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.
Having the right to prevent some students from pursuing certain fields by universities and other educational institutions is contentious. Given the idea that only candidates can pursue specific fields especially based on efficient ways seems great, and I totally disagree with the statement that believes this may lead to the deterioration of the institutions.
First, we can clearly notice the big percentage of those who are not qualified based on numeric data, in my country, particularly in my field of study, less than 50% of graduates could pass the qualification examination conducted in our senior year. This makes a significant impact on the output of graduate’s future career which would affect the general economic system. This is directly associated with the success of the institution using this method of candidacy, because its international rank is, in fact, strongly based upon its academic output.
Second, controlling the enrollment process directs attitudes and capabilities towards enhancing the academic performance. In other words, institutions which open the doors for students to pursue the fields they want are less likely to focus on improving the strength of the curriculum offered to what is best to compete with the quality of students’ degree of knowledge. For example, the Architecture Department at the university I have studies at, started brand-new enrollment criteria for its prospective students by creating an examination to test their basic capabilities which make them real candidates for this field. This resulted in a huge advancement in the Department, because with more capable students, more ideas have started flowing to improve what is already being offered.
Some may argue that this limits the human free-well because it dissuades students from choosing what they believe they belong to, but in fact, prospective student do not necessarily know what is best for them, they choose some fields based on previous examples and experiences without knowing what really fits them. This can be denied by controlling the enrollment process objectively, rather than subjectively through setting qualifying examination system for each field of study. This would be for students’ own good as well.
To sum up, I strongly disagree with the statement which says institutions would have a negative effect when having the right to prevent students from entering fields they believe it is not proper for them, because with this criterium, more qualified graduates will arise, and stronger academic curriculum would be built.
| 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 |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 10, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'argues'.
Suggestion: argues
... is already being offered. Some may argue that this limits the human free-well be...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, may, really, second, so, well, for example, in fact, in other words, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 14.8657303371 40% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 36.0 33.0505617978 109% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 58.6224719101 90% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2188.0 2235.4752809 98% => OK
No of words: 397.0 442.535393258 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.51133501259 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46372701284 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9780011774 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 215.323595506 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.564231738035 0.4932671777 114% => OK
syllable_count: 665.1 704.065955056 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 20.2370786517 64% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 30.0 23.0359550562 130% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 76.945150679 60.3974514979 127% => OK
Chars per sentence: 168.307692308 118.986275619 141% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.5384615385 23.4991977007 130% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.23076923077 5.21951772744 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.207042604053 0.243740707755 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0787765046435 0.0831039109588 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0657954634871 0.0758088955206 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131411110874 0.150359130593 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0510229135991 0.0667264976115 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.8 14.1392134831 140% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.57 48.8420337079 67% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.1743820225 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.27 12.1639044944 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.62 8.38706741573 115% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 100.480337079 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 11.8971910112 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.2143820225 125% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.7820224719 136% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.