寄托家园留学论坛

楼主: tesolchina

[主题活动] 揭秘托福GRE作文电子评分器-元月20日晚公开课习作收集帖 [复制链接]

Rank: 2

声望
50
寄托币
4
注册时间
2016-1-19
精华
0
帖子
2
发表于 2016-1-19 14:51:21 |显示全部楼层
本人授权寄托ID tesolchina持有人使用本人的习作及参加本次寄托公开课的练习答案作为科研、教学用途。
When it come to the dispute whether students should be scheduled to attend each class in the university, opinions may vary a lot. Someone holds the belief that students should be required to attend classes, while others point out class should be optional for students. On a personal note, students deserve the freedom to decide whether to attend the class.
Attending every class is the regular learning pattern we experience during the past time of our life. There are several reasons that we preferred this kind of pattern. First of all, for some students, the learning efficiency is higher when he attends the class and follow the context than that when he learn by himself. In addition, when attending class, a student is confronted with the pressure from the teacher and the competition from his classmates. However, we may need to realize that force the students to attend every class also has its feet of clay.
Actually, we have to admit that the intelligence level among the students is different, thus the learning ability also varies a lot. As an excellent student, the class he is forced to attend is just a waste of time, during which he could have done more further research on the subject he found more fascinating. As an important role in the development of education, university administrators should be responsible for those elites. Only when the freedom to decide whether to attend a class is given to the students can the top students fully develop their potential.
Apart from that, since college students are mainly adults, they should already possess the ability to manage their time and be conscious about his academic conditions. If he finds that he is weak in some subject, he should attend that class on his initiative rather than rely on the schedule planned by the school. So I think the university should not plan the time for the minority who are not aware of whether he should attend the class at the expense of the time of elites.
In sum, although both the statement in the topic are not perfect, I think make class optional can get better results in the education, especially to the elites. So I firmly stand for the argument, and hold the belief that it is high time for the college administrators to change their former practice.

使用道具 举报

Rank: 2

声望
50
寄托币
12
注册时间
2016-1-19
精华
0
帖子
2
发表于 2016-1-19 16:47:27 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
先占座

使用道具 举报

Rank: 3Rank: 3

声望
65
寄托币
259
注册时间
2015-8-9
精华
0
帖子
38

美版2016offer达人

发表于 2016-1-19 17:01:55 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 蓝涩__ 于 2016-1-20 16:52 编辑

本人授权寄托ID tesolchina持有人使用本人的习作及参加本次寄托公开课的练习答案作为科研、教学用途。
Some people believe that university students should be required to attend classes. Others believe that going to classes should be optional for students. Which point of view do you agree with? Use specific reasons and details to explain your answer.

Attending to class is a key element in the process of learning, while some people may advocate that attending classes sometimes is not the best choice. In my opinion, whether university students should be required attend classes or not depends on the charecter of the class and the reason they get absence.

For theoratical subject like math or physics, attending to class is necessary, student who miss only one lesson may find hard to catch up with professor's pace. Last semester, I have to take a seminar to another city, so I miss a class of real analysis. When I came back, I suddenly felt like never have took real analysis before, because I have no idea about many key concept the class discuss that day. Therefore, miss a class in theoratical subject may cause a catastropic result. Actually, the purpose of we take theoratical subjects is to learn knowledge, and the best way to get a sound basis on a certain field is to take class and get exercise, which is a unreplacable process.

On the other hand, in some practical class, It's okay to missing one or two class, because they're easy, and the pace is very slow, these classes include like: music appreciation, business management, English literture history and so on. That kind of classes are not so sequence and easy to get a high score once you have tough final review time. Practical subject should never force a student to sit down and take classes. The secrets of success on Steve Jobbs, Bill Gates or Kobe Bryant are never be they're taking excellent bussiness, management or basketball class, the key element of grasping a pratical skill is out of university in most of cases, requiring students to attending practical classes sometimes is unreasonable.

