College students should base their choice of a field of study on the availability of jobs in that field.
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 the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
The availability of jobs can affect whether students decide to go into specific areas of study, because many are ultimately interested in landing a job after graduation. College students should base their choice of a field of study on the availability of jobs in that field, but, to the extent that they first consider job fit, that this helps them make a practical choice, and that they also have considered job market fluctuations.
The primary objection to basing one’s field of study entirely on job availability is a lack of consideration for job fit. While there are many jobs available in engineering, not everyone should pursue this field simply for that reason, because some people despise math and in addition struggle with it. If they were to pursue a major in engineering, they might flunk out due to lack of interest or the ability to handle a differential equations class. For this exact reason, it is imperative for college students to first consider whether a major will at least fit their skillset and somewhat match their interests before blindly choosing that area of study.
Secondly, others might argue that students should do what they are passionate about, because this will allow them to be determined and successful in their role, despite the availability of jobs. However, disregarding the availability of jobs entirely can be risky and impractical. While one must concede that student would be fine if their field of study is not related to the job they hope to obtain (i.e. a minor), if the field of study will be their future job, they must consider job availability. Ancient basket weaving sounds fun, for example but there are so few jobs in this area that a student would be almost guaranteed not to find a job after graduation. Moreover, college students must at least consider job availability in order to actually land a job, if that is the goal of their study.
Lastly, disputants might posit that the job market is ever changing, so one cannot solely base one’s decision on job availability at the present. This is true. While students should at least consider job availability in their field of study decision, they must also consider whether the job they are interested in will soon go out of practice, or on the other hand, burgeon. A job that is not even available at the time that a student joins school, such as one in bitcoin creation, could actually be highly available upon graduation. This example shows how market fluctuations in job availability should clearly also be considered in a students’ decision regarding their field of study.
As outlined above, many objections exist to the blanket statement that college students should base their field of study on the availability of jobs in that area. By considering all aspects of the issue, a more nuanced position leads to more logical outcomes.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-10-19 | Jhon Kwame | 50 | view |
| 2023-10-05 | sahil nain | 62 | view |
| 2023-07-02 | Victory | 50 | view |
| 2023-07-01 | Technoblade | 62 | view |
| 2023-05-02 | mr_nud0 | 62 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e considered job market fluctuations. The primary objection to basing one’s fi...
^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... blindly choosing that area of study. Secondly, others might argue that studen...
^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
..., if that is the goal of their study. Lastly, disputants might posit that the ...
^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...cision regarding their field of study. As outlined above, many objections exist...
^^^
Line 10, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ition leads to more logical outcomes.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, lastly, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, while, at least, for example, in addition, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.4196629213 185% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 33.0505617978 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 71.0 58.6224719101 121% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2385.0 2235.4752809 107% => OK
No of words: 481.0 442.535393258 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95841995842 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68313059816 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7215447478 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 215.323595506 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.438669438669 0.4932671777 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 754.2 704.065955056 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 10.0 3.10617977528 322% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.864366992 60.3974514979 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.5 118.986275619 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.7222222222 23.4991977007 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.94444444444 5.21951772744 171% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.292507805092 0.243740707755 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.119681218154 0.0831039109588 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0766451167336 0.0758088955206 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.210005129235 0.150359130593 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.032126186944 0.0667264976115 48% => 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: 15.3 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.1639044944 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 100.480337079 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.