Educational institutions should actively encourage their students to choose fields of study that will prepare them for lucrative careers.
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.
Whether students should choose fields of study that can make a lot of money, could be weighted in many aspects. However, the claim is problematic because the argument is based on generalization. The statement simply assumes that the life goal of all students is to be rich.
Admittedly, some of the students need to select profitable subject due to their poor economic status. This selection will be more confident to improve their life in the future. For example, students who are in debt do not have chances to risk. They must pick the work which has the lowest probability to lose money. Thus, in order to solve their dilemma, they should be encouraged to choose fields of study that will prepare them for lucrative careers.
However, earning money is not the only purpose in our jobs. In general, a sense of accomplishment is another important factor. For instance, being athletes is often not a lucrative job. But it usually gains a lot of satisfaction after training or competitions. In addition, the more you like your work, the more success you will achieve. This enthusiasm can make you earn a lot and not merely a good material life. For this reason, encouraging students to select the field they do not be interested is not necessary.
Moreover, no one can guarantee which field can make you get a profitable career in the future. It is impacted by space and time background. Use deep learning technology as an example. It had been created before 1990 years. But it does not be popular over 20 years. The reason is that the data was not big enough and the speed of machine was not fast enough in that epoch. Yet the deep learning is the most famous algorithm not only in computer science field now. So it is hard to predict which field should be encouraged to choose for their better future.
In sum, the claim is not as persuasive as it stands. Although making the foregoing choice could indeed benefit students, not all students are same. Opting their suitable and interested fields of study is more critical. Therefore, I do not agree educational institutions should actively encourage their students to choose fields of study that will prepare them for lucrative careers.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-24 | z.salahshoor | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-23 | kook | 66 | view |
| 2019-11-19 | jessie_llj | 66 | view |
| 2019-11-08 | ko_tik | 75 | view |
| 2019-10-30 | dvtien95 | 50 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 13, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
... students is to be rich. Admittedly, some of the students need to select profitable subj...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, thus, for example, for instance, in addition, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.5258426966 133% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 58.6224719101 67% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1824.0 2235.4752809 82% => OK
No of words: 377.0 442.535393258 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.83819628647 5.05705443957 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4064143971 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62736346719 2.79657885939 94% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 215.323595506 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.525198938992 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 563.4 704.065955056 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.740449438202 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 23.0359550562 56% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.2340793601 60.3974514979 47% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 67.5555555556 118.986275619 57% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 13.962962963 23.4991977007 59% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 3.66666666667 5.21951772744 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.364845165664 0.243740707755 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0821092758771 0.0831039109588 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.115072918202 0.0758088955206 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.207906490631 0.150359130593 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0962994524997 0.0667264976115 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.3 14.1392134831 59% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 66.74 48.8420337079 137% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 12.1743820225 59% => Flesch kincaid grade is low.
coleman_liau_index: 10.2 12.1639044944 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.55 8.38706741573 90% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 100.480337079 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.2 11.2143820225 64% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.