Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition.
Education is the basic right of any individual who is aspiring to build the future. The author would prefer free education for students who are admitted to the university but cannot afford the tuition fees. However, while designing the policy of free education university must be careful and conscious that the facility will be provided to talented aspiring students which will eschew the further consequences and misuse of the policy.
Firstly, education is a weapon used for the development of any individual which will shape and bolster the future. Students should not be hampered by finance for their education. Free university education will provide opportunities for talented and financially weak students to pursue further studies, enabling them to become highly valuable citizens. For instance, in underdeveloped countries like India, some myriad talented students have hobbled their further studies because their parents can't afford to fund them. Consequently, they end up being construction work or labor rather than any lawyer or professor which is not plum and expected. Moreover, these talented students are conducive to the country’s economic growth and community development.
Secondly, free education also inspired and encouraged other students to pursue their further studies and become successful independent people on their talent. This inspiration will be beneficial and in totality help the growth and development of the other. Free education attracts more and more students which will augment economic growth.
However, while implying this policy university must take care of factors like health and basic education. As more students will get enrolled it will be a burden on the university to handle them. Moreover, tax deduction percent of universities will also get affected by this policy.
In totality, the government should imply free education policy to economically weaker students who cannot afford tuition fees. While they must consider an industrious and deserving person to eschew further corollary. The policy must be very well thoughtful and conducive to needful which accelerates the overall performance of the student as well as the university and country.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-04-10 | guozhishan | 58 | view |
| 2023-10-27 | Oladelejnrr | 50 | view |
| 2023-08-29 | nigarsafarova | 83 | view |
| 2023-08-24 | Afolakemi | 66 | view |
| 2023-07-09 | ZHOU0444 | 83 | view |
- Pets should be treated like family members 60
- Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition 72
- Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances times and places 66
- The increasingly rapid pace of life today causes more problems than it solves 50
- Television advertising directed toward young children aged two to five should not be allowed 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 493, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...r further studies because their parents cant afford to fund them. Consequently, they...
^^^^
Line 4, column 106, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...actors like health and basic education. As more students will get enrolled it will...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, firstly, however, moreover, second, secondly, so, well, while, for instance, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 33.0505617978 48% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 58.6224719101 51% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 23.0 12.9106741573 178% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1866.0 2235.4752809 83% => OK
No of words: 334.0 442.535393258 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.58682634731 5.05705443957 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27500489853 4.55969084622 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80727222895 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 215.323595506 78% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.502994011976 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 592.2 704.065955056 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.6250546059 60.3974514979 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.666666667 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5555555556 23.4991977007 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.61111111111 5.21951772744 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.341487231471 0.243740707755 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.119698370438 0.0831039109588 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.129677053122 0.0758088955206 171% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.211641436879 0.150359130593 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.114061308307 0.0667264976115 171% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 48.8420337079 74% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.14 12.1639044944 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 100.480337079 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.8971910112 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.