With the pressure on today’s young people to succeed academically, some people believe that non-academic subjects at school (e.g.: physical education and cookery) should be removed from the syllabus so that children can concentrate wholly on academic subjects.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Whether non-academic subjects should be involved in the school curriculum remains a question of intense debate. While a number of people believed that non-academic issues should be removed from the syllabus so that students can wholly focus on academic ones, others claim that those subject matters are of equal importance to students’ development. I personally agree with the latter idea for a variety of reasons.
Firstly, forcing students on theoretical subjects would create a stressful and uncongenial school environment. Most academic areas seem extremely sophisticated and require great diligence; therefore, eliminating non-academic subjects would bring about a more tedious and exhausting learning atmosphere. As a result, students are easily deprived of their learning interests and lack motivation to make progress, leading to an increasing likelihood of early school drop-out.
Secondly, non-academic fields can be extremely beneficial to children’s development. For instance, physical education can prevent obesity and consequently reduce the risks of various life-threatening diseases such as diabetes, heart attack, hypertension, etc. Arty subjects can promote creativity and develop cognitive skills. Down-to-earth courses such as cookery can equip students with essential life skills that can assist them when tackling various arising circumstances. Conversely, the exclusion of these subjects would raise an unhealthy, uncreative and bookish generation.
Last but not least, not all students have great intellectual abilities to master academic subject areas but may have a knack for sports, cooking, singing, composing or acting. Therefore, by encouraging students into extra-curricular activities, schools can bring about hiden talents for the society.
In conclusion, non-academic subjects are vital not only to children’s success but also their development. For this reason, there should be an incorporation of academic and non-academic ones in the today’s syllabus.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-08-14 | Hai Anh Phan Thi | 89 | view |
| 2021-08-14 | Hai Anh Phan Thi | 56 | view |
- As computers are being used more and more in education there will be soon no role for teachers in the classroom 84
- In many countries schools have severe problems with student behavior What do you think are the causes of this What solutions can you suggest 84
- In many countries schools have severe problems with student behavior What do you think are the causes of this What solutions can you suggest 78
- With the pressure on today s young people to succeed academically some people believe that non academic subjects at school e g physical education and cookery should be removed from the syllabus so that children can concentrate wholly on academic subjects 56
- The table shows information about department stores and online stores in Australia in 2011 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whether” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
Whether non-academic subjects should be involve...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 388, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... such as cookery can equip students with essential life skills that can assist th...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, conversely, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, for instance, in conclusion, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 7.85571142285 178% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 24.0651302605 46% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 41.998997996 71% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1723.0 1615.20841683 107% => OK
No of words: 282.0 315.596192385 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.10992907801 5.12529762239 119% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09790868904 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.23857504025 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 176.041082164 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.641843971631 0.561755894193 114% => OK
syllable_count: 523.8 506.74238477 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 5.43587174349 18% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.5274891218 49.4020404114 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.866666667 106.682146367 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8 20.7667163134 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0666666667 7.06120827912 143% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.438834911467 0.244688304435 179% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.139604839081 0.084324248473 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.110029207617 0.0667982634062 165% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.245854894386 0.151304729494 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.125104249003 0.056905535591 220% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 13.0946893788 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 27.83 50.2224549098 55% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.9 11.3001002004 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 18.16 12.4159519038 146% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.74 8.58950901804 125% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 78.4519038076 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 9.78957915832 133% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.