A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.
The author suggests a nation should require all of its students to study the same curriculum upon entering college. Many critics argue that students are unable to receive the same education levels because more fortunate affluent families are able to put their children in private education, which often have more resources for student success. However, as a nation, students must receive similar education upon entering college because the benefits outweigh the costs.
First, no student should lack the educational foundation due to predispositions such as wealth and socioeconomic background. If there are two students and one have a family that is affluent and another family that is below the national poverty line, there are many differences between the families. One family can provide nutritious food and seek additional academic resources for the student to succeed. On the contrary, the other family may have many barriers such as not having money to even provide nutritious food to support development of the brain and for daily energy function. As a result, these differences in people prove to be unfair because a persons’ success in a capitalistic country is usually defined with hard work. However, if there are two people working equally hard and one has more resources than the other, this creates an uneven playing field.
Furthermore, having students receive similar education upon entering college is more beneficial for competition and performance as a whole. In other words, if there are 10,000 students applying for college admissions at a certain university. Let us take 5,000 of the students came from affluent families and the other half came from low income families. If one were to solely consider statistics and not a holistic review of all the applicants, one might infer from the data that the more affluent the students with higher gpas are more suited for their university. However, upon digging deeper into the data, the students who also have higher gpas, might come from low income familes and thus worked throughout their high school education and potentially had less resources than others. As a result, this holoistic approach could create an even more competitive incoming class by comparing the most successful students.
Finally, having a similar background is needed in order to prepare students as a whole for future endeavors and success. As children, what we are taught at a young age is highly correlated with our future decisions. For example, growing up, if I am a low income student and I am taught school is not important, there is a high probability I will not take school serious and might make future decisions to not want to continue school. By having students grow up with similar backgrounds educationally does not only have educational benefits, but net positive externalities on the individual as a whole. Meaning, in school, students are not only taught about math, science, and other topics, rather life long lessons and common sense, therefore providing a student with similar education can positively impact a student later down in life even someone working a minimum wage job.
Although many suggest we live in a capitalistic society where one’s success should allow them to provide their children with any resource regardless of the cost, we must consider the uneven playing field this creates morally and reconsider the benefits.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-29 | AlmeeC. | 58 | view |
| 2020-01-29 | lekuleku | 62 | view |
| 2020-01-23 | nikhil40507 | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-18 | greuela001 | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-18 | vineel | 58 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 851, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[7]
Message: The word 'someone' in subjunctive clause must be used with a base form of a verb: 'work'.
Suggestion: work
...student later down in life even someone working a minimum wage job. Although many sugg...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, therefore, thus, even so, for example, such as, as a result, in other words, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2866.0 2260.96107784 127% => OK
No of words: 548.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2299270073 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83832613839 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72649172493 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 276.0 204.123752495 135% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.503649635036 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 919.8 705.55239521 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 10.0 2.70958083832 369% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.9748153915 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.476190476 119.503703932 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.0952380952 23.324526521 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.33333333333 5.70786347227 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.186422657869 0.218282227539 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0719527123565 0.0743258471296 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.143036446283 0.0701772020484 204% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121108624703 0.128457276422 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.135825660764 0.0628817314937 216% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.3550499002 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 98.500998004 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.