Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition.
Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.
As tuition fee for each semester registration, the number of students who cannot afford to their higher-level education is increasing. It is therefore understandable for people, including students themselves and other pertaining agents such as parents or other supporters, to demand the government to subsidize those who are not possible to pay such tuition. The policy seems to contain both benefits and costs, which would give a rise to a heated debate over the issue.
The first beneficiaries from the policy would be students with low-income parents. For parents, higher level education is both bless and curse: it is the almost only mean to leave their sons and daughters better lives than their own ones, but the cost of it may ruin the entire family and become a major factor for further unhappiness. The government can resolve such dilemma by subsidizing them with temporary fundings for college education. For instance, Korean government is supporting domestic students financially under the name of ‘National Scholarship,’ which bestow fundings for the registrations up to the parents’ income level. Thanks to the scheme, students with poor parents there can concentrate on studying, and researchers found out that the overall liquidity of society in terms of social rank has amplified due to the policy. However, there are also criticisms against such generous plan; there are matter of sifting students out and in.
Who deserve to get the governmental funding can be a critical factor determining the success of such policy. If not rightly chosen or designed, there would be students who falsely assert that they are entitled to get the supports from the government, and such con behaviors would make people question on the validity of the policy. Yes, even in Korea the system is not perfect. Since the Korea Foundation for National Scholarship, the main public vehicle to distribute the subsidizing funding for students, is often charged with its weak ground for assessing the income level of families since its only basis is the national health insurance cost, which serve as a rough indicator for income level. This weakness has been a source for conflicts between those who get the funding and those who do not.
Therefore, we should admit the clear limit of such welfare policy and derive a solution for it, or simply discard it when the cost due to the limit is way to high. Germany is the case where people there decided to bear the cost of incomplete income filtering; rather, they chose to financially support as many students as possible, decreasing the role of income level for governmental funding decisions. The system seem to work well so far, but we should keep in mind that such positive result heavily depends on Germany’s characteristic educational environment where around half of the students decide to opt out from higher education to get vocational education instead, which relatively lessened the bugetal burden to the government. This case might not be applied to Korea; more than 80 percent of students hope to access to college education and actually do.
The subsidizing policy may take substantial amount of annual budget to the public and therefore need desperately a consensus among citizens. If efficiently designed, it will enhance the society to become more dynamic than before, giving more students to get closer to their own dreams, while poorly designed one would simply generate bitter conflicts within the country, which will cost further.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 565, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...r the name of 'National Scholarship,' which bestow fundings for the registra...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Who” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...tter of sifting students out and in. Who deserve to get the governmental funding...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, may, so, therefore, well, while, for instance, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 33.0505617978 79% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 58.6224719101 123% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 12.9106741573 163% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2958.0 2235.4752809 132% => OK
No of words: 567.0 442.535393258 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21693121693 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87972968509 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82017034382 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 300.0 215.323595506 139% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.529100529101 0.4932671777 107% => OK
syllable_count: 920.7 704.065955056 131% => 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: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 78.7256470281 60.3974514979 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.9 118.986275619 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.35 23.4991977007 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.75 5.21951772744 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.83258426966 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.188468971414 0.243740707755 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0598774166397 0.0831039109588 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0427629033853 0.0758088955206 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112516740955 0.150359130593 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0469615347936 0.0667264976115 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.3 14.1392134831 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.8420337079 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.23 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 151.0 100.480337079 150% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => 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.