Educational institutions should actively encourage their students to choose fields of study that will prepare them for lucrative careers.
The arguer claims that education institutions should encourage their students to pursue majors that will bring them remunerative outcomes. It is an undeniable fact that there are quite a few people, no matter their nationalities, races, genders, choosing fields of study on pragmatic considerations. However, there are still considerable individuals choose a career based on their natural talents and interest.
Admittedly, to make a living is such a basic need in surviving, especially in such a highly competitive and relatively earthy world. In recent years, more and more college students choose STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) as their majors, while not all of them are having such a big interest in those subjects. For some people, economic burdens place heavily shackles on them, impeding them from freely selecting careers that they like and have talents in. When one is facing large amount of student loans which is expected to be paid back in five or ten years as well as unemployed parents who living on allowance, he or she give in to practical reasons. After all, it’s relatively easy of finding a job, making a respectable salary, getting a fortune and promotion. They believe only when one’s living is under security could one have the freedom to choose what he likes. Thus, it is understandable for them to prefer pragmatism than idealism.
However, the author made such a claim that instigate us to meditate what is the essence of higher education. Is it proper for any education institution to render such suggestions to its enrolled students? The essence of education ought to be the interpretation and acquisition of knowledge, a pursuit of truth regardless of its consequences for profit. Encouraging students to go after so-called lucrative careers while ignoring their real interests and betraying the idea of education is not beneficial to a society in a long run. The materialism of modern society, to a certain extent, is the conspicuous outcome of this “practical” value.
In addition, a student who chooses a subject that does not interest him may facing great difficulties completing his study. Interest is the best teacher. Without a curiosity, he or she is unlikely to make an outstanding breakthrough in academic as well as working zone. Following such a “practical” principle is not advantageous to personal long-term development.
In the contrast, regardless of pragmatic considerations, some individuals tend to select what they really like as a career. For example, if Sun Yat-sen, the first president and founder of Republic of China had gave in to such profitable future as a doctor, he would not become a revolutionary that overthrew Qing Dynasty and developed the well-known Three Principles of the People: nationalism, democracy and welfare. The sameness can also be found in a great many scholars, scientists, artists and so on who caring little about the feedback and living an un-wealthy life, who devoting themselves to the improvement for the better life of human beings, who pursuing the path they want.
In sum, educational institutions shall not intervene their students’ freedom of choosing fields of study. It’s reasonable for ones seeking relatively profitable fields based on pragmatic concerns. However, an overly emphasis on encouraging pragmatism-lucrative careers –is not only inimical to personal development but also unfavorable to social progress.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 412, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... on their natural talents and interest. Admittedly, to make a living is such a b...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 189, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to stem'
Suggestion: To stem
..., more and more college students choose STEM fields Science, Technology, Engineering...
^^^^
Line 3, column 655, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'she' must be used with a third-person verb: 'gives'.
Suggestion: gives
...ents who living on allowance, he or she give in to practical reasons. After all, it&...
^^^^
Line 6, column 286, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...as well as working zone. Following such a 'practical' principle is not ...
^
Line 8, column 211, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'given'.
Suggestion: given
...nt and founder of Republic of China had gave in to such profitable future as a docto...
^^^^
Line 8, column 382, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ll-known Three Principles of the People: nationalism, democracy and welfare. The ...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'really', 'so', 'still', 'thus', 'well', 'while', 'after all', 'for example', 'in addition', 'as well as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.235387045814 0.240241500013 98% => OK
Verbs: 0.132701421801 0.157235817809 84% => OK
Adjectives: 0.109004739336 0.0880659088768 124% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0521327014218 0.0497285424764 105% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0505529225908 0.0444667217837 114% => OK
Prepositions: 0.102685624013 0.12292977631 84% => OK
Participles: 0.044233807267 0.0406280797675 109% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.28178289049 2.79330140395 117% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0315955766193 0.030933414821 102% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0837282780411 0.0997080785238 84% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0142180094787 0.0249443105267 57% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0236966824645 0.0148568991511 159% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3497.0 2732.02544248 128% => OK
No of words: 544.0 452.878318584 120% => OK
Chars per words: 6.42830882353 6.0361032391 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82947280553 4.58838876751 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.422794117647 0.366273622748 115% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.332720588235 0.280924506359 118% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.255514705882 0.200843997647 127% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.185661764706 0.132149295362 140% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.28178289049 2.79330140395 117% => OK
Unique words: 309.0 219.290929204 141% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.568014705882 0.48968727796 116% => OK
Word variations: 73.2532165769 55.4138127331 132% => OK
How many sentences: 25.0 20.6194690265 121% => OK
Sentence length: 21.76 23.380412469 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.9201716736 59.4972553346 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.88 141.124799967 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.76 23.380412469 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.64 0.674092028746 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.94800884956 121% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.21349557522 115% => OK
Readability: 55.0320588235 51.4728631049 107% => OK
Elegance: 1.62416107383 1.64882698954 99% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.291827004303 0.391690518653 75% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0760712422593 0.123202303941 62% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0545902323407 0.077325440228 71% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.49737920033 0.547984918172 91% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.121868992831 0.149214159877 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0980081453582 0.161403998019 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0772284558536 0.0892212321368 87% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.201144014133 0.385218514788 52% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0600281342802 0.0692045440612 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.180958486811 0.275328986314 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0892153231242 0.0653680567796 136% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 20.0 10.4325221239 192% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.30420353982 57% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88274336283 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 14.0 7.22455752212 194% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 3.66592920354 82% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.70907079646 74% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 13.5995575221 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.