A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.
Literacy is no more a rare commodity to boast about and with every passing year, we see an ever increasing number of students worldwide. This makes education a very crucial service to maintain and ideally, improve upon, for the governments. In the same direction, a school of thought believes that the curricula and the syllabi must maintain nationwide uniformity. As ideal as it may sound, I do not believe it will ever be practically possible and fruitful. My opinion shall be elaborated in the forthcoming paragraphs.
At a first glance, this recommendation sounds very convincing because it promotes equality. Implementing this idea will mean that, no matter what corner of the nation one hails from, no matter what financial background one comes from, the students should be able to have a certain set of skills and knowledge, which would make it easy for the future opportunities to present themselves to the candidates, as every candidate could then be judged and gauged at an equal level, against each other. Today, we see vast differences in the aptitudes of the students from state board, central board and international board education schools, because all these education boards follow mutually different syllabi. These differences would cease to exist, if the provided recommendation is properly executed.
However, when we probe a little further, we realize that it is not practically possible to implement this suggestion. Every country is basically an intricate social network, that has developed over past decades, if not centuries, and they consist of families of various financial backgrounds. Uniformity in education would bring children of all these families together to study. As fair as it may sound, such a situation is most definitely bound to hit several political roadblocks, as the richer and more powerful families may not like their children to interact with wards of backward or not so well-to-do families.
Another obstacle will be the sheer monumental nature of the implementation. This would call for a revision of thousands of schools and providing them with tens of thousands of teachers with equal capabilities. Such resources may not be readily available to all countries and it would call for vast training camps for potential teachers. Also, to keep up with time, schools might need to be equipped with modern devices like projectors and screens, which will again cost a big dent on the nation's wallet.
The next big argument against the idea is that students who choose to follow different education in their college must have respective knowledge base as a pre-requisite. If all the students will learn the same thing, they might be forced to again learn similar things in college, against their will. As an instance, a student who aspires to be a music artist needs not learn what a student aspiring to be an economist needs to. Education that a future engineer must receive has to be very different from a student who wants to be a professional athlete. Today's education is shaped in a manner, where students can identify their future goals and then choose a path which should lead them to their goal. Making everything same for all students will take away this vital feature and will cripple the students from so many perspectives.
To sum it up, I believe that the recommendation is formed on a very loose ground as its foundation. It may sound promising, but upon deeper analysis, it starts to significantly weaken and also appears to be practically challenged.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 489, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'nations'' or 'nation's'?
Suggestion: nations'; nation's
...which will again cost a big dent on the nations wallet. The next big argument agains...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, so, then, well, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 29.0 12.4196629213 234% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 33.0505617978 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 77.0 58.6224719101 131% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2947.0 2235.4752809 132% => OK
No of words: 577.0 442.535393258 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10745233969 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90110439584 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88633390482 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 301.0 215.323595506 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521663778163 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 914.4 704.065955056 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 6.24550561798 224% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 10.0 3.10617977528 322% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.5808861461 60.3974514979 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.88 118.986275619 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.08 23.4991977007 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.28 5.21951772744 44% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.83258426966 228% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.131544423408 0.243740707755 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0323226461626 0.0831039109588 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0337667212555 0.0758088955206 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0571628974456 0.150359130593 38% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0410556142627 0.0667264976115 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 137.0 100.480337079 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.