We all known that time are limited, If students have important and meanful event to finished, I will support them to miss some classes approperately. However, some Teenagers are lack of self control abilities while some are relatively mature. I do recommand students try to attending every class rather than let themselves loose and playing computer games like Dota and LOL.

使用道具 举报

Rank: 2

声望
50
寄托币
88
注册时间
2015-9-11
精华
0
帖子
20
发表于 2016-1-19 20:38:11 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 光霁 于 2016-1-20 21:20 编辑

本人授权寄托ID tesolchina持有人使用本人的习作及参加本次寄托公开课的练习答案作为科研、教学用途。

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Younger school children (aged five to ten) should be required to study art and music in addition to math, language, science and history.

Nobody can deny that art and music play important roles in our daily life and different people have different talent and hobby. Most of time, young children don't know what they really like,thus making them study various skills vitally. I agree with the statement because it can help children find what they prefer to do when they grow up.
Some people may claim that the most crucial thing for children is play and they should not be required to learn all kinds of knowledge. Studying art and music will increase children burdens. In my opinion,at primary school, students learn the most basic knowledge and skills and teachers can help children memorize those knowledge when they play games with children.It won't make children under too much pressure. Meanwhile, if children are required to study art and music, they will be required to learn less about history,science and math, which most children think is more boring.When I was little, I dislike history the most because there many things to memorize and reading history book will make me feel sleepy.
Study art and music will help students find what they really like and what they want to do in future. When I was in primary school,I had never learned something about art and music.However, when I entered university, I joined a music club and I found music is the most interesting thing in the world.I am a little regretful. If I find I like music easier, I will have more time practice my music skills. Nowadays, in my university, I have a lot of assignments, such as presentation, paper work , and group work, to accomplish. I don't have enough time to learn about this field.So it is the case with other students like me.
Furthermore,art and music class can help children learn how to appreciate aesthetic things in the world, which is very vital to their future development.Many adults complain about their daily life nowadays because they don't learn appreciation. If they study art or music when they was little,they can learn how to relax themselves and they will be grateful to the world. Art and music can also help the alleviate pressure and help them work with higher efficiency.
To conclude, I agree with the statement because children can benefit a lot. It can help people unveil potentials and learn how to appreciate the real world.

使用道具 举报

Rank: 5Rank: 5

声望
60
寄托币
2182
注册时间
2014-4-29
精华
0
帖子
242

训练营勇士 寄托兑换店纪念章 US-applicant

发表于 2016-1-19 21:52:13 |显示全部楼层
Some people believe that university students should be required to attend classes. Others believe that going to classes should be optional for students. Which point of view do you agree with? Use specific reasons and details to explain your answer.
老师,这篇托福作文我花了半小时写完。
Recently there is a hot topic about whether students should be required to attend classes at university. Some people think that they should be attend classes as university requested, while others contend that students should choose their classes. In my opinion, I agree with the former one, because of the following reasons.
First and foremost, it is good for the students to attend classes as required. Because the classes are open to teach the students some knowledge and skills, preparing them for their career after graduation. Imagine if the university students do not attend their classes, it will become meaningless to go to university because the education cannot help them to get what they should learn.
What’s more, students should abide by the order of the university, which also helps the university to complete its task. The university has its teaching plan to different classes and the students should be required to satisfy the requirement of the university. Or it may put the university out of the order.
Actually the students have chance to choose what they like to learn. For example, before enrolling at the university, they could choose the major they love. Furthermore, they also have options to attend some elective courses they are interested in. Therefore it is not cogent to hold the later viewpoints.
To sum up, I think that students should choose the university and the major they want to go to, and then are required to attend the classes.

使用道具 举报

Rank: 4

声望
175
寄托币
1121
注册时间
2012-3-11
精华
0
帖子
155
发表于 2016-1-19 22:17:14 |显示全部楼层
本人授权寄托ID tesolchina持有人使用本人的习作及参加本次寄托公开课的练习答案作为科研、教学用途。 - 寄托ID:law1990

习作类型:托福

题目:  Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? All school teachers should be required to attend some courses every five years to update their knowledge.

