The quality of education, which is 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 strengthen 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, spending more money on their salaries is the simple, rough and ineffective means to address the practical issue. Weaknesses behind this proposal 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. The information of this action can be read as encouraging irresponsible attitudes towards teaching. As a result, these teachers’ activities in instructing and educating trainees would decline. In other words, as opposed to improve the educational quality, the idea paying more to professors could damage the current level of education.
In addition, teaching staff are only one of the factors that affect the quality of education. 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 spending more money on teaching staff's salaries. I firmly draw the conclusion that universities couldn’t improve their quality of education by increasing professors' salaries.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, so, then, therefore, thus, well, 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 : 14.0 15.1003584229 93% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 9.8082437276 41% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 13.8261648746 43% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.0286738351 82% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 43.0788530466 42% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 52.1666666667 86% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.0752688172 173% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1870.0 1977.66487455 95% => OK
No of words: 332.0 407.700716846 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.63253012048 4.8611393121 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.2685907696 4.48103885553 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03640752352 2.67179642975 114% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 212.727598566 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.602409638554 0.524837075471 115% => OK
syllable_count: 585.9 618.680645161 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.51630824373 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 9.59856630824 52% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6003584229 92% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.1344086022 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.3468432883 48.9658058833 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.4210526316 100.406767564 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4736842105 20.6045352989 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.63157894737 5.45110844103 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 11.8709677419 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.206242395204 0.236089414692 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0528630840098 0.076458572812 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0459338603354 0.0737576698707 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113818280626 0.150856017488 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0284722780563 0.0645574589148 44% => 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: 13.8 11.7677419355 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.3 58.1214874552 64% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.1575268817 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.08 10.9000537634 138% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.66 8.01818996416 120% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 86.8835125448 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.0537634409 88% => 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.