Here are my comments:
"The problem as to who
is responsible for paying university tuition fees has been in dispute for many years. Many individuals express their approval
of self-paid tuition fees,
whereas others claim that it is the government's responsibility to subsidize tertiary education.
It must be conceded that the
human resource is of great importance to every nation. Investing in higher education, therefore, helps establish a
high-quality labor force with great expertise in the future. That is the reason why virtually all developed countries such as France, the
Finland allocate huge amounts of national budgets onuniversity studies every year (Source?)
If all students have to cover their own expenses of study in college
, the chances are that only the well-to-do can afford tertiary education. How can disadvantaged and poor students have enough money to invest in higher education when they cannot
even cope with difficulties making ends meet every day? Fortunately enough, tuition wavers and government
grants are the ideal solutions to that problem, enabling all students to have an opportunity to cultivate their academic prowess, creating a healthy competitive studying environment among themselves.
Admittedly, there still exists a viewpoint that tuition fees should be self-covered since this may discourage students spending time,
as well as the
on drinking and sleeping during college class times.
More seriously, once coming into effect, the policy of self-paid tuition fees at the
university level may exacerbate the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots, creating a highly bifurcated society.
All things considered, budgets spent on higher education are indispensable these days, especially in
a developing country like Vietnam. Not only should the authorities continue allocating resources for university educations
but they ought to provide more money to support teachers and students in boosting up their performances as well."
Good job. A few mechanical errors, but your content looks good. You have a clear stance with good examples to support it. If possible, finding some statistics and a good source for the information regarding how much developed countries spend on university educations every year would bolster your argument even more.
In regards to your questions:
-"Tertiary" technically means "third place." For instance, primary school is first, secondary comes second, and college comes third; tertiary. So, technically, yes, "tertiary" is equivalent to a "higher education," which generally refers to college.
-No. The first statement is not a logical English statment. If you want to say someone is smart or you think they are smart, go with the second.
-Social evils are just what you think. Drinking, drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc. Anything that troubles an entire society is a social evil, or "social ill." The two phrases are interchangeable.
-Really, there is no difference between these three. "Adolescence" and "teenage" are probably the two most easily interchangeable because they can be confined to the years between 13 and 17. Puberty is a little trickier because it is biological and can happen before the actual "-teen" years. For instance, some kids go through puberty at 11 or 12, before they are "technically" teenagers.
-Almost. A population is the total number of people that live in a certain area (i.e. a town or country), regardless of their social status. A populace generally refers to those of the middle and lower class, excluding the higher class, both socially and economically. It can also mean exactly
the same thing as population (tricky, huh?); you kind of have to just look at the context of how the word is being used to figure out which way it is being used.
I hope this helps.