习作正文:  The milieu of modern society has generated a principle that teachers play an indispensable role in children's lives. . When it comes to whether teachers should be demanded to take relevant courses every five years to improve themselves, people's perspectives vary from person to person. Some hold that school teachers always need to attend some courses to update their knowledge in order to teach the students better. Nonetheless, from a glance at the current social circumstance, I find myself in a complete concordance with people's personal inclination that some teachers do not need to refresh their knowledge while other should update frequently. The following is my detail analysis.

First and foremost, the major reason for my propensity is that the classes taught by primary and middle school teachers are mostly basic disciplines like math and history, which are quite fixed and rarely changed in decades. In other words, teachers in primary and middle school do not need to update their professional knowledge. Instead, they should pay more attention to adopt new and innovative teaching methods because most young children have difficulty in learning. My neighbor Mike is an illustrating example. Mike has been a middle school math teacher for over 20 years and he is quite familiar with the formulas and theorems in the books. To be specific, when asked about a random formula, he can tell you which page in the math book the formula is in. In his spare time, Mike considers about how to make the students understand the lesson better and how to improve his teaching method. It is his familiarity with the math textbook and proper teaching method made his students at the top of the rank in school. We can see from Mike that some teachers should focus on more effective aspects rather than updating their knowledge, which they do not always need to.

To boot, noteworthy is the fact that teacher teachers in universities are supposed to be respond to the cutting-edge technology and newest theories, so they need to keep learning and updating their knowledge. However, five years are too long for them. If they are merely familiar with technology and theory five years ago, they will would not be able to conduct experiments and their expertise might be questioned by their students. For example, my Civil Law professor read latest civil regulations and cases every day in order to have an accurate understanding with the law. Also, when the government released a new policy or revised a regulation, which is very frequently, he will study it immediately and elaborate them in the courses for us. In a word, college teachers and professors should refresh their mind by keeping study every day and taking some courses frequently instead of every five years.

By and large, we should distinguish different types of teachers when considering whether they should update their knowledge. Only when primary school and middle school teachers are familiar with their fixed discipline knowledge and find the best way to teach can students acquire the knowledge effectively. Besides, teachers in college should update their knowledge frequently in accordance with the development of the technology and the latest theories.



使用道具 举报

Rank: 4

声望
175
寄托币
1121
注册时间
2012-3-11
精华
0
帖子
155
发表于 2016-1-19 22:18:48 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 law1990 于 2016-1-20 21:40 编辑

谢谢老师~~

<error_type> sentence fragment </error_type>
< incorrect> When it comes to the quality of learning, I think it is the degree the students master the knowledge which specific level of education requires.</incorrect>

< error_type> run-on sentence </error_type>
< incorrect> Because different level education has different goals,</incorrect>


< error_type> subject-verb agreement </error_type>
< incorrect> With this definition, I fundamentally disagree with the claim that all levels of education are limited by competition.</incorrect>  





使用道具 举报

Rank: 2

声望
50
寄托币
4
注册时间
2016-1-19
精华
0
帖子
1
发表于 2016-1-19 23:38:50 |显示全部楼层
People’s views on this topic whether college students should be required to attend every single class vary from person to person. Therefore I have some thoughts upon it that may have no common with yours. In all, I agree with the latter view that we should have our own choices among so many classes.
As you can see, so many student choose not to attend some classes sometimes because they’re not necessary all the time. What’ more, we are capable enough to learn some objects by ourselves. As a result, it’s not necessary for everyone to attend this class because it’s just a waste of time and energy. For example, my roommate has so many things to deal with, so she doesn’t have enough time to attend every class in time. What is important is that she has learned those objects during her spare time. For her, she didn’t miss any points that we should know well. In addition, she has received a lot of knowledge out of class which really enriched her life.
From what I have talked above, I think we should have the rights to choose whether to go to class. All in all, study is of great importance for us.

