With the development of education, people began to consider the criterion of teachers’ salaries. While some people believe that the salaries should be related to students’ academic grades to encourage students to get better marks, I do disagree with this opinion because this behaviour may lead to heavy stress for students, a misleading way of teaching and inequity.
To begin with, it is understandable that many people argue that teachers’ revenue should be assessed based on students’ academic performance. In this case, teachers may be more likely to pay more attention to students’ grades and try to teach them in a more effective way, which may finally lead to the success in students’ academic grades. However, I believe that this behaviour may make students doubt themselves. For example, in China, students’ final admission do effect their teachers’ salaries. This policy significantly deteriorate many students’ self-esteem because many teachers use the rank of their grades to assess their ability, which made the students who perform worse to doubt their abilities to success in the future. In this case, this behaviour do harm students’ confidence while motivating them to achieve better grades.
In addition, this policy may lead to heavier burden on students and lead to inequity. Take China’s situation as an example again. In China, many students in high school face the stress of being admitted to a good university. Many experienced teachers decide to teach more talented students and ask the school to change the arrangement of teachers because of the salaries. As a result, there is a possibility that students with poorer academic performance are more likely to receive poorer education in their future which may lead to a larger gap between their academic performance and other students’. In this case, this recommendation will result in deterioration in the equity in education.
Maybe some people still believe that the recommendation may give talented students more opportunities to learn at their own pace and achieve more in their academic performance, but it is clear that this recommendation may lead to misleading ways of teaching as well. For example, teachers may focus on the final answers of questions and making students get higher marks in exam instead of making students really understand the knowledge itself. This teaching method will also harm students’ creativity and result in less opportunities to success in their higher education such as PhD programs. If it is this case, the recommendation would finally make talented students fay away from success.
In conclusion, while it may seem reasonable to relate teachers’ salaries with students’ higher academic grades, I disagree with the recommendation because of factors mentioned above. Although there are some reasons seemed acceptable to adopt the recommendation, I believe that it would not be a wise decision due to the possible harmful results.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 337, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...us on the final answers of questions and making students get higher marks in exam...
^^
Line 7, column 518, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun opportunities is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...harm students’ creativity and result in less opportunities to success in their highe...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, may, really, so, still, well, while, for example, in addition, in conclusion, such as, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.5258426966 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 33.0505617978 130% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 70.0 58.6224719101 119% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 12.9106741573 163% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2521.0 2235.4752809 113% => OK
No of words: 466.0 442.535393258 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.40987124464 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64618479453 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.013304232 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 215.323595506 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.43991416309 0.4932671777 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 778.5 704.065955056 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.5144258923 60.3974514979 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.05 118.986275619 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3 23.4991977007 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.3 5.21951772744 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => 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: 0.21949994156 0.243740707755 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0798505261234 0.0831039109588 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0612575215317 0.0758088955206 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149280287192 0.150359130593 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0427920900952 0.0667264976115 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.1392134831 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.39 12.1639044944 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.