Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition

Essay topics:

Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition.

There are many people who support the idea that governments should provide free university education to students who cannot afford the tuition. This essay will argue why this argument is not easily put into action and reasoning against it due to potential downsides of implementation.
Admittedly, providing pro-bono university education to students suffering from financial problems seems beneficial because it will encourage the principal of equal opportunity and help to train highly educated human resources. Providing an equal education opportunity brings hope to people that they can overcome current economic problems and gives motivation to students to sturdy hard to go to universities. If only privileged students can go to universities, other students will not study hard and remain disadvantaged. This is a huge loss for a government because it wastes potential increase in education levels of the country, but also social complaints which can be a trigger of anti-government demonstrations like ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement in 2011. Therefore, providing free education is a good remedy to mediate social inequality. Furthermore, this will help cultivate highly educated human resources which are essential to encourage development of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and high-speed networks. Nowadays, a country’s success highly depends on development of technology, which requires tremendous numbers of university graduates because complexity of technological matters is significantly increased compared to the past. Thus, the author’s argument seems agreeable considering positive effects from providing funds for disadvantaged students because it helps training them as advanced human resources and meliorate social equality problems.
However, this policy, supporting university education for less fortunate students, also has many shortcomings including limits on budget and abuse of the subsidies. First of all, governments will suffer from a higher budgetary deficit if they implement this policy and it will be extended to decline the quality of university education. For example, when the city government of Seoul implemented free education for disadvantaged students, many university students in the city faced increased difficulty to register for courses from their universities due to the increased number of students . This happened because the city government used budget for opening university courses to support students who has financial difficulties. Furthermore, similar to other social welfare policies’ side effects, providing government subsidies for university tuition to students in economic straits could result in moral hazard. Some students will deceive about their financial status and receive subsidies illegally, and governments would have to spend additional budget and hire more government officers to detect these illegal beneficiaries. Also, beneficiaries of this policy will be less motivated to study hard and graduate from universities compare to other students who pay their tuition themselves. Accordingly, concerns on governments’ budget and misuse of free tuition provide a substantial argument against the author’s argument.
In sum, while the author’s statement seems agreeable and ideal, providing free education to less fortunate students is not a perfect policy which encourages social equality and cultivation of core human assets due to its shortcomings including limitation on budgets that would compromise quality of college education and possibility of misuse of subsidies. Therefore, decision makers in governments should consider these downsides when they discuss about this policy.

Votes
Average: 6.6 (1 vote)
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
There are many people who support the id...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...potential downsides of implementation. Admittedly, providing pro-bono universit...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 514, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... students will not study hard and remain disadvantaged. This is a huge loss for a...
^^
Line 2, column 1060, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nce and high-speed networks. Nowadays, a country’s success highly depends on deve...
^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nd meliorate social equality problems. However, this policy, supporting univers...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 597, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
... due to the increased number of students . This happened because the city governme...
^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rgument against the author’s argument. In sum, while the author’s statement see...
^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, so, therefore, thus, while, for example, such as, first of all

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.5258426966 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 58.6224719101 116% => OK
Nominalization: 34.0 12.9106741573 263% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3165.0 2235.4752809 142% => OK
No of words: 526.0 442.535393258 119% => OK
Chars per words: 6.01711026616 5.05705443957 119% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78901763229 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15054061855 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 261.0 215.323595506 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.496197718631 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 1006.2 704.065955056 143% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.59117977528 119% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.1727880679 60.3974514979 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 158.25 118.986275619 133% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.3 23.4991977007 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.95 5.21951772744 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => 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: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.315558634018 0.243740707755 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.114019515459 0.0831039109588 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.123480868714 0.0758088955206 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.223046100981 0.150359130593 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.109119142448 0.0667264976115 164% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.1 14.1392134831 142% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 19.71 48.8420337079 40% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.0 12.1743820225 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.93 12.1639044944 147% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.88 8.38706741573 118% => OK
difficult_words: 165.0 100.480337079 164% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 11.8971910112 134% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:

para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.


Rates: 66.67 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.