Rising university fees and scarce employment prospects for graduates have led some people to say that universities should not teach arts subjects, like philosophy and history, and only offer practical degree courses that maximize chances of employment. Do you agree or disagree?
In this contemporary era, increasing rate of competition has given birth to many challenges to acquire jobs available in the market. It is asserted by some people that universities should focus on professional skillful subjects, as it increase the probability of getting employment, instead of teaching theoretical courses related to arts, especially considering the hefty amount of fee being paid to colleges. I agree with this notion and intend to discuss my views in subsequent paragraphs.
On the one hand, it is believed that subjects related to history, philosophy, and heritage are important to save culture and tradition of a country. In fact, every youngster should be aware of the history of their ancestors and who they are. To illustrate an example, many historical renowned persons such as Hercules, Alexender and Ashoka, can be source of inspiration for the children. As a result, learning history gives continuous motivation to young brigade to put their efforts towards to do good in society to preserve history and heritage of their native place. However, such knowledge can be gained through internet and available at free of cost or can be taught in high school, so there is no need to pay massive amount of financial funds to universities.
On the other hand, I endorse the idea of focusing on practical subjects in higher studies. The prominent reason is that people invest a lot of money in tertiary education to acquired skills which are job oriented and in demand as per market. As a matter of fact, science, technology, computers and automobile industry have much more scope to get jobs as compare to subjects related to arts. For instance, a recent survey conducted by an American company states that 80% employment opportunities available in world required professional expertise related to computers, automation, internet and automobile industry. Thus, learning such agile, active and cutting edge technologies not only enhance the chances of acquiring esteemed jobs, but also helps young brigade to earn name and fame through innovations. In contrast, if young ones learn theoretical subjects related to arts, it will reduce their scope of employment. Consequently, it would be wastage of hard-earned money of their parents in acquiring a knowledge which is not in demand by multinational organizations.
In conclusion, although it is important to learn subjects related to arts, yet practical subjects are the 'need of the hour' in terms of grasping esteemed job positions, to be famous through innovative methodologies and do the best use of parent`s monetary funds.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-22 | vaishali saral | 78 | view |
- Some people say that it is possible to tell a lot about a person’s culture and character from their choice of clothes.Do you agree or disagree? 73
- Your local hospital has advertised people to do unpaid work helping at the hospital. You would like to do some work at the hospital in your free time. 89
- Some people say that government should not put money on building theaters and sports stadium. They should spend more money on medical care and education.Do you agree or disagree? 73
- Many people spend a lot of money on clothes, haricuts and beauty products to enhance their appearance. Some feel it is a good way while others feel that there are better ways to spend money.Discuss both views and give your opinion. 89
- It is more important for a building to serve a purpose than to look beautiful. Architects should not worry about producing building as a work of art. 84
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, however, if, so, thus, for instance, in conclusion, in contrast, in fact, such as, as a matter of fact, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 13.1623246493 129% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 41.998997996 174% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2194.0 1615.20841683 136% => OK
No of words: 416.0 315.596192385 132% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27403846154 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51620172871 4.20363070211 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03465179246 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 239.0 176.041082164 136% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.574519230769 0.561755894193 102% => OK
syllable_count: 698.4 506.74238477 138% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 20.2975951904 128% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 56.4445247566 49.4020404114 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.125 106.682146367 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.0 20.7667163134 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.9375 7.06120827912 141% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.67935871743 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 3.9879759519 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.110979764713 0.244688304435 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0320921823145 0.084324248473 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0474386008173 0.0667982634062 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0670563230781 0.151304729494 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0433893764165 0.056905535591 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 13.0946893788 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 50.2224549098 73% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.3001002004 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.4159519038 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.48 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 78.4519038076 153% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.78957915832 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.1190380762 123% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.