Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Imagine a world where emotional reading is performed by robots, and raw human emotion is simply binary code. This could be a reality if the classroom is converted into such a world. The use of the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) to read the emotional expressions of students in a classroom is not valuable, due to the lack of the software's ability to decipher verbal emotion, the ability of humans to naturally perform the same techniques as the software, and the cost effectiveness of this kind of software within a classroom setting.

The first reason why the use of the FACS within the classroom would not be valuable is due to the inability of the software to understand verbal emotion. When a student is confused and or emotional about a topic, often they will express this through verbal communication. The FACS is not able to register this kind of emotion, at least not this early in it's development. As cited in paragraph six of the article, " 'Most human communication is nonverbal, including emotional communication,' notes Dr. Huang. 'So computers will need to understand that, too.' " This statement also brings about the issue of emotional expression not on the face, including body language and stature. These reasons defend the idea that FACS is not a valuable software for the classroom.

FACS also is not valuable because it is not diverse enough in its usage nor its abilities. Teachers and peers can easily spot emotions just as easily, and often more accurately, than this machine. As cited in paragraph five of the article, "In fact, we humans perform this same impressive 'calculation' every day." This would lead this invention's discovery to be unneeded and unneccesary, unless in it's applications of the distinguishment of the emotions of century old art pieces.

The software itself would not be cost effective, with the extravagance of it's research. As cited in paragraph one, "The software is the latest innovation from Prof. Thomas Huang, of the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science at the University of Illinois, working in collaboration with Prof. Nicu Sebe of the University of Amsterdam." This two Professers are of very renowned within the hierarchy of education, and the software itself is a product of the two researchers. This would lead one to believe that the software would not be cost-effective, especially within a state-funded school district.

To synthesize, the Facial Action Coding System would not be a valuable tool within the classroom because it lacks the ability to de-code other sensory based emotional expressions, can be replaced by humans, and is far too expesive. Although the software is useful, it is not practical nor diverse enough to be used within the classroom. If the FACS could be more efficient, especially with it's purpose, it might be a candidate for a positve addition to the classroom, but presently, it serves no new purpose.

Score: 5