使用道具 举报

Rank: 2

声望
50
寄托币
50
注册时间
2016-1-5
精华
0
帖子
16
发表于 2016-1-20 00:12:02 |显示全部楼层
本人授权寄托ID tesolchina持有人使用本人的习作及参加本次寄托公开课的练习答案作为科研、教学用途。 - 寄托ID:KobWong

习作类型:GRE ISSUE

题目:Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.

Governments should fund art genre in danger within a fair and open ranking-system.
As a wild concept, art has mainly two functions: first, as a non-motivated creation, it can exhibit one’s imaginations, mysterious experiences and aesthetic ideas like harmony, balance and rhythm; second, a motivated creation, aim at communications, entertainments and political publicities.
Some sustain that governments should not put their hands on arts and subsidize them. Due to the limited budget, it is not real for a government to fund all kinds of genres; this will result in a selection, the main problem. In most cases, such a selection can only result in the fact that only the art form of which main idea conforms the mainstream defined by the government can be funded; we cannot imagine the US of last century would be willing to sponsor artists of anarchism like Dadaism, or nihilism like hippies. And if the government offers a funding, toadies are surely motivated to produce “arts” likely to be sponsored. This can be a disaster towards art, a flower only flourishes on the land of freedom.
But, think about Jean François Millet and Vincent van Gough, extraordinary artists whose value are greatly appreciated by the descendant, but ignored by the contemporary. They dead young in poverty, no one supported them, or bought their works. It indicates that administrative support is helpful, governments should sponsor arts. First of all, since personal donation will not incline to arts of which creations require a long term under market economy, the burden of maintaining civilization symbols come to governments. Secondary, government funding of the arts will help improve the organizational arrangement and structures within the arts institution so that they are able to better respond to needs, and to interact more effectively within the society, including the micro society which contributes to arts creation and competitiveness more generally. Government funding of arts will also create a widespread, systematic and rapid transfer of new ideas, new works and profits generated within the arts, which will attract investors.
France occupies the most developed art film industries, and this is the result of its policies good for artists. As far back as 1959, France had passed Film Funding Bill, and established National Film Center to execute it. Besides, as one of the most civilized nations, France has believed a creed call “Cultural exception”, i.e. the idea that cultural enterprise should avoid market’s monarch and obey logic and standards uniquely for arts. This turns out to be a set of subsidies and quota system to protect domestic film industries.
While distributing art creation funds, government should give art value priorities, other than political considerations or commercial values. Besides, it should also guarantee a fair and transparent ranking system. Furthermore, as almost all constitutions in this world give their citizens freedom of creation, unless solid and concrete evidences of negative social influence are found, government should respect artists’ spirit of independence, since freedom cultivates artistic integrity.  

使用道具 举报

Rank: 2

声望
50
寄托币
12
注册时间
2016-1-19
精华
0
帖子
2
发表于 2016-1-20 12:18:00 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 Villani 于 2016-1-20 20:23 编辑
Villani 发表于 2016-01-19 16:47
先占座
本人授权寄托ID tesolchina持有人使用本人的习作及参加本次寄托公开课的练习答案作为科研、教学用途。 As is known to all,the common practice for universities to carry out is to require the students to attend classes.Over the years we have witnessed the praise and abuse of public about it.We are also conscious that both advantages and drawbacks lie in the practice.However,on the whole I choose to become an advocate of the notion that taking class is compulsory.
Firstly,in the class students may feel the pressure from the teacher and also from his classmates,in order to perform better,he may feel obliged to learn in a more conscientious way,which gives rise to higher learning efficiency than learning relaxedly.
Also when we come across problems in the class,we can immediately discuss with our classmates or turn to the tutor for help.Those immediate feedbacks are what we always fail to obtain while learning ourselves.Thirdly,situations are such that students who claim to study some courses by themselves end up wasting their time in the dormitory or being at a loss what to do.
Nevertheless,we should also be aware that the other proposed idea,that classes should be optional is also reasonable.
Invariably we come to realize that there are elites as well as ones who are mediocre.The quantity of elites is relatively small,but it doesn't mean that we should ignore their needs.Instead we should provide them the opportunity to choose their own way to learn,since they tend to be more efficient learning theirselves.
To make a conclusion,I think students should be required to take class.But the elites should have the chance to fight for their privilege of choosing to go to class optionally.

