Nations should spend more money on skills and vocational training for practical work, rather than on university education.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many today feel that countries should prioritise vocational training over higher education due to changes in the labour market. In my opinion, though there are strong economic reasons to support this idea, university education holds greater value.
Those in favour of more practical skills training point out the financial benefits. Most university graduates are burdened with student debt and face uncertain job prospects. In contrast, training schools are cheap, fast, and ease students into steady employment immediately. The jobs they train for are also most likely recession-proof and durable, including positions as cooks, hotel managers, and skilled technicians. Someone who is firmly established in such a job in their early 20s does not have to deal with the pressures associated with university life and its incumbent debts. Instead, they can begin to set aside money for a house or start a family.
Nonetheless, lacking a university degree limits one’s options. The jobs available will pay well initially and be secure but offer narrow scope for advancement and virtually no opportunity to switch career paths. An individual with a university degree, on the other hand, might begin from a lower position but has a higher ceiling on future earnings. It is also possible for them to explore a variety of fields. Most good jobs require at least a bachelor’s degree even for simple internship vacancies. Lacking such a degree, means restricting oneself to manual labour or service industry jobs. The actual learning that takes place at university, particularly for those with multi-disciplinary majors or studying at liberal arts schools, also encourages students to consider a wide range of possible career options.
In conclusion, increasing funding for vocational training is an attractive yet short-sighted approach that curbs possibilities. Governments ought to continue to support higher education even in dark economic times in order to reap future rewards.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-18 | Phuong1810 | 84 | view |
| 2023-07-23 | chile | view | |
| 2023-02-18 | Charles Le | 89 | view |
| 2023-01-09 | lehung | 61 | view |
| 2022-10-01 | Trang Hạnh | 80 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, nonetheless, so, well, at least, in conclusion, in contrast, in my opinion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 24.0651302605 58% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 41.998997996 88% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1680.0 1615.20841683 104% => OK
No of words: 305.0 315.596192385 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.50819672131 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17902490978 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96424269396 2.80592935109 106% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.668852459016 0.561755894193 119% => OK
syllable_count: 521.1 506.74238477 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.5332631177 49.4020404114 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.8235294118 106.682146367 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9411764706 20.7667163134 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.35294117647 7.06120827912 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.182701342266 0.244688304435 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0546328273731 0.084324248473 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0415808608601 0.0667982634062 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108078783847 0.151304729494 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.034561053088 0.056905535591 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 13.0946893788 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 50.2224549098 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.38 12.4159519038 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.45 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 78.4519038076 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.