The reading and the lecture are both about the value of television appearances by university professors. The author of the reading argues that they are very worthwhile for academics and their universities. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. He believes that these appearances are not particularly useful.
First of all, the author claims that television appearances help university professors broaden their audience, and also help them to be viewed as experts in their fields by more people. The author believes that this can increase their importance as academic professionals. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He says that professors who go on television are viewed by their peers as entertainers rather than as true educators. The lecturer claims that being a celebrity could even affect their ability to get funding for their work.
Secondly, the author states that television appearances can be beneficial for the universities themselves. It is argued that the prestige of a university is increased when one of its faculty members makes a high profile media appearance. The lecturer rebuts this argument. He suggests that universities can suffer because celebrity professors do not have much time for their research and students. He argues that rather than carrying out their duties, they spend a lot of time rehearsing, traveling and getting made-up for their appearances.
Finally, the author mentions that there is a net benefit to the public when a professor appears in the media. It is suggested that television is usually quite shallow and that professors can provide a very useful remedy to this problem. The lecturer, on the other hand, feels that television networks are just interested in the academic titles of the professors. He says that the abbreviated presentations that professors give on television are no more useful than what a regular reporter could deliver.
The reading and the lecture are both about the value of television appearances by university professors. The author of the reading argues that they are very worthwhile for academics and their universities. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. He believes that these appearances are not particularly useful.
First of all, the author claims that television appearances help university professors broaden their audience, and also help them to be viewed as experts in their fields by more people. The author believes that this can increase their importance as academic professionals. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He says that professors who go on television are viewed by their peers as entertainers rather than as true educators. The lecturer claims that being a celebrity could even affect their ability to get funding for their work.
Secondly, the author states that television appearances can be beneficial for the universities themselves. It is argued that the prestige of a university is increased when one of its faculty members makes a high profile media appearance. The lecturer rebuts this argument. He suggests that universities can suffer because celebrity professors do not have much time for their research and students. He argues that rather than carrying out their duties, they spend a lot of time rehearsing, traveling and getting made-up for their appearances.
Finally, the author mentions that there is a net benefit to the public when a professor appears in the media. It is suggested that television is usually quite shallow and that professors can provide a very useful remedy to this problem. The lecturer, on the other hand, feels that television networks are just interested in the academic titles of the professors. He says that the abbreviated presentations that professors give on television are no more useful than what a regular reporter could deliver.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-07-17 | zahra.tmmm | 68 | view |
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 209, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... for academics and their universities. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made...
^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...arances are not particularly useful. First of all, the author claims that tel...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 202, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...experts in their fields by more people. The author believes that this can increa...
^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ility to get funding for their work. Secondly, the author states that televis...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tting made-up for their appearances. Finally, the author mentions that there ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, second, secondly, so, while, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 12.0772626932 157% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 22.412803532 192% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1621.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 306.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29738562092 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92085389921 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509803921569 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 508.5 419.366225166 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.861812352 49.2860985944 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.0555555556 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.83333333333 7.06452816374 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 4.33554083885 254% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.522086152364 0.272083759551 192% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.156601888437 0.0996497079465 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.136840665168 0.0662205650399 207% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.354646472447 0.162205337803 219% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.235795264928 0.0443174109184 532% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 13.3589403974 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 53.8541721854 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.16 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 68.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.5 Out of 30
---------------------
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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 209, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... for academics and their universities. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made...
^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...arances are not particularly useful. First of all, the author claims that tel...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 202, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...experts in their fields by more people. The author believes that this can increa...
^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ility to get funding for their work. Secondly, the author states that televis...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tting made-up for their appearances. Finally, the author mentions that there ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, second, secondly, so, while, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 12.0772626932 157% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 22.412803532 192% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1621.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 306.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29738562092 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92085389921 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509803921569 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 508.5 419.366225166 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.861812352 49.2860985944 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.0555555556 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.83333333333 7.06452816374 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 4.33554083885 254% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.522086152364 0.272083759551 192% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.156601888437 0.0996497079465 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.136840665168 0.0662205650399 207% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.354646472447 0.162205337803 219% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.235795264928 0.0443174109184 532% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 13.3589403974 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 53.8541721854 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.16 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 68.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.5 Out of 30
---------------------
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.