do you agree that universities should provide so much theoretical knowledge or give more practical training throughout their courses?
Recently, the phenomenon of providing so much theoretical knowledge rather than practical training and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated dispute. Although contested by many that the matter of research material is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that the university curriculum can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, universities providing theoretical knowledge rather than practical training can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that merits of theoretical courses, as well as making-up theories, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered objective knowledge. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both theoretical sciences and improving science apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of science, universities providing theoretical knowledge might increase the consequences of bringing-up college students. Moreover, fundamental aspects of different labs can relate to this reality that demerits of practical courses pertain to training courses. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of experimental courses is correlated negatively with subjective courses. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of subjective knowledge.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of universities providing theoretical knowledge rather than practical training far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of mathematical theories prove the significance of improving science, but also pinpoint the theoretical knowledge implications.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-08-03 | sadegh shahsavand | 88 | view |
| 2018-08-03 | sadegh shahsavand | 80 | view |
- People emphasizing government to build an advanced transport system rather new road for vehicles that are overcrowding the cities Do you agree or disagree 69
- do you agree that the government should reduce their investment in arts, music, and painting? 77
- do you agree that universities should provide so much theoretical knowledge or give more practical training throughout their courses? 88
- what are the advantages and disadvantages of a cashless banking system 85
- Do you that with online information library books are useless? 85
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 6.10837438424 98% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 20.9802955665 86% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 31.9359605911 103% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.75862068966 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1657.0 1207.87684729 137% => OK
No of words: 271.0 242.827586207 112% => OK
Chars per words: 6.11439114391 5.00649968141 122% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05734859645 3.92707691288 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.34594184962 2.71678728327 123% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 139.433497537 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.612546125461 0.580463131201 106% => OK
syllable_count: 521.1 379.143842365 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.57093596059 121% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 1.0 1.56157635468 64% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.5024630542 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.3995784678 50.4703680194 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.083333333 104.977214359 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5833333333 20.9669160288 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.41666666667 7.25397266985 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 6.9802955665 86% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 2.91625615764 137% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.309996038175 0.242375264174 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100634699073 0.0925447433944 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0796340657499 0.071462118173 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.185241118748 0.151781067708 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0201460790105 0.0609392437508 33% => 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: 18.6 12.6369458128 147% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 23.77 53.1260098522 45% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 10.9458128079 141% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 18.45 11.5310837438 160% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.5 8.32886699507 126% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 55.0591133005 180% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 9.94827586207 156% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.3980295567 104% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.5123152709 105% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 72.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.