It is neither possible nor useful for a country to provide university places for a high proportion of young people. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many people argue that the accessibility of tertiary education to almost all young adults has no practical values. Personally, I completely agree with this view.
Admittedly, there are good reasons to say that widespread entry into university does not seem really useful. The key argument here is that this will produce an ineffective education system. College or university undergraduates are supposed to focus on only one major field, gain experiences and take internships, but too many of them specialize in one field will lower the scope for jobs when they graduate. This is the cause for labor saturation as the more youngsters enroll in universities, the higher the unemployment rate. Take, for example, many cases in Vietnam where students graduated with a bachelor's degree but ended up being unemployed. This is such a waste of human resources, which will consequently restrain the country's economic growth.
To add further credence to my assertion, it is also unfeasible to provide tertiary education for a large number of young people. In some financially independent universities such as Foreign Trade University, students might not afford to pay for the exorbitant tuition fee. Even if it's free, the government will be in a dilemma of whether they should allocate the money for free tuition fee or other crucial social fields such as healthcare system and quality of life. Furthermore, universities are unable to provide decent facilities for a large number of students on campus. This will decrease the general academic quality of the nation.
In conclusion, for the reasons I have mentioned above, I strongly believe that increasing the rate of young undergraduates is not only fruitless but also unattainable.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-06-29 | Nyahmeo | 67 | view |
| 2023-06-29 | quynhanhbuiviet | 67 | view |
| 2023-06-29 | quynhanhbuiviet | 67 | view |
| 2023-06-29 | quynhanhbuiviet | 67 | view |
| 2023-06-29 | quynhanhbuiviet | 67 | view |
- The chart illustrates distances traveled per person per week in kilometers in terms of 5 types of transport in the UK between 1990 and 2000 78
- The chart illustrates distances traveled per person per week in kilometers in terms of 5 types of transport in the UK between 1990 and 2000
- The charts detail the proportion of Australian secondary school graduates who were unemployed employed or further education in 1980 1990 and 2000
- The chart illustrates distances traveled per person per week in kilometers in terms of 5 types of transport in the UK between 1990 and 2000 78
- It is neither possible nor useful for a country to provide university places for a high proportion of young people To what extent do you agree or disagree 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 98, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...sible to provide tertiary education for a large number of young people. In some financially indep...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 539, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...unable to provide decent facilities for a large number of students on campus. This will decrease ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, furthermore, if, really, so, as for, for example, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 41.998997996 71% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1455.0 1615.20841683 90% => OK
No of words: 275.0 315.596192385 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.29090909091 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99402379957 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 176.041082164 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.643636363636 0.561755894193 115% => OK
syllable_count: 471.6 506.74238477 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.2848129698 49.4020404114 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.928571429 106.682146367 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6428571429 20.7667163134 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.92857142857 7.06120827912 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.188164021065 0.244688304435 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0613919727684 0.084324248473 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0409199004931 0.0667982634062 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106145439852 0.151304729494 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0297408505984 0.056905535591 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.0946893788 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.4159519038 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.52 8.58950901804 111% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 78.4519038076 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.