Educational institutions have an obligation to dissuade students from pursuing fields they are unlikely to succeed in.
Educational institutions have a number of obligations towards their students. Among these responsibilities are: ensuring students are safe, happy and healthy, providing for the robust exchange of ideas, and building skills translatable to the 21st century workplace. Educational institutions -- whether two-year community colleges, four-year private liberal arts colleges, four-year public universities, or graduate schools -- do not have an incumbent responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed for two major reasons.
Ushering students to pursue fields where they are likely to succeed is problematic in a number of ways. For one, if we are to narrowly define "success" as financial success that provides an assumption the student is in it for the money. Numerous studies have shown people who pick fields for monetary compensation lack happiness with their occupation and job satisfaction. This, in turn, leads to unhappy employees and diminished output for the employer. Success can take on many meanings. For example, it could mean personal or social success. As such, just because a person is in a successful professional field, doesn't mean they are a good friend, husband, wife, and partner.
Two, just because a student is perceived as unlikely to succeed in a field because of their rudimentary skills, doesn't mean they won't find success in said field later in their career. Take for example a student with a strong foundation in the humanities and social sciences, who attends a liberal arts college and abstained from pursuing science classes, and now would like to become a urologist. The common perception is that student is unlikely to succeed. Not so fast. That student could, with the proper post-bac year, professional advising, medical school, and residency, could easily undergo the requisite training to find success in that field. Guiding this student away from their perceived weaknesses is antithetical to one of the points of formal education in general, that is, becoming comfortable with uncomfortability.
Alas, educational institutions that dissuade students pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed does benefit the feedback alumni give to that institution. However, good career guidance is just one of many ways alumni should be evaluating their respective institutions. Dissuading a student from pursuing a field where they are unlikely to succeed puts a hard cap on that students growth and could potentially funnel them to an industry they find unfulfilling.
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 58
- An international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be p 83
- Educational institutions have an obligation to dissuade students from pursuing fields they are unlikely to succeed in. 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 626, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... is in a successful professional field, doesnt mean they are a good friend, husband, w...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 113, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ld because of their rudimentary skills, doesnt mean they wont find success in said fie...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 393, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'students'' or 'student's'?
Suggestion: students'; student's
...kely to succeed puts a hard cap on that students growth and could potentially funnel the...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, so, for example, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2193.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 398.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.51005025126 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46653527281 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0623101982 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545226130653 0.468620217663 116% => OK
syllable_count: 665.1 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.9790652293 57.8364921388 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.421052632 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9473684211 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.10526315789 5.70786347227 37% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 8.20758483034 207% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.449407671604 0.218282227539 206% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.132509399595 0.0743258471296 178% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.133582787421 0.0701772020484 190% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.299608723662 0.128457276422 233% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.112282283504 0.0628817314937 179% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.68 12.5979740519 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 12.3882235529 125% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.