At some universities, students are required to take part in making decisions about the issues that affect daily life of everyone on campus, such as how many hours that the libraries should be open each day or what kinds of food should be served in the cafeteria. But at some universities, experts are hired to make these decisions, students are almost never involved. Which approach do you prefer and why?
To make students convenient, some universities hire experts to make decisions that affect students’ daily life on campus, while others require students to participate in those decisions. I hold opinion that universities can require students to make those decisions but not hire experts to do those decisions because this will have several positive effects on universities and students.
Admittedly, experts can make better decisions and help students save time. Experts know what can benefit students, making decisions to make students convenient. To be more concise, experts can help students decide which dishes should be served in the cafeteria. For instance, experts can ask the cafeteria to offer leafy greens such as cabbage, lettuce, and spinach. These kinds of food provide students with natural fiber and will aid digestion. Also, students can focus on their studies and personal business without having to worry about other things. By contrast, if students had to make decisions by themselves, they would lose time studying and attending clubs.
Nevertheless, experts don’t understand students, even if the decisions they make are better, so universities should not hire experts to help students make decisions. Experts can help students make healthy conscious choices in the campus’s cafeteria, but students may be unwilling to accept the decisions and eat the food experts suggest. For example, if experts mandate that all dishes in the cafeteria be leafy greens and prohibit all fast food, I would choose not to eat food in the cafeteria, and instead eat outside because I enjoy fast food despite knowing it is unhealthy.
Second, if universities ask students to make decisions, this can help universities save money and universities can make use of the money to attract more students. Universities should not waste money hiring experts to do such simple things that students can deal with. On one hand, a lot of equipment in schools is out-of-date, so if schools can renew the equipment and refurbish classrooms, schools will attract more students; on the other hand, doing so needs a great deal of money. Thus, universities can let students make decisions instead of relying on experts, and save a ton of money for refurbishing universities.
Last but not least, if students do not depend on experts, they can promote autonomy and practice critical thinking, so universities can let students make the decisions. Universities are not only a place to study, but also a place to learn practical skills. When students are able to get involved in things like decision making, they will have more chances to strengthen self-efficacy and develop critical thinking. Furthermore, if students can engage in those decisions, this will allow them to easily find a job and excel in their future careers. By contrast, if students overly depend on experts, they will lose many opportunities to further develop practical skills. Consequently, if universities require students to make those decisions, this will help students secure employment because students with critical thinking will be excellent compared to others.
To sum up, universities can let students make decisions about their daily life on campus because experts don’t know what students want, because schools can save money, and because students can develop critical thinking. Hence, I believe that universities have to let students make those decisions but not hire experts to help students make those decisions.
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, furthermore, hence, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, then, thus, while, for example, for instance, such as, to sum up, on the other hand
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: 32.0 12.4196629213 258% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2952.0 2235.4752809 132% => OK
No of words: 549.0 442.535393258 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.37704918033 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84053189512 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81335100525 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 215.323595506 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.411657559199 0.4932671777 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 899.1 704.065955056 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 11.0 3.10617977528 354% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.3774552281 60.3974514979 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.0 118.986275619 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.875 23.4991977007 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.79166666667 5.21951772744 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 10.2758426966 175% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.25218222795 0.243740707755 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0985649816515 0.0831039109588 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.061939544594 0.0758088955206 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167596076589 0.150359130593 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0436251575126 0.0667264976115 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.22 12.1639044944 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.72 8.38706741573 92% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, furthermore, hence, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, then, thus, while, for example, for instance, such as, to sum up, on the other hand
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: 32.0 12.4196629213 258% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2952.0 2235.4752809 132% => OK
No of words: 549.0 442.535393258 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.37704918033 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84053189512 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81335100525 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 215.323595506 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.411657559199 0.4932671777 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 899.1 704.065955056 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 11.0 3.10617977528 354% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.3774552281 60.3974514979 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.0 118.986275619 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.875 23.4991977007 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.79166666667 5.21951772744 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 10.2758426966 175% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.25218222795 0.243740707755 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0985649816515 0.0831039109588 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.061939544594 0.0758088955206 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167596076589 0.150359130593 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0436251575126 0.0667264976115 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.22 12.1639044944 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.72 8.38706741573 92% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.