To improve the quality of education, universities should spend more money on salaries for university professors.
It's undeniable that the professors' salaries play an important role in the kind of education that students receive. Adequate benefits should be offered for all the university staff members. However, it's not the only factor that contributes to the quality of the learning process. Thus, I disagree with the statement that universities should spend more money on professors' compensations to improve the quality of education. I feel this way for many reasons, which I will explore in the following essay.
To begin with, investing funds in the educational resources and activities is far more crucial to the success of the education process. Purchasing the most advanced laboratory equipments is a higher priority than employees' wages. Students will be better prepared for the job market only if they practiced required lab techniques enough to be competitive instead of just reading about it in academic textbooks. In addition, organizing trips for history students to places relevant to their studies will make them more passionate about their career and hence will enhance their real life experience about the subjects they read about.
Secondly, the professor's role is becoming more and more minimal with the advancement of technology and self-learning. Most students nowadays rely on online videos to understand scientific concepts and help themselves comprehend any difficult problems in math, for example. Moreover, the rise of interactive mobile applications which are capable of evaluating the user's performance in real-time is even diminishing the significance of human assistance in getting people educated about something. As a consequence, educational institutions should set their aim to acquire the new technologies that could facilitate the transformation from traditional ways of teaching to the future of learning.
To sum up, I oppose the idea that a large portion of a university budget should be allocated to the teachers' salaries. I believe, conversely, that replacing humans with machines is the natural trend that will predominate our future.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 199, Rule ID: IT_IS[6]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
... the university staff members. However, its not the only factor that contributes to...
^^^
Line 9, column 15, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...ts they read about. Secondly, the professors role is becoming more and more minimal ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 364, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'users'' or 'user's'?
Suggestion: users'; user's
...ons which are capable of evaluating the users performance in real-time is even dimini...
^^^^^
Line 13, column 234, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...trend that will predominate our future.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, hence, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, thus, for example, i feel, in addition, kind of, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 15.1003584229 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 9.8082437276 102% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 13.8261648746 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 43.0788530466 60% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 52.1666666667 86% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.0752688172 173% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1764.0 1977.66487455 89% => OK
No of words: 317.0 407.700716846 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.56466876972 4.8611393121 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21953715646 4.48103885553 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05535120956 2.67179642975 114% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 212.727598566 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.624605678233 0.524837075471 119% => OK
syllable_count: 558.0 618.680645161 90% => 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: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
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: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.3563324406 48.9658058833 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.6 100.406767564 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1333333333 20.6045352989 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.46666666667 5.45110844103 174% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 11.8709677419 76% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.85842293907 26% => 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: 0.25217723873 0.236089414692 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0808946561242 0.076458572812 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.12151332849 0.0737576698707 165% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15076151683 0.150856017488 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.140307724267 0.0645574589148 217% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 11.7677419355 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 58.1214874552 57% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 10.1575268817 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.97 10.9000537634 137% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.36 8.01818996416 129% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 86.8835125448 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.002688172 90% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.247311828 146% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
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.