A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.
The recommendation urges that students conform to the same national curriculum before entering college. This is based on the assumption that students will have a more effective learning experience by taking classes deemed important for all. Since students at a younger age do not yet understand what is best for them, how can they know which classes to choose from when they have yet to know what they want in life? Surely, having the same curriculum as a nation would enable students to focus on their studies and build up solid, basic knowledge instead of pondering over a myriad of possibilities.
Nonetheless, this recommendation disregards students' differences. While some might not be able to decide for themselves, there are also some who have clearer interests at a young age, and would benefit from a curriculum that best suits their needs. For example, fashion designer Jason Wu was discouraged from the arts when he received elementary education in Taiwan. Though he loved designing clothing since then, he was unable to develop his talents in the arts because conventional Taiwanese curriculum wrote off art as an insignificant subject. Fortunately, he had the chance to pursue an education in Canada, where he was accepted in an environment that was more open to a variety of interests. If Jason Wu did not have the resources to pursue an education abroad, his talents could have been buried due to a rigid, test-orientated curriculum. Instead, he was fortunate enough to be able to choose a curriculum that was better suited for his needs. This would have been impossible if he had not had the resources. Not all students are as lucky. If the curriculum is constrained to teaching certain subjects, students with potential in other subjects would be overlooked.
Another reason why there should not be a "one-for-all" curriculum that all students should follow is that no nation can predict the best curriculum for the future generation. Even now, when nations do not have a set curriculum for all, governments are struggling to provide a general curriculum that works for the younger generation. As Sir Ken Robinson points out in his TED talk, normed curriculum frowns upon subjects relating to the arts, and push students to pursue a higher education. Instead of encouraging diversity, students are forced to swallow a set curriculum that kills their creativity. Government policies bring forth educational reforms that cannot keep up with how fast the current industry is changing. If students are forced to study the same curriculum, they will likely give up on pursuits that do not pertain to what they have learned. This would be devastating not only for the students but the society as a whole, as the working industry highly value diverse abilities.
It is true that a general curriculum would help students attain the necessary basic knowledge. However, this general curriculum should not be the sole choice for everyone with little room for adjustments. After all, education is about helping every student learn, regardless of their different backgrounds, personalities, and talents. Additionally, no one can determine the content for the best curriculum. Having a standardized curriculum would assume that there exists knowledge in certain fields that is more important than others. Yet, no one can predict what abilities people should acquire to prepare themselves for the future. Our society would gain more from diversity, and that includes a diverse curriculum with space for creative growth.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 40, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... Another reason why there should not be a 'one-for-all' curriculum that...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, nonetheless, so, then, while, after all, as for, for example, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.4196629213 169% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 21.0 11.3162921348 186% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 33.0505617978 136% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 58.6224719101 101% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2974.0 2235.4752809 133% => OK
No of words: 569.0 442.535393258 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22671353251 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.88402711743 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97964903668 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 284.0 215.323595506 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.499121265378 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 932.4 704.065955056 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 10.0 3.10617977528 322% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.2370786517 138% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.5750494332 60.3974514979 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.214285714 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3214285714 23.4991977007 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.64285714286 5.21951772744 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.258692464831 0.243740707755 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0811319728502 0.0831039109588 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.08108794595 0.0758088955206 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.187692426007 0.150359130593 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.098244360175 0.0667264976115 147% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.1392134831 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.1639044944 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 139.0 100.480337079 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.