Professors are normally found in university classrooms, offices, and libraries doing research and lecturing to their students. More and more, however, they also appear as guests on television news programs, giving expert commentary on the latest events in the world. These television appearances are of great benefit to the professors themselves as well as to their universities and the general public.
Professors benefit from appearing on television because by doing so they acquire reputations as authorities in their academic fields among a much wider audience than they have on campus. If a professor publishes views in an academic journal, only other scholars will learn about and appreciate those views. But when a professor appears on TV, thousands of people outside the narrow academic community become aware of the professor’s ideas. So when professors share their ideas with a television audience, the professors’ importance as scholars is enhanced.
Universities also benefit from such appearances. The universities receive positive publicity when their professors appear on TV. When people see a knowledge- able faculty member of a university on television, they think more highly of that university. That then leads to an improved reputation for the university. And that improved reputation in turn leads to more donations for the university and more applications from potential students.
Finally, the public gains from professors’ appearing on television. Most tele- vision viewers normally have no contact with university professors. When professors appear on television, viewers have a chance to learn from experts and to be exposed to views they might otherwise never hear about. Television is generally a medium for commentary that tends to be superficial, not deep or thoughtful. From professors on television, by contrast, viewers get a taste of real expertise and insight.
The passage states that professors appearing on television shows are of a great benefit to the universities, the public and the professor themselves and provides specific reasons for support. However, the lecturer questions all of those benefits and refutes each of the author’s reasons.
First, television appearance is not really fruitful for a professor. A professor appearing on television shows and news programs earn a reputation among fellow professors or among the people who are not really scholars. Such people tend to view a professor as an entertainer rather than an academic professor. Such negative publicity, in turn, hurts the reputation of a professor. As a result, such professors appearing on television are being missed out in some of the most important conference and meeting to discuss their academic work. Also, sometimes such a professor has difficulty in obtaining grant money for research.
Second, appearing on television of a professor doesn’t really benefit the university. A considerable amount of time is consumed by the professors who appear on television programs like the time required to decide on what to present, rehearsals, good appearance and on traveling. To allow time the time required for these important things to appear on television, the professor needs to significantly reduce work hours in the university which could have been utilized for doing some good research work or take some extra lectures for students.
Finally, the public doesn’t benefit either. Television networks always wish their programs to just have a good academic and don’t really bother about the content of those. They want their content to just seek the attention of their viewers and don’t wish to present in-depth academic lectures and intellectual substances as they might be uninteresting or boring to most of the viewers. Therefore, to increase their viewership, television channels don’t provide insightful substances in their programs which is futile for the general public.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 546, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
... their programs which is futile for the general public.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, really, second, so, therefore, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1731.0 1373.03311258 126% => OK
No of words: 312.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.54807692308 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03399372647 2.5805825403 118% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.50641025641 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 537.3 419.366225166 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.5744353851 49.2860985944 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.4 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.13333333333 7.06452816374 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 4.33554083885 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.213956299505 0.272083759551 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0800211997388 0.0996497079465 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0335667795979 0.0662205650399 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129693966553 0.162205337803 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0277575455949 0.0443174109184 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.3589403974 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 53.8541721854 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.91 12.2367328918 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 Out of 30
---------------------
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.