The reading age of your writing can be calculated by Microsoft Word, I discovered, and it turns out that the grade readability of my writing is 9.2, meaning that it can be read by those of 14-15 years of age, generally.
To calculate it in [b]Word 2010[/b], simply click 'Review', 'Grammar and Spelling Check', 'Options' and then tick 'Show Readability Statistics' and skip to the end of the work (ignore all grammatical mistakes) and then it will tell you some statistics, and at the bottom of the dialogue, 'Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level'.
[b]Word 2003[/b]
On the Tools menu, click Options, and then click the Spelling & Grammar tab.
Select the Check grammar with spelling check box.
Select the Show readability statistics check box, and then click OK.
On the Standard toolbar, click Spelling and Grammar
[url=http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/project/ReadabilityReport]OpenOffice Extension for Readability[/url].
What grade level do you write at?
I got 8.3 for a recent piece of scene coursework.
I copy and pasted a steam chat, for 7.3, which is surprising.
[QUOTE=T1dal;27021826]I got 8.3 for a recent piece of scene coursework.
I copy and pasted a steam chat, for 7.3, which is surprising.[/QUOTE]
I think it does it depending on syllables to a sentence or something like that. Were you using a lot of larger words in your STEAM chat with whoever?
11.6 on a report on Dark Matter.
11.1 on love as it is portrayed in acts 1 & 2 of romeo & juliet
[editline]28th December 2010[/editline]
12.9 on an essay on the poem 'blessing' by imtiaz dharker
Just did it with the last piece of English coursework, and got 11.7, not bad I suppose.
14.0 on some gcse coursework it just keeps going up
e: went through about 8 bits of work and my highest was 14.8 on a play review
13.4 on an initial grant proposal document.
-20.0 on a youtube comment
[quote]During the United States’ industrial boom of the late nineteenth century, Andrew Carnegie managed to create the world’s largest steel company, and in doing so became one of the wealthiest men the world over. In his essay, Wealth, he outlined his views on wealth and its distribution in a free market, especially from the rich to the poor. One of Wealth’s goals was to establish standards for the administration of charitable resources. These were limitation of donation amount, the role of the wealthy being that of a “trustee”, and the distribution of wealth while the benefactor was alive.
The first criterion Carnegie outlined in Wealth was that limitation of the wealth distributed was an imperative. Carnegie steadfastly supported charity by the wealthy, but was careful to warn against over-generosity. “.…Neither the individual nor the race is improved by alms-giving…The amount which can be wisely given….[to] individuals is necessarily limited,…for in alms-giving more injury is probably done by rewarding vice than by relieving virtue….”, he said. This asserted the difference between charity and “alms-giving”, originally a religious ritual, especially in Buddhism, where money would be donated to the poor solely for the sake of it. His reasoning for avoiding excessive donation was consistent, and was that it interfered with the Darwinistic nature of a free market economy, saying, “while the law [of competition] may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race, because it insures the survival of the fittest in every department.” Simply put, Carnegie believed that, while wealth must be distributed, it also must be distributed wisely, which often meant in small amounts.
Another stipulation Carnegie placed on the donation of riches by the rich was that people on both ends of the transaction remain individuals, with “the millionaire” serving as a form of trustee for the poor. In saying, “individualism will continue, but the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor,” he indicated his belief that the function of the rich in a free market economy should have only been that of a savvy businessman in which the poor would “trust” their money. He believed that the purpose of the wealthy was to “after [setting an example of modest, unostentatious living] to consider all surplus revenues...simply as trust funds, which he is called to administer.” This meant that rather than viewing their riches as their own, the wealthy should only use enough money to support themselves and their own, considering the rest as something for the common good. He believed this because, “[the millionaire]…administering [wealth] far better than it could or would have done for itself. Ergo, his reasoning behind this criterion were consistent, in that he supported it throughout Wealth with the same foundation.
Finally, Carnegie stressed the importance of the charity’s being given during the benefactor’s lifetime. This is partially for the reason he stated earlier, that the wealthy had an increased capacity for knowing when and where to distribute their wealth, as a result of their (usually) gaining wealth through their own devices. In stark contrast, he thought that the method of distributing one’s wealth post-mortem was a waste of that capacity. “the man who dies leaving behind him millions,…which was his to administer in life, will pass away ‘unwept, unhonored, and unsung’.” This is because, aside from making the man appear greedy, his economic wisdom was lost by his death, and his money now cannot be “[administered] for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself.” This method of wealth distribution also wouldn’t help to “solve the problem of the Rich and the Poor”, because it would do nothing to show the charitability of the rich. Carnegie supported this by observing, “Men who leave vast sums in this way may fairly be thought men who would not have left it all, had they been able to take it with them…”
In this argument, Carnegie again remains consistent in his reasoning, by supporting his claim with contentions of image and wisdom lost through the post-mortem distribution of the wealthy’s riches.
Self-made millionaire Andrew Carnegie was one of the wealthiest men of the world in his own time. But he was also charitable, and believed that the wealthy as a whole should be as well. With consistent reasoning, he iterated three stipulations for that charitability: limitation of distribution, the role of the wealthy as a trustee, and the distribution of wealth before the benefactor’s death.
[/quote]
[release] [b]Readability[/b]
Passive Sentences-13%
Flesch Reading Ease-38.6
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level-12.0[/release]
Uh, folks...it doesn't go any higher than 12.0 on MS Word. What are you talking about.
[QUOTE=icypenguin;27021969]11.6 on a report on Dark Matter.[/QUOTE]
Wikipedia is well written.
[editline]28th December 2010[/editline]
17.20 on a dream journal entry.
mother fucker i thought i was good lol
11.9 on a report on methods of extracting ore for science.
7.7 on my thoughts of Fallout: New Vegas.
3.9 on why I love Scout.
It said the lix number for one of my reports is 34 or something. It doesn't show all the shit you guys get. Probably because I'm writing in Danish.
[quote] Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
“No.” Says the man in Washington, “It belongs to the poor!” “No!” Says the man in the Vatican. “It belongs to God!” “No!” Says the man in Moscow, “It belongs to the poor.”
I, rejected these ideals. Instead, I chose the impossible. I chose...
Rapture.
A city where the artist would not fear censor, where the scientist would not be bound my petty morality, where the great would not be constrained by the small.
And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture, can become your city as well.
[/quote]
4.08
I digress.
i tried to check the entire script for Predator
but i would have had to press Ignore for every single line. so i gave up
Doesn't work on my Word 2007.
Hmm, it works for me. Did you follow the instructions in OP?
13.9 on some economics essays. Tried to do my whole computing coursework (146 pages) but there is too many variable names and abbreviations that spell checker constantly picks up as errors.
21.7 on some business studies questions.
26.8! I can't stop myself from checking each of my essays now.
1.0 on why [redacted] is the biggest and worst fucktard in the history of this planet.
I guess I shouldn't write after staying up all night or while raging.
[editline]29th December 2010[/editline]
I wrote it at 12
My next paragraph was 11.7.
I'm 15.
I guess that's good going...
16.6 on an essay on Lysistrata.
Average for all the finished things I've written this year is 14.3.
[URL="http://img545.imageshack.us/i/gonnagetthatbitchsomeas.png/"][IMG]http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/1102/gonnagetthatbitchsomeas.png[/IMG][/URL]
[URL="http://img502.imageshack.us/i/bitchesloveassignments.png/"][IMG]http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/603/bitchesloveassignments.png[/IMG][/URL]
Could be worse
Are there any benchmarks for comparison?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
