The quality of education, which invariably associated with the strength of a country, is always the one of the biggest concern of parents and social communities. Nowadays, some people claim that increasing salaries level of university professors is a means of solution to improve the quality of education. It seems plausible at first glimpse. As far as I am concerned, this kind of solution is useless.
Indeed, university teaching staff, with no doubt take a crucial role in fostering excellent students, and they are supposed to get deserve rewards. However, by spending more money on their salaries, it is the simple, rough and ineffective means to address the practical issue. Reasons are obvious.
First of all, great chances are that senior teachers begin to pay less attention to students' education, once they acquire additional money effortlessly. As is common sense, money serves a double-edged sword, which creates positive effects sometimes, on the other hand however, has negative impacts as well. Giving more money to university professors conveys the information that even though you don't dedicate too much attention to improve students' academic performance, you are also rewarded. As a result, these teachers’ activities in instructing and educating trainees would decline. In other words, as opposed to improve the educational quality, the higher salaries could damage the current level of education.
In addition, teaching staff are only one of the factors that affect the quality of education. Apart from the campus' staff, it's synergies of environment of studying, the quality of management and corresponding teaching resource that makes a difference. Therefore, mainly focusing on professors is irrational and inadvisable. Schools, who engage to improve their educational quality should place emphasis on every aspect of possibilities rather than the single one. Thus, extra money investing in teaching staff presumably is a waster to some extent for which hardly achieves the demanded task.
Based on the arguments mentioned above, there are many drawbacks of the standpoint which thinks that spending more money on teaching staff's salaries would work. I firmly draw the conclusion that universities couldn’t improve their quality of education by increasing professors' salaries.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 396, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ys the information that even though you dont dedicate too much attention to improve ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, so, therefore, thus, well, apart from, in addition, kind of, no doubt, as a result, first of all, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 15.1003584229 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 9.8082437276 41% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 13.8261648746 43% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 43.0788530466 49% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 52.1666666667 88% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.0752688172 198% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1971.0 1977.66487455 100% => OK
No of words: 352.0 407.700716846 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.59943181818 4.8611393121 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33147354134 4.48103885553 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95380098794 2.67179642975 111% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 212.727598566 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.588068181818 0.524837075471 112% => OK
syllable_count: 617.4 618.680645161 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.51630824373 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6003584229 92% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.1344086022 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.3182897157 48.9658058833 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.736842105 100.406767564 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5263157895 20.6045352989 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.26315789474 5.45110844103 152% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 11.8709677419 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.250469436558 0.236089414692 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.066344925275 0.076458572812 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0511401935803 0.0737576698707 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135942541338 0.150856017488 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0236982690693 0.0645574589148 37% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 11.7677419355 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 58.1214874552 62% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 10.1575268817 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.2 10.9000537634 139% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.6 8.01818996416 120% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 86.8835125448 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.0537634409 92% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.