Modern societies need specialists in certain fields, but not in others.
Some people therefore think that governments should pay university fees for students who study subjects that are needed by society. Those who choose to study less relevant subjects should not receive government funding.
Would the advantages of such an educational policy outweigh the disadvantages?
In this day and age, when there is a level-up in occupation variety, debates vary regarding whether government fundings should be invested in sponsoring students who take majors in social-related subjects and neglect the ones who go for other careers. In my opinion, this phenomenon brings a myriad of both benefits and drawbacks, which will be examined in this essay.
On one hand, it is undeniable that financially supporting students who opt for helping society might be advantageous. First and foremost, once fees are paid, students or learners living under the poverty line would certainly have an opportunity to achieve more satisfactory educational backgrounds. By freely entering their most favored college, they could possibly be more eager to make every effort, therefore, get excellent academic performance and help the labor market expand. Additionally, investing in students who choose subjects that are vital to society probably also encourages government and authorities to allocate fundings and use tax more efficaciously.
In contrast, this idea also causes a multitude of problems, such as the national budget’s decline and the loss of some occupations. To be specific, firstly, when financial distributions are only used for such majors, there will undoubtedly be an increase in the number of students studying lecturing or docturing, leading to a decline in the national budget. As a consequence, higher tax might be imposed on ordinary workers or private enterprises. Furthermore, having bias on society-related subjects could result in the disappearance of many jobs because students no longer think their dream jobs are necessary for society. However, without integral components, a cutting-edge machine cannot function properly, just like our modern world missing unknown street sweepers.
In conclusion, how beneficial distributing taxes and fundings to pay university fees is generally depends on which career fields are supported. While this policy is practical to help poor students to afford a better living-standard and foster proper allocations of fundings, it could bring about some issues such as reduced budget or losing jobs variety.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 352, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...tering their most favored college, they could possibly be more eager to make every effort, the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 670, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...undings and use tax more efficaciously. In contrast, this idea also causes a mul...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, regarding, so, therefore, while, in conclusion, in contrast, such as, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 24.0651302605 58% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 41.998997996 90% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1852.0 1615.20841683 115% => OK
No of words: 330.0 315.596192385 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.61212121212 5.12529762239 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26214759535 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10663852717 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 176.041082164 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.657575757576 0.561755894193 117% => OK
syllable_count: 579.6 506.74238477 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 45.2006702574 49.4020404114 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.461538462 106.682146367 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.3846153846 20.7667163134 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.4615384615 7.06120827912 148% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.228924542503 0.244688304435 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0713461852581 0.084324248473 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0667963379499 0.0667982634062 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124340996942 0.151304729494 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0334950825421 0.056905535591 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 13.0946893788 135% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 50.2224549098 58% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.3001002004 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.55 12.4159519038 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.71 8.58950901804 125% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 78.4519038076 156% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.78957915832 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.7795591182 148% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.