The quality of education, which is invariably associated with the strength of a country, is always the one of the biggest concern of parents and social communities. Nowadays, some people claim that increasing salaries level of university professors is a means of solution to strengthen the quality of education. It seems plausible at first glimpse. As far as I am concerned, this kind of solution is useless.
Indeed, university teaching staff, with no doubt take a crucial role in fostering excellent students, and they are supposed to get deserve rewards. However, spending more money on their salaries is the simple, rough and ineffective means to address the practical issue. Weaknesses behind this proposal are obvious.
First of all, great chances are that senior teachers begin to pay less attention to students' education, once they acquire additional money effortlessly. As is common sense, money serves a double-edged sword, which creates positive effects sometimes, on the other hand however, has negative impacts as well. The information of this action can be read as encouraging irresponsible attitudes towards teaching. As a result, these teachers’ activities in instructing and educating trainees would decline. In other words, as opposed to improve the educational quality, the idea of paying more to professors could damage the current level of education. The Chinese football team is a good 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 fail to disappoint Chinese soccer fans. Thus, money is not the key to work out the issue of education.
In addition, 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. Therefore, extra money investing in teaching staff presumably is a waster to some extent for which hardly achieves the demanded task.
Based on the arguments mentioned above, there are many drawbacks of spending more money on teaching staff's salaries. I firmly draw the conclusion that universities couldn’t improve their quality of education by increasing professors' salaries.
- 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 85
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement If people have the opportunity to get a secure job they should take it right away rather than wait for a job that would be more satisfying Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 90
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement The opinions of celebrities such as famous entertainers and athletes are more important to younger people than they are to older people Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 81
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The rules that societies today expect young people to follow and obey are too strict. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 80
- Imagine that you are in a classroom or a meeting The teacher or the meeting leader says something incorrect In your opinion which of the following is the best thing to do Interrupt and correct the mistake right away Wait until the class or meeting is 95
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 860, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'failed'.
Suggestion: failed
...ances on each FIFA World Cup have never fail to disappoint Chinese soccer fans. Thus...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, so, then, therefore, thus, well, in addition, kind of, no doubt, as a result, first of all, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 15.1003584229 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 9.8082437276 41% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 13.8261648746 43% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.0286738351 82% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 43.0788530466 46% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 52.1666666667 109% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.0752688172 186% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2150.0 1977.66487455 109% => OK
No of words: 392.0 407.700716846 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.48469387755 4.8611393121 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44960558625 4.48103885553 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99171074713 2.67179642975 112% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 212.727598566 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.589285714286 0.524837075471 112% => OK
syllable_count: 674.1 618.680645161 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 9.59856630824 63% => OK
Article: 6.0 3.08781362007 194% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => 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: 39.0665178463 48.9658058833 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.4782608696 100.406767564 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0434782609 20.6045352989 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.30434782609 5.45110844103 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.85842293907 207% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.203365696871 0.236089414692 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0480351857178 0.076458572812 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0448491809584 0.0737576698707 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115267779047 0.150856017488 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0254416045982 0.0645574589148 39% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 11.7677419355 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 58.1214874552 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 10.9000537634 130% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.19 8.01818996416 115% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 86.8835125448 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => 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.