Formal education tends to restrain our minds and spirits rather than set them free.
"Duck-stuffing" teaching, which was once extremely hot in the field of Chinese education several years ago, was used to criticize the formal education in most schools in China because most teachers even teachers of science and engineering just simply repeated what book said without guiding students how to think critically. This statement argues that formal education are more likely to constrain our minds and spirits instead of setting them free. While I admit some kinds of formal education like "duck-stuffing" teaching may really suit the statement, I mostly disagree with it mainly for two reasons.
There is no doubt that formal education like "duck-stuffing" teaching can do harm to the curiosity and creativity of the students. Teachers in that sort of classes, as is often the case, just care about the tests for some reasons and teach by retelling the textbooks. And most students learn by rote, dare not to question when sometimes they disagree with the teachers or textbooks, and do not actively extend their knowledge according what they are interested in the topics in the textbooks, because rote seems the most efficient way of getting a higher score. Gradually, the interest which inspires us to go on pursuing the truth and the creativity which helps us unravel the puzzles disappear. This can partially explain why many student in China lack inspiration and creativity even if they seem good at study in view of their high scores.
However, formal education does not equal to rigid education and it can also be flexible and specially designed for some kind of students even individual student to inspire their curiosity and guide them how to think critically and creatively. For instance, Sweden, which has one of the best education systems in this world, advocates learning in games. Primary school students in this system may take their classes outside the classrooms and observe the nature by themselves. They may be curious about why leaves are green, share their original guesses with each other, and judge these hypotheses. Not only will they enjoy studying, but also their curiosity about nature and the ability of thinking grows.
What is more, formal education like traditional teaching in China can in some cases help us really understand fundamental laws and thus be more creative by a huge amount of practice. Creativity to some extent can not live without enough basic facts and fundamental theories. Elon Musk who is no doubt one of the best creative person in this world once said: if we wanted to be more creative, we had better think from the first principles which means the very basic laws like Newton's laws instead of its derivative. A particularly salient example is the biophysics which is a rather complicated interdisciplinary field full of basic biological facts and fundamental physical laws. The famous scientists in this field like Zhuang Xiaowei, Shi Yigong usually master these laws and facts, so they can do some original breakthroughs.
To sum up, whereas the statement has its reason, I mostly disagree with it because it misunderstands formal education as some traditional rigid teachings and even these rigid teachings can sometimes help us be more creative.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 379, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s statement argues that formal education are more likely to constrain our minds a...
^^
Line 1, column 628, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...isagree with it mainly for two reasons. There is no doubt that formal education ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 503, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...terested in the topics in the textbooks, because rote seems the most efficient wa...
^^
Line 5, column 740, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun student seems to be countable; consider using: 'many students'.
Suggestion: many students
...sappear. This can partially explain why many student in China lack inspiration and creativit...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, really, so, thus, whereas, while, for instance, kind of, no doubt, sort of, in some cases, to sum up, what is more
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 14.8657303371 148% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 33.0505617978 130% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 65.0 58.6224719101 111% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2739.0 2235.4752809 123% => OK
No of words: 525.0 442.535393258 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21714285714 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78673985869 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04210811259 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 270.0 215.323595506 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.514285714286 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 837.9 704.065955056 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.0539941946 60.3974514979 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.157894737 118.986275619 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.6315789474 23.4991977007 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.89473684211 5.21951772744 151% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.135798554278 0.243740707755 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0494653744778 0.0831039109588 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0957838105626 0.0758088955206 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0804829553878 0.150359130593 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0701789117482 0.0667264976115 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 14.1392134831 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 100.480337079 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.