Author proposes a solution for the disadvantage in the employment competition of Classen students. One can argue that departmental courses offers more specialization so that student gets more qualified and experienced about general methods, tool in their jobs. Even the conclusion they reach may be true, this proposal would require more information about the employment rate and students to be sure about functioning of new departmental curriculum.
First of all, the result mentioned in the argument can be due to higher local unemployment. In this case, it is usual to have disadvantage compared to other top-ranked schools. For instance, in Italy and Spain, unemployment rate reaches to %20 and accordingly even Bocconi as being top-ranked school can have lower job placement rates compared to other top-ranked schools in other countries. Hence, before warranting any action, one should conduct a search and examine employment opportunities between countries.
Additionally, it is also good to consider that observed rates can be due to students’ attitude or cultural effects shaped by new trending ideas. For instance, nowadays, in Turkey gap years have become more popular more and more, %10 of graduated students prefer to spend one year as a gap year. To illustrate, gap years are seen as an opportunity in order to decide what to do more clearly and specifically instead of directly jumping to jobs. As a result, this new tradition leads to lower job placement rate of new graduates and we come up with statistics which are independent from quality of education.
Besides, even the university regulates such a curriculum change, students may not act that much self-devoting to their areas or instructors would not be able to give enough intuition in order to improve qualified students. For instance, In Turkey, all the top-ranked schools have a policy such that last two years of undergraduate education consist of more departmental courses at the aim of specialization. However, most students have lack of their specific job knowledge such as Autocad as an engineering tool or Matlab as mathematical tool. This illustrates the fact that efficiency of this plan depends mainly on students and instructors, otherwise we cannot observe enormous increases in the job placement.
In conclusion, all the examples and angles given point out that such curriculum changes would require unemployment rate and student type analysis to make sure.
- Men and women, because of their inherent physical differences, are not equally suited for many tasks.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to add 83
- Statistics gathered over the past three decades show that the death rate is higher among those who do not have jobs than among those with regular employment. Unemployment, just like heart disease and cancer, is a significant health issue. While many healt 16
- gre argument essay 50
- Company management should conduct routine monitoring of all employee e-mail correspondence. Such monitoring will reduce the waste of resources such as time and system capacity, as well as protect the company from lawsuits. 83
- The true test of the greatness of a work of art is its ability to be understood by the masses.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address th 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 319, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...on they reach may be true, this proposal would require more information about the...
^^
Line 7, column 248, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ified students. For instance, In Turkey, all the top-ranked schools have a policy...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['accordingly', 'also', 'besides', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'for instance', 'in conclusion', 'such as', 'as a result', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.290697674419 0.25644967241 113% => OK
Verbs: 0.118604651163 0.15541462614 76% => OK
Adjectives: 0.123255813953 0.0836205057962 147% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0441860465116 0.0520304965353 85% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0186046511628 0.0272364105082 68% => OK
Prepositions: 0.118604651163 0.125424944231 95% => OK
Participles: 0.0232558139535 0.0416121511921 56% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.08477352621 2.79052419416 111% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0418604651163 0.026700313972 157% => OK
Particles: 0.0046511627907 0.001811407834 257% => OK
Determiners: 0.0651162790698 0.113004496875 58% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0255813953488 0.0255425247493 100% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0046511627907 0.0127820249294 36% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2466.0 2731.13054187 90% => OK
No of words: 387.0 446.07635468 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.37209302326 6.12365571057 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.57801047555 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.37984496124 0.378187486979 100% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.322997416021 0.287650121315 112% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.242894056848 0.208842608468 116% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.178294573643 0.135150697306 132% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08477352621 2.79052419416 111% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 207.018472906 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.560723514212 0.469332199767 119% => OK
Word variations: 64.3007910568 52.1807786196 123% => OK
How many sentences: 16.0 20.039408867 80% => OK
Sentence length: 24.1875 23.2022227129 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.9831694453 57.7814097925 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 154.125 141.986410481 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1875 23.2022227129 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.875 0.724660767414 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 56.4872416021 51.9672348444 109% => OK
Elegance: 2.38461538462 1.8405768891 130% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.00772737714278 0.441005458295 2% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.109531624695 0.135418324435 81% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.10745588302 0.0829849096947 129% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.555677942219 0.58762219726 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.160908289679 0.147661913831 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.00477674128411 0.193483328276 2% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0185002394425 0.0970749176394 19% => The sentences are too close to each other.
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.253835756385 0.42659136922 60% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0593577076678 0.0774707102158 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.00521315847942 0.312017818177 2% => The content is off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0104263169588 0.0698173142475 15% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 14.0 14.657635468 96% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.