使用道具 举报

Rank: 6Rank: 6

声望
370
寄托币
4843
注册时间
2015-5-27
精华
0
帖子
545

寄托兑换店纪念章 2015 US-applicant

发表于 2016-1-20 13:05:49 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 chengxiaowen 于 2016-1-20 18:51 编辑


本人授权寄托ID tesolchina持有人使用本人的习作及参加本次寄托公开课的练习答案作为科研、教学用途。 - 寄托ID:chengxiaowen

Some people believe that university students should be required to attend classes. Others believe that going to classes should be optional for students. Which point of view do you agree with? Use specific reasons and details to explain your answer.
思路:同意必修
1.感兴趣的课有可能对专业没用
2.固定的班级对学习有更大的帮助
3.某些专业的课程课时固定的才能达到效果

I expected to choose the classes which I may be interested in before,however,I agree with the statement that students should be urged to take in compulsory courses.
Indeed, admittedly,students nowadays increasingly enjoy freedom to choose what they admire.It’s the truth that they cannot tell the compulsory courses from elective courses, especially for the freshmen.Maybe they just make decisions for the easier courses to make fun.It’s hard for them to make the most appropriate choice and they would get some unnecessary courses for their major.The teaching affairs should set the course descriptions and plans for the students.
Also when they have some questions to disscuss with others,it makes more opportunities for them to exchange information and views.Most of time,individuals are willing to communicate with their classmates.When they meet
Let's take a medical college student as an example.Generally,students in medicine major should spend mush of time on reading and appreciating anatomy,physiology and pharmacology.Yet,the student favors more on surgery.He may contributes most to the surgery,though the medicine is really a complexed major at large.A student is accepted a quality of lessons to lay a solid foundation for himself to be an excellent doctor in the future.
In a word,it is reasonable to arrange most of the lessons for students and we can get more chance for them to choose some elective courses to broaden their horizon.

使用道具 举报

Rank: 4

声望
111
寄托币
1474
注册时间
2014-5-1
精华
0
帖子
169
发表于 2016-1-20 15:58:37 |显示全部楼层
本人授权寄托ID tesolchina持有人使用本人的习作及参加本次寄托公开课的练习答案作为科研、教学用途。 - 寄托ID:雪儿_Cindy
文章类型:GRE Issue
题目:15) Educational institutions should actively encourage their students to choose fields of study that will prepare them for lucrative careers.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
文本:
Nowadays, there's a great tendency that people prefer to choose the jobs that can make more money. In this case, some maintain that it is the educational institutions' responsibility to help people preparing for lucrative careers. However, I am not the supporter of this view since it's irrational and infeasible for the organizations that should aim to promote the well-being of humanity to do so. Moreover, it's also unfair and harmful for the long-term developments of students.
Firstly, It is irrational to ask the education institutions to deviate from their main goal, which should be inspiring their students to find who they are and giving them knowledge and skills. Back to the old time, when schools came into being, it were places that scholars discussed philosophy questions and academic issues,not how to making profits. While now the purpose of education should not be changed and the institutions should still focus on helping students to become a better person instead of setting priority to money making instruction.
Secondly, it is infeasible to figure out which field is going to be profitable in the future for every student. it's hard to say what will happen to the market and which area will be dominant after a period of time since everything changes so rapidly nowadays. For instances, the steel factories which were prosperous decades ago are beginning to decay recent years, salesmen who could earn quite a lot money may face the challenge from the burgeoning online shopping system, etc. Teachers and advisors are not prophets, how can they make sure which field will give the students the lucrative careers for their whole life? Thus, it is unpractical to ask the educational institution to tell the students to prepare the so-called lucrative careers.
Last but not the least, money won't definitely bring happiness to everyone. It is unfair for students who are pursuing for academic achievements in science or humanity developments in arts rather than earning more money to be encouraged to learn other majors they are not really interested in. Even if they believe the adverts and choose the fields that are supposed to help them make more money, it may just a temporary joy. However, they may find themselves lack the long-term development, which will be a side effects of the encouragement to only learn for profits.
To sum up, educational institutions should not encourage students to jockey for the more money without pursuing their own dreams, which is not only against to the function of education, but also may lead to truly failing for the students.

