For the successful development of a country, it is more important for a government to spend money on the education of very young children (five to ten years old) than to spend money on universities.

TOEFL, IELTS, Personal Statement and CV Proofreading Services. TOEFL Writing Topics For the successful development of a country, it is more important for a government to spend money on the education of very young children (five to ten years old) than to spend money on universities.

  • Watermelon
    University: USTC
    Nationality: China
    March 26, 2020 at 11:50 am

    For the successful development of a country, it is more important for a government to spend money on the education of very young children (five to ten years old) than to spend money on universities.

    To improve the value of any penny spent on education, some scholars have mentioned an idea to distribute more money to very young children than undergraduates. If this change manages to happen someday, it is going to cause a lot of waste of national funds, and the consequences will not be the same as those people imagined.

    First, we need to remember that only the latest theories could contribute to the development of a country, and obviously, young babies are not ready for that. It is unrealistic for us to expect babies to make a huge difference in some areas, but more funds to labs and professors in universities could bring more discrete devices or strong enthusiasm in academic research. This is how a country gets new patents, attracts more scientists, and gradually develops.

    Besides, those babies are not mature enough to realize the importance of knowledge, and thus, an early experience of study could probably result in an unpleasant memory, which is harmful to establish an interest in academic research in the future. Babies are born to have fun, but math or physics seems not attractive to most young people. We all have experienced that young age, and I promised I would do anything just to avoid a constant math class when I was, like 5 or 6, even if I always regard myself as a nerd.

    Finally, I would like to point out that the government will waste a significantly huge amount of money if it decides to focus on young children. According to a data frame on an academic journal, only 40% of the new-born will eventually receive offers from universities. It means nearly 60% of the cost can be saved if the government could abandon the idea of the “baby education plan”. Many citizens will be glad to see the money at good use. Even a new park or a cheaper hospital is a satisfying reflection of the development of a country.

     

    March 29, 2020 at 2:11 am

    Score: Ungraded

    Issues:

    1. About 60% of the sentences exceed 20 words. Shorten/split them.
    2. About 15% of the sentences are passive. Convert some of them into their active counterparts.

    I will send you screenshots to illustrate specific problems/errors.

    Watermelon
    University: USTC
    Nationality: China
    March 30, 2020 at 2:38 pm

    To accelerate the development of a country, some scholars mention distributing more money to very young children instead of colleges. They believe this new measure will bring the country a more rapid improvement in the economy, but I doubt it.

    First, only the latest theory contributes to the development of a country, but those in 5-10 are not ready for that. It is unrealistic for adults to expect the young to make breakthroughs in academic areas. However, more funds to labs and professors could support more discrete devices and bring comfortable living conditions. Besides, more salaries may give professors a strong enthusiasm for academic researches. The development of a country partly relies on the professors and their papers and patents.

    Second, those in 5-10 are not mature enough to realize the importance of knowledge. Thus, an early experience of study could probably result in unpleasant memory, which is harmful to establish interests in academic research later. Babies are born to have fun, but math or physics seems not attractive to most young people. To illustrate, I would do anything to avoid a constant math class when I was at that age,

    Third, it is difficult to make sure the fund could get access to young children. Because the government couldn’t give the money to children directly, their parents probably spend the money somehow. People who raise the family may certainly experience financial difficulty sometime. For example, children in China always get red-pocket money as a gift in the Spring Festival. It should belong to me and support my daily expenses. Nevertheless, the fact is that I would never see the money again after first sight. This situation, I believe, happens in most of our country.

    To conclude, the new plan to spend more on the youngsters than universities will not bring positive progress of a nation. Many problems arise from it.

     

    March 31, 2020 at 1:05 am

    Score: ungraded

    [Hi, I couldn’t complete the revision of your essay because ALL sentences are poorly written.] 

    To accelerate the development of a country, some scholars mention [not a good word in this context  ] distributing [wrong word  ]more money to very young children instead of [wrong preposition  ]colleges [wrong comparison  ]. They believe [ missing a pronoun ] this new measure will bring the country a more (rapid improvement in the economy) [ wordy ], but I doubt it [  unclear pronoun].

    First, only the latest theory contributes to the development of a country [ absolute statement ], but [wrong coordinating word  ]those in 5-10 are not ready for that [unclear pronoun  ]. [ missing transitory word ]It is unrealistic for adults to expect the young to make breakthroughs in academic areas [new idea introduced without preparation  ]. However, more funds to [wrong preposition  ] labs and professors could support more discrete [ wrong word ] devices [logically confusing  ] and bring comfortable living conditions [ logical incompleteness ]. Besides, more salaries may give professors a strong enthusiasm for academic researches. The development of a country partly relies on the professors and their papers and patents.

    Second, those in 5-10 are not mature enough to realize the importance of knowledge. Thus, an early experience of study could probably result in unpleasant memory, which is harmful to establish interests in academic research later. Babies are born to have fun, but math or physics seems not attractive to most young people. To illustrate, I would do anything to avoid a constant math class when I was at that age,

    Third, it is difficult to make sure the fund could get access to young children. Because the government couldn’t give the money to children directly, their parents probably spend the money somehow. People who raise the family may certainly experience financial difficulty sometime. For example, children in China always get red-pocket money as a gift in the Spring Festival. It should belong to me and support my daily expenses. Nevertheless, the fact is that I would never see the money again after first sight. This situation, I believe, happens in most of our country.

    To conclude, the new plan to spend more on the youngsters than universities will not bring positive progress of a nation. Many problems arise from it.