TPO-29 - Independent Writing Task
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
To improve the quality of education, universities should spend money on salaries university professors.
Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
Will spending money on salaries of university professors enhance the quality of education? Although some people may give a negative answer on the question, I strongly support it because of the reasons which will be discussed in details below.
Firstly, spending money on professors will attract more professionals in universities. Today some tertiary institutions are understaffed because the size of educators’ salaries makes working in the university unattractive for many well-prepared professors; therefore, the quality of education seems to be low. However, if the policy is implemented, many professors will apply for a job. This change will let universities to pick the best educators with lots of experience and expertise; a competition among professors may indeed benefit universities, students via increasing an overall quality of higher education.
Secondly, professors who are well-paid will be able to devote more time to their students. Today many professors who are employed by universities rarely teach students because mostly they involved in researches which will attract money to their studies. In other words, they have to keep doing their scientific studies in order to get enough money for a comfortable life. However, if the system of education starts to allocate money on professors' salaries, the educators will learn that they are wanted to share their expertise and knowledge with their listeners because financial stimuli is a good motivator for people and by steering flow of money we may alter professors’ priorities. This step leads to improvement of the quality of education inasmuch as students, who are taught by well-known and famous scientists who made a contribution in their scientific fields, will have access to professors’ knowledge, prospect on subject. Thus we may expect skyrocketing of the quality of tertiary education.
Admittedly, there are some reasons which may allow a person who thinks that in order to improve the quality of education universities ought not to spend money of institutions’ staff salaries. Chiefly, the person may aver that buying new equipment for labs, books for libraries and computers is a better way to improve the quality of tertiary education. However, I still affirm that distributing money on professors’ salaries is more reasonable step because even the best lab equipment in the world and most recent textbooks will not magically improve students' performance on their own. In fact, without well-motivated and well-taught professors with lots of expertise those new items will be useless pile of high tech stuff. However, professors who satisfied with their income and who made enough money for having a comfortable life may improve the level of education enormously.
To wrap up, professors are valuable asset; this work position must be well-paid in order to attract many of candidates from whom the institution may pick the best ones. Additionally to it, if a professor knows that he is paid for teaching, he will spend more time on teaching as well.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
students via increasing an overall quality of higher education.
Description: what is the verb for this sentence?
This step leads to improvement of the quality
This step leads to the improvement of the quality
This step leads to improving the quality
is more reasonable step
is a more reasonable step
is more reasonable
professors who satisfied with their income
professors who are satisfied with their income
flaws:
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Words: 477 while No. of Different Words: 218 //it may have duplicated content
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 24 in 30
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 477 350
No. of Characters: 2502 1500
No. of Different Words: 218 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.673 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.245 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.918 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 182 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 153 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 114 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 84 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.105 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.968 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.842 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.362 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.552 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.117 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Thank you.
Thank you.
does it mean that without the grammar mistakes I would get a better score?
Yes, ETS has e-rater too to
Yes, ETS has e-rater too to check out grammar.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 946, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...s' knowledge, prospect on subject. Thus we may expect skyrocketing of the quali...
^^^^
Line 9, column 170, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Additionally,
...the institution may pick the best ones. Additionally to it, if a professor knows that he is ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, thus, well, in fact, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 15.1003584229 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 9.8082437276 224% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 13.8261648746 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.0286738351 145% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 43.0788530466 65% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 52.1666666667 130% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 8.0752688172 248% => Less nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2594.0 1977.66487455 131% => OK
No of words: 477.0 407.700716846 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.43815513627 4.8611393121 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67336384929 4.48103885553 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1478320769 2.67179642975 118% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 212.727598566 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.486373165618 0.524837075471 93% => OK
syllable_count: 815.4 618.680645161 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.994623655914 101% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6003584229 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.1344086022 124% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.9257661274 48.9658058833 137% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.526315789 100.406767564 136% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1052631579 20.6045352989 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.45110844103 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 11.8709677419 118% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.85842293907 52% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.143262148633 0.236089414692 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0616531021446 0.076458572812 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0553118800888 0.0737576698707 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103073285988 0.150856017488 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0536037471267 0.0645574589148 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 11.7677419355 142% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 58.1214874552 65% => It means the essay is relatively harder to read.
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 10.1575268817 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.57 10.9000537634 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.01818996416 109% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 86.8835125448 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.002688172 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.0537634409 119% => 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.