从开始审题到完成,实际用时1小时12分钟。。。缺练啊

使用道具 举报

Rank: 3Rank: 3

声望
62
寄托币
263
注册时间
2015-11-9
精华
0
帖子
39
发表于 2016-1-20 16:00:23 |显示全部楼层
本人授权寄托ID tesolchina持有人使用本人的习作及参加本次寄托公开课的练习答案作为科研、教学用途。 - 寄托ID:tibetswan

类型:托福大作文
题目:
Some people believe that university students should be required to attend classes. Others believe that going to classes should be optional for students. Which point of view do you agree with? Use specific reasons and details to explain your answer.
正文:
      Although there is a debate about whether attending classes should be optional, I agree with the point that students should attend classes to achieve their academic goals.
    To begin with, students need high GPA to prove their qualifications when they plan to find jobs or apply for graduate schools. No one can deny the truth that students attending classes tend to become more clarified about the requirements of those curriculums and usually have better average academic performance than those who do not, let alone in some cases the attendance itself can be a part of assessment when academic performance is valued. In many professors' view,  students incline to abuse their time and energy if they are absent from their classes.
    Moreover, students attending classes will benefit from face-to-face communication. When students feel puzzled about the lectures, they can propose their questions on the spot when professors want some instant feedbacks asking "Any questions?". Another case is when professors organize discussions in groups on certain topics, students will learn a lot from brain storming in mutual talks. Compared with studying alone with learning materials, you will gain prompt response from experts to settle your problems, as well as inspiring yourself and learning from others in a group discussion in a live lecture. Isn't that amazing?
    Last but not least, students will know better about discipline if attending classes is required. They are assumed to attend classes with no excuses according to the school rules. They should learn to follow the discipline which will make them accustomed to similar occasions after school no matter how much reluctant they truly are.
    In conclusion, students will benefit in many aspects if they are required to attend classes. Attending classes is a better choice for students to gain knowledge rather than a compulsory requirement to finish school.

使用道具 举报

Rank: 2

声望
60
寄托币
166
注册时间
2012-11-21
精华
0
帖子
21
发表于 2016-1-20 16:00:34 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 shingle 于 2016-1-20 21:57 编辑

本人授权寄托ID tesolchina持有人使用本人的习作及参加本次寄托公开课的练习答案作为科研、教学用途。
寄托ID:shingle

Technology, while apparently aimed to simplify our lives, only makes our lives more complicated.

Fundementally,I agree with the statement that  technologies,which supposed to simplify our lives,are now culminate in bringing more complexity.
    Given the a glance of our normal life, and it's technology everywhere.In  our modern lives,when a typical office guy,who works in a urban city, choose a vehicle to commute to workplace, he or she may use a automobile,instead of horse drive,and latter one may be the common choice several hundred years ago.Admittedly, in terms of the convenience that technology has brought to us,it did simplify our lives and acompolish this goal in an unprecedented way.
    However,throughout human's history,no matter we are making progress,or unfortunately we are stepping back,problems,every sort of problems just keep increasing all the time.For example,we human being leave the era of water gas maybe 500 years ago,and replace it with oil,and now the oil is on its way to extinction,this situation may seems to a new complexity in someone's eyes.Nevertheless,it's a bit negative in my points,and I would rather call it new challenge.
    In the process of technology innovation,maybe it creates indeed some byproducts,but who can say it's merely problems.If we only treat it as problem,and all we focus is how to eliminate problem,making things easy and comfortable,we may lose something serious at the same time.Why not treat it like inspiration ?
    Notwithstanding that technology did keep driving us into some compeletely new drama,and the difficulty seems to be increasing too,importantly,we human are changing our own lives by our own will.It's more important,isn't it?

