The quality of education, invariably associated with the strength of a country, is always one of the biggest concern of parents and social communities. It seems plausible at first glimpse that increasing salaries of university professors would boost the quality of education. Nonetheless, this proposal could not achieve what it promises.
Indeed, university teaching staff take a crucial role in fostering excellent students and producing high quality researches. Given their dedication and efforts, they are supposed to get deserve rewards. However, spending more money on their salaries is the rough, ineffective and impractical solution, whose weaknesses are obvious.
Firstly, additional money given to teaching staff could have negative impacts on the education. As is common sense, money serves a double-edged sword, which creates positive effects, at same time however, has negative impacts as well. The information of this action can be read as encouraging irresponsible attitudes towards teaching. As a result, instead of improving the educational quality, teachers’ activities in instructing and educating trainees would decline. The Chinese football team is a good case in point. A huge amount of salaries of soccer players in the national team don’t bring them out of deadlock. Their performances on each FIFA World Cup have never failed to disappoint Chinese soccer fans. Thus, money is not the key to work out the issue of education.
In addition, the quality of education is systematic, which needs to consider all aspects of education. 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 mentioned above rather than only the single one. Therefore, 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, I firmly draw the conclusion that increasing professors’ wages is not a feasible solution to enhance the educational quality.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, nonetheless, so, therefore, thus, well, in addition, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 15.1003584229 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 9.8082437276 61% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 13.8261648746 51% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.0286738351 82% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 43.0788530466 37% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 52.1666666667 88% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.0752688172 198% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1977.0 1977.66487455 100% => OK
No of words: 349.0 407.700716846 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.66475644699 4.8611393121 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32221490584 4.48103885553 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06789427314 2.67179642975 115% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 212.727598566 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.601719197708 0.524837075471 115% => OK
syllable_count: 623.7 618.680645161 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.51630824373 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 9.59856630824 63% => OK
Article: 6.0 3.08781362007 194% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.6003584229 102% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.1344086022 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.2693263016 48.9658058833 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.1428571429 100.406767564 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.619047619 20.6045352989 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.42857142857 5.45110844103 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 11.8709677419 93% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => 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: 0.173416421005 0.236089414692 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0449460653902 0.076458572812 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0432007928027 0.0737576698707 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0877877736266 0.150856017488 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0509391474168 0.0645574589148 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 11.7677419355 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.31 58.1214874552 66% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.1575268817 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.25 10.9000537634 140% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.86 8.01818996416 123% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 86.8835125448 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.002688172 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.0537634409 84% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => 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.