'well', 'for example', 'for instance', 'in conclusion', 'such as', 'as a result']

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.25 0.240241500013 104% => OK
Verbs: 0.155172413793 0.157235817809 99% => OK
Adjectives: 0.073275862069 0.0880659088768 83% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0531609195402 0.0497285424764 107% => OK
Pronouns: 0.058908045977 0.0444667217837 132% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.127873563218 0.12292977631 104% => OK
Participles: 0.0474137931034 0.0406280797675 117% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.16690210006 2.79330140395 113% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0158045977011 0.030933414821 51% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0747126436782 0.0997080785238 75% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0301724137931 0.0249443105267 121% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00718390804598 0.0148568991511 48% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'

Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3788.0 2732.02544248 139% => OK
No of words: 589.0 452.878318584 130% => OK
Chars per words: 6.43123938879 6.0361032391 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.92639038232 4.58838876751 107% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.410865874363 0.366273622748 112% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.297113752122 0.280924506359 106% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.219015280136 0.200843997647 109% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.159592529711 0.132149295362 121% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16690210006 2.79330140395 113% => OK
Unique words: 260.0 219.290929204 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.44142614601 0.48968727796 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 52.8769806363 55.4138127331 95% => OK
How many sentences: 34.0 20.6194690265 165% => OK
Sentence length: 17.3235294118 23.380412469 74% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.4490074132 59.4972553346 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.411764706 141.124799967 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.3235294118 23.380412469 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.411764705882 0.674092028746 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.21349557522 77% => OK
Readability: 47.034904624 51.4728631049 91% => OK
Elegance: 1.59139784946 1.64882698954 97% => OK

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.333137242596 0.391690518653 85% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.123084478842 0.123202303941 100% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.115000580187 0.077325440228 149% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.411783581926 0.547984918172 75% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.149941434922 0.149214159877 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111131031839 0.161403998019 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0617637605098 0.0892212321368 69% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.410255321756 0.385218514788 106% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0417151998164 0.0692045440612 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.25361373313 0.275328986314 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0347104512499 0.0653680567796 53% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.

Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 10.4325221239 173% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.30420353982 113% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.88274336283 205% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 15.0 7.22455752212 208% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 3.66592920354 136% => OK
Neutral topic words: 8.0 2.70907079646 295% => OK
Total topic words: 28.0 13.5995575221 206% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 35 15
No. of Words: 589 350
No. of Characters: 3047 1500
No. of Different Words: 253 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.926 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.173 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.868 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 224 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 168 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 119 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 79 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.829 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.109 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.514 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.304 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.44 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.173 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5