使用道具 举报

Rank: 6Rank: 6

声望
170
寄托币
5854
注册时间
2007-6-27
精华
0
帖子
639

训练营勇士 2016 US-applicant

发表于 2016-1-20 17:37:52 |显示全部楼层
GRE Issue:

In any profession—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

********
For any establishments the man in power is a crucial role to play, be it a high school, a company, a government or the Congress. It is argued that in order to prevent corruption, inaction, rent-seeking or power abuse, there should be a maximum years for the man in charge to stay in power. But is it realistic to set a universal formula for all kinds of institutions, like five years? Not necessarily. I believe five years is a relatively short time for a CEO or a high school principal to make his/her mark and deliver his/her contributions, but for a government official or a politician, five years may be long enough to test his suitability for the job, any time longer may leads to unwanted consequences.
Let’s talk about the leadership in enterprises first. Every time a new CEO is inaugurated he has a whole package of plans to pitch: the vision in five of ten years, the profitability goal, the expansion scheme, the downsize possibility and the preventions the company must take to avoid falling behind. Honestly speaking, this is not easy job. Every CEO has two masters to serve: the stockholders and the employees. The former wants profit-maximization, the latter wants stability and reasonable salary-increase. In order to do both jobs well, he needs time to test his plan, to find out the problems, to fine-tune an existed production process and to evaluate opportunities. The stock price and the financial statements will be his score card: if it looks good, why bother to change the whole leadership after certain years? If it is not, it is not the end of world, give him some time, trust his ability to make change until proved otherwise. So why we should set a stiff standard and act like a robot?
As to education, I believe stability is crucial and frequent change of management does not benefit the school. Take the high-school principal for example: A principal’s education concept set the stage for the succeeding development of the school. But in order to formulate a time-tested concept, the principal needs to do a lot of groundwork: talk to teachers to find out what is the major obstacles facing the students; talk to the students to discover which subjects they find most difficult to conquer; talk to the administrative staffs to know if there are red-tapes we can eliminate. After doing all these he knows what needs to done and a reform may be on the way. But we can force that any reform will not be smooth at the beginning: Resistance? Yes. Uncomfortable? Definitely. But a resolute principal will not give up easily. But time is the precondition that guarantees all this can happen. Hard to believe a school that change its principal every five years has high chances of standing out. After all, education concerns generations of people, it is life-time business.
But for politician and government official, I totally agree that there should be a upper limit on their incumbencies. Unlike a CEO or a school principal whose stepping-down may have a huge impact on the institutions they are serving, most government officials are replaceable, especially those in the administrative posts whose daily job is around paper work. For these guys, the longer they stay in power, the worse the influence could be: they may try to form a close knit inner circle, keep real talents from getting in,  promoting rent-seeking behavior and corruption. I believe that is why the U.S. cap the tenure of the presidency to four years.
You may say generally speaking five years is long time, isn’t it enough for the leader in any profession to prove his capability and step down to let fresh blood in. After all, just like I analyzed in the government official case, the longer a leader stay in power, the worse his impact could be. But just because it could prevent negative influence does not mean every institution should follow the same. We can invent lots of preventive measures to avoid the bad side but keep the stability and continuity at the same time. In a word, there should not be a clean-cut in “how long”here.

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

报offer 祈福 爆照
回顶部 我要纠错