It is often said that the subjects taught in schools are too academic in orientation and that it would be more useful for children to learn about practical matters such as home management, work and interpersonal skills.
The issue whether schools should teach more practical matters rather than theoretical knowledge to their students has triggered a new round of heated debate in recent years. Some claim that students will reap benefits from learning practical knowledge like home management, communicative and soft skills. From my point of view, the importance of the academic knowledge outweighs that of practical one.
Admittedly, now with our entrance into the twenty-first century, too much academic knowledge is not enough for people to adapt to modern society better. Most people would agree on the point that seeking an ideal job mainly relies on practical skills. It is obvious that, in the past, old experienced employees did not have abundant theoretical knowledge, whereas they have good command of practical skills on that work. Indeed, practical skills promote people working competence and social skills, while academic knowledge is not very incompatible with the present work except scientific researches.
Despite the benefits, too much emphasis on practical instead of academic learning has a detrimental influence upon people’s long-term development. What is almost certain is that academic subjects have withstood the test of time. This knowledge was explored and recorded by our ancestors. Therefore, they represent our ancestors’ knowledge and wisdom which can be still effectively used in our work and daily life. Needless to say, correctness of practical skills needs to be verified by personal experience through a long period. Finally, it is the responsibility of parents, not teachers, to prepare their children to deal with the practical affairs of life. Parents’ behavior majorly affects their children’s lifestyle. For example, a father who is a successful businessman will descend his experience to his son or daughter so that his child can follow their father’s footprint to be successful.
To recapitulate, I once again reaffirm my notion that teaching academic subjects in school is entirely appropriate and practical skills should be learned from family and practice.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-04-07 | Desi Sari Ayuni | 84 | view |
| 2021-10-10 | lennie.butera | 73 | view |
| 2021-07-03 | Lyly241096 | 84 | view |
| 2020-01-09 | Châu Cương Chí | 84 | view |
| 2019-11-07 | Luna Qian | 73 | view |
- Some people believe that the responsibility for the protection of the environment is by a transnational organization, rather than by each individual country. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 73
- In some countries young people are encouraged to work or travel for a year between finishing high school and starting university studies. Discuss the disadvantages and advantages for young people who decide to do this. 89
- Many parts of the world are losing important natural resources, such as forests, animals, or clean water. Choose one resource that is disappearing and explain why it needs to be saved. Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion. 84
- With the pressures on today’s young people to succeed academically, some people believe that non-academic subjects at school (physical education or cookery) should be removed from the syllabus so that children can concentrate wholly on academic subjects 89
- It is often said that the subjects taught in schools are too academic in orientation and that it would be more useful for children to learn about practical matters such as home management, work and interpersonal skills. 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 122, Rule ID: ADOPT_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'adapt to'?
Suggestion: adapt to
...c knowledge is not enough for people to adopt to modern society better. Most people woul...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, if, so, still, therefore, whereas, while, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 24.0651302605 112% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 41.998997996 105% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1799.0 1615.20841683 111% => OK
No of words: 319.0 315.596192385 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.6394984326 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22617688928 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03503000325 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.617554858934 0.561755894193 110% => OK
syllable_count: 536.4 506.74238477 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.6482581585 49.4020404114 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.4375 106.682146367 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9375 20.7667163134 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.3125 7.06120827912 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 3.9879759519 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.271525231308 0.244688304435 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0796202155834 0.084324248473 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0411377367704 0.0667982634062 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158236519085 0.151304729494 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00849330823055 0.056905535591 15% => 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: 15.1 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.43 12.4159519038 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.08 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 78.4519038076 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.