The quality of education, invariably associated with the strength of a country, has around the concern of parents and social communities. It seems plausible at first glimpse that increasing salaries of university professors would boost the quality of education. Nonetheless, this proposal could not achieve what it promises.
Indeed, university teaching staff take a crucial role in fostering excellent students and producing high quality researches. There is no doubt that they are supposed to get deserve rewards for dedication and efforts. However, spending more money on their salaries is the rough, ineffective and impractical solution, whose weaknesses are obvious.
Firstly, additional money given to teaching staff could have negative impacts on professors’ involvement in education. As is common sense, money serves a double-edged sword, which creates positive effects, at the same time however, has negative impacts as well. The information of which increases wages can be read as encouraging irresponsible attitudes towards teaching because of the secure finance. As a result, instead of improving the educational quality, teachers’ activities in instructing and educating trainees would be lower. The Chinese football team is a case in point. A huge amount of salaries of soccer players in the national team don’t bring them out of deadlock. Their performances on each FIFA World Cup have never failed to disappoint Chinese soccer fans. Thus, money is not the key to working out the issue of education.
Second, the quality of education is systematic, which needs to consider all aspects of education. Teaching staff are only one of the factors that affect the quality of education. It's synergies of environment of studying, the quality of management and corresponding teaching resource that makes a difference. Therefore, mainly focusing on professors is irrational and inadvisable. Schools, who engage to improve their educational quality should place emphasis on every aspect of possibilities mentioned above rather than only the single one.
In addition, the more money the professors get, the less support the scientific equipment and facilities will have. In view of the limited quantities of educational finance, the growth of the cost on teaching staff would lead to unbalanced teaching resource, further decreasing the overall education. Clearly, only in a good balance of educational resource can have the better education.
Based on the arguments mentioned above, I firmly draw the conclusion that increasing professors’ wages is not a feasible solution to enhance the educational quality.
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? - "Television advertising directed toward young children (aged two to five) should not be allowed." - Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 76
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Governments should spend more money in support of arts than in support of athletics such as state-sponsored Olympic teams. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 86
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement All university students should be required to take history courses no matter what their field of study is Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 85
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement In the past young people depended too much on their parents to make decisions for them today young people are better able to make decisions about their own lives Use specific reasons and examples to su 59
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? To improve the quality of education, universities should spend more money on salaries for university professors. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 76
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, nonetheless, second, so, therefore, thus, well, in addition, no doubt, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 15.1003584229 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 13.8261648746 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 43.0788530466 35% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 52.1666666667 104% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 8.0752688172 285% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2253.0 1977.66487455 114% => OK
No of words: 397.0 407.700716846 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.67506297229 4.8611393121 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46372701284 4.48103885553 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10665441253 2.67179642975 116% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 212.727598566 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.576826196474 0.524837075471 110% => OK
syllable_count: 710.1 618.680645161 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.51630824373 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 9.59856630824 52% => OK
Article: 9.0 3.08781362007 291% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.6003584229 112% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.1344086022 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.0790627401 48.9658058833 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.9565217391 100.406767564 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2608695652 20.6045352989 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.82608695652 5.45110844103 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.53405017921 132% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 11.8709677419 101% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.173461651749 0.236089414692 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0464425679911 0.076458572812 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0420099616163 0.0737576698707 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.087831909837 0.150856017488 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0512907518322 0.0645574589148 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 11.7677419355 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.3 58.1214874552 64% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.1575268817 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.37 10.9000537634 141% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.61 8.01818996416 120% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 86.8835125448 148% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.002688172 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.0537634409 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.