Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. To improve the quality of education, universities should spend more money on salaries for university professors.
A glance at people's attitudes toward universities' budgets brings to the light a question that has been asked several times, namely, whether improvement of the quality of education is correlated to professors' salaries or not. Although some students assert that educators with satisfying salaries tend to teach more passionately, I, as a graduate business student, believe that there is no significant relationship between lecturers' income and the quality of education.
The foremost reason why I am supporting this idea lies in the fact that it is true that money can be a determinant factor when it comes to teaching and the amount of energy one consumes; however, the quality of pedagogy is affected by several more important factors, such as laboratory equipment, the teacher to students ratio, and students' motivation to learn, to name but a few. Recent studies conducted by Harvard University, department of adult academic education, show that universities' ranking of public and private schools were completely irrelevant to the professors' salary since Princeton is the first on the list with the 20th average income of instructors. The most determinant factor for students is research facilities to assist them in understanding the new ongoing research well and practice what they have learned theoretically. Therefore, the salaries of professors do not have anything to do with the quality of training, and the universities should not allocate their budget to it.
Another subtle point that I should deem is the fact that giving too much money to the professors can have some adverse impact and that is because when people have a high secure salary, they are not passionate about improving their skills and knowledge and get promotions. For example, one of my lecturers in the college was a full professor, and he did not have any further steps to take, so he worked less than other assistant professors and did not respond to students' questions patiently. Thus, humans want to satisfy their ambitious feelings, and without it, they do not seek improvements.
Admittedly, there are some advantages to high salaries for professors. If a university wants to absorb outstanding professors to perform substantial experiments, it should devote enough funds for their salaries. Well-known instructors ask for a decent income, which is completely reasonable. Nevertheless, the rise in salaries should be competitive, and lecturers still try to obtain it. In fact, the income must be proportional to their specialties and experience.
Due to the aforementioned arguments explored in the previous statements, I personally claim that even if a university increases its professors' wages, it cannot ensure that they work more efficiently and dedicate most of their time to the students.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 564, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...hools were completely irrelevant to the professors salary since Princeton is the first on ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, nevertheless, so, still, therefore, thus, well, for example, in fact, such as, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 15.1003584229 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 9.8082437276 82% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 13.8261648746 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.0286738351 127% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 43.0788530466 86% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 52.1666666667 100% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.0752688172 111% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2347.0 1977.66487455 119% => OK
No of words: 440.0 407.700716846 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33409090909 4.8611393121 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57997565096 4.48103885553 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05120809972 2.67179642975 114% => OK
Unique words: 255.0 212.727598566 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.579545454545 0.524837075471 110% => OK
syllable_count: 739.8 618.680645161 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 9.59856630824 52% => OK
Article: 8.0 3.08781362007 259% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.86738351254 268% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.94265232975 40% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.6003584229 73% => 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: 29.0 20.1344086022 144% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 89.3188047887 48.9658058833 182% => OK
Chars per sentence: 156.466666667 100.406767564 156% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.3333333333 20.6045352989 142% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.6 5.45110844103 139% => 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 : 2.0 3.85842293907 52% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.263520180664 0.236089414692 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0848451532925 0.076458572812 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0636973571465 0.0737576698707 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140055189868 0.150856017488 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0498387642808 0.0645574589148 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.3 11.7677419355 156% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.58 58.1214874552 58% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 10.1575268817 156% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.23 10.9000537634 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.6 8.01818996416 120% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 86.8835125448 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.5 10.002688172 205% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.0537634409 135% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.247311828 137% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.