Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
Educational institutions over the years have been saddled with the task of preparing its students for the future and their roles in the society. Thus, it is natural that some people may argue that they also have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are less likely to succeed. However, I do not agree with this claim for a three cogent reasons.
First, how do we measure the success in a field of study? Unlike parameters like height or weight, the definition of success is highly subjective. For some, success in a field is measured by how much money you earn from the field. For some others, it is how much liberty the field lets you have. Yet, for some other it depends on how many lives they can positively impact. Given this very varied perceptions of the term success, it is hard for educational institutions to make adequate judgement on which field of study particular students will succeed in and will end of misleading them.
Second, the changing nature of the society and the job markets needs to be considered. For example, in the 1950s and 1960s, nuclear engineering seemed to be a field that holds so much promise for success as there were loads of opportunities to find a niche for yourself. Thus, any 'logical' educational institution would have been clearly biased towards such a field due to its natural appeal. However, things began to change in the 1980s due to the increase in concern about safety of nuclear materials and the field quickly fell out of favour. In this type of situation, the educational institutions would have incorrectly dissuaded its students from other fields and thus leave many of them frustrated over their change of fortunes affecting the society at large.
Third, educational institutions who are tasked with the responsibility of ensuring the growth of knowledge in various fields. They are supposed to be nation's custodian of growth and innovation. This task will be adversely affected if these institutions try to take on the responsibility of dissuading students from fields of study that are unlikely to bring success. Educational institutions will then be forced to focus on a narrow spectrum of knowledge and fields of study which means that some field of studies which may have brought great positive changes to the nation would be affected negatively because those fields did not promise much at the moment. Significant discoveries in these fields will almost never be made and the world will be a poorer place to be for it.
In conclusion, some may argued that educational institutions are made up of experts that have been trained to make good logical decisions with adequate foresight and thus are well placed for this responsility. However, this is not true. As shown by psychologist, experts opinion, no matter how trained they are, are very subjective especially if they have to make prediction about the future. They are prone hasty generalization, black swan fallacy among other things. Thus, I strongly believe that educational institutions should not be tasked with this responsibility as it will cause more harm than good to the society and the world at large.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-29 | jenniferjack07 | 66 | view |
| 2020-01-27 | lanhhoang | 83 | view |
| 2020-01-23 | lanhhoang | 16 | view |
| 2020-01-22 | AkkineniAnuhya4 | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-20 | maneesha ch | 50 | view |
- The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals."In a laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps, a concentrated solution of UltraClean produced a 40 percent greater reduction in the bacteria population than 52
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. 75
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. 50
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. 50
- ISSUE TOPIC: The real talent of a popular musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations, so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment. 58
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, third, thus, well, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.5258426966 149% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 33.0505617978 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 78.0 58.6224719101 133% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2656.0 2235.4752809 119% => OK
No of words: 532.0 442.535393258 120% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99248120301 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80261649409 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78348553197 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 215.323595506 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.477443609023 0.4932671777 97% => OK
syllable_count: 825.3 704.065955056 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.0523738609 60.3974514979 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.666666667 118.986275619 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1666666667 23.4991977007 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.91666666667 5.21951772744 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 10.2758426966 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.317326309863 0.243740707755 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0911492949543 0.0831039109588 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0823907382457 0.0758088955206 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.198494751249 0.150359130593 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0906717608123 0.0667264976115 136% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.1392134831 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.1639044944 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.9 8.38706741573 94% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 100.480337079 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.