First of all, did you know that [for students in the Netherlands] borrowing money for four years results in an average debt of about EUR 30,000. A student must be in a strong position to borrow money without any guarantee of future employment. Research from the National Student Union, commissioned by the Ministry of Education, shows that students, indeed, do not dare to take this risk. They see borrowing money as one of their biggest fears. This has already caused 20% of young students to think they will stop studying if the scholarships, known as ‘studentgrants in Dutch, end. Based on the research, it is clear that the scholarships are essential and that the accessibility to studying will decrease if the new system [of borrowing money/paying one’s own way through school?] is introduced . According to the Groninger University newspaper, the prospect of being stuck with a large debt for many years scares off prospective students. For example, people with a high student debt often have a lot of trouble later on in their lives with getting a mortgage for buying a house.
Second of all, if the scholarships are abolished, Students may have to try to reduce their financial shortcomings by working more, just as I have done. Almost all students agree that this leads to less time spent on studying, and that this inevitabley leads to poor exam results. All of this will result in a lowering of the success rate. Instead of encouraged, students are discouraged in developing their talents. However, Halbe Zijlstra, politician from the VVD, believes that abolition of scholarships will increase the success rate. He says: "I believe that cutting back on higher education ultimately means an investment in the quality of higher education."
Students will realize that they have to work harder to get their degrees as quickly as possible but that does not mean that the quality of education will be improved. [this looks like it is also a quote from Zijlstra. Is it? If so, you would need to put it in quotes]
Third of all, if the scholarships stop, there will be less equality between generation after generation of students who ended up with no debt, because now there will be a generation that has to pay all the money back.
As I said, students will start their careers with a debt. This prospect scares many young people off, and students will try to reduce their financial shortcomings by working more, which will lead to poor study results and there wil be less equality between the generations. On the basis of the above arguments, I am of the opinion that the studentgrants not be abolished.
Do not scrimp on the future of the Netherlands and her students!
Notes/Advice
If you begin with the words ‘First of all’, then it is best if you stay with this same pattern in the next paragraph and say ‘Second of all’ instead of ‘Secondly’. Or, you could have begun with ‘Firstly’ and gone on from there. Just as long as all of the numbering system you choose remains the same.
‘in a debt of…’ rather than ‘into a debt of…’
‘…to borrow money without any gaurantee…’ no comma here.
‘…of future employment.’ Also, there is no article (a) here.
‘…students, indeed, do not…’ here you need the comma because you are putting this word, ‘indeed’, in the middle of the sentence for emphasis.
‘This has already caused that* 20% of young people* think they will stop studying if the scholarship will stop’. Let’s break this sentence down to make it more clear. First, remove the word ‘that’, it is unnecessary in this case. Next, when you say ‘caused’ in this way, you will want to add the word ‘to’, as in ‘it caused them to do something’, so you will say, ‘This has already caused 20% of young people to think…’ Now, the second part of the sentence needs a little polishing, because it you want to be careful here: you are talking about people, the plural, so you need to make the scholarships plural as well: ‘…young people to think (that) they will stop studying if the scholarships…’ Finally, you don’t say ‘will stop’ but just ‘stop’. However, because you already used the word ‘stop’ in this sentence, it might be a good idea to find another word with the same meaning, such as ‘end’, or ‘cease’.
‘Based on the research, …’ comma is needed
‘scholarships are’ we usually speak of scholarships in the plural in English, unless we are just referring to one particular scholarship that is being offered or that someone has won.
‘will be’ should be ‘is’
‘stuck to a large debt’ interesting phrasing, nothing is really wrong with it, but it sounds a bit weird to me. I would suggest rephrasing this to ‘stuck with a large debt’.
…later’ because your sentence is rather long, you should clarify what you mean by ‘later’, simply by adding the word ‘on’ or the words ‘on in life’ so it would be, ‘later on in life…’
‘scholarships are’ here you don’t want to say ‘get’ because it is too informal. It just doesn’t sit right in this phrase. I can’t really explain why, sorry about that, but it is better to say, ‘if the scholarships are abolished…’ because it makes it sound more like you know what you are talking about. Also, you can either keep or drop the article (the) here. It doesn’t matter. I can’t explain why. Again, I’m sorry.
‘Students’ don’t need to use capital letter here.
Which is exactly/just what I have done
‘the study’ should be ‘studying’ no article (the) needed
…poor study results’ here you have used the word study already in this sentence, so try another word, perhaps ‘exam’. ‘…this will lead to poor exam results.’
‘Result in’, not ‘result into’
Scholarships (plural) unless Halbe Zijlstra is speaking of just one scholarship, in which case you should have mentioned the name of the scholarship at the beginning of your speech.
‘…the higher education’ no article (the) needed here. It should be ‘…cutting back on higher education’ {is that man a totaal idioot?}
‘…if the scholarships stop…’ you need to add an –s to scholarship
That should read: ‘generation after generation of students’
‘…who ended with no debt’ should be ‘…who ended up with no debt…’ or ‘who ended up without any debt…’
The last sentence of your third point, which is very important and wise, needs to have the word ‘because’, so that it reads, ‘…because now there will be a generation tha has to pay all the money back.’
‘…student…’ should be plural, ‘students’
‘…what…’ should be ‘…which…’
‘ben ik van mening…’ ‘I am of the opinion that…’
‘should’ comes after ‘the studentgrant’ so it would read ‘…the studentgrant should not be…’
‘studentgrant’ should be scholarship, since that is what you have called it the whole time.
Your final sentence, which is meaningful and has a strong impact, unfortunately comes out sounding like you are saying the opposite of what you mean. I think a better choice might have been, ‘Do not scrimp on the future of the Netherlands and her students!” I use ‘her’ to indicate that it is the students of the Netherlands, of everyone who lives there, of the entire country. If you say ‘our’, then you are going to make people think you only mean people like you. If you want everyone in the country to join you and be on your side, then say ‘her’ (countries are usually ‘she’ for some reason). Or, another option, which works well in this kind of thing, is to say more by saying less. So what you could say is: Do not scrimp on the future of The Netherlands! And leave it at that.
