求高人指点~
本帖最后由 Silpakorn 于 2011-7-15 00:41 编辑http://sns.gter.net/attachment/201107/10/2988290_1310270741v5Fh.jpg
http://sns.gter.net/attachment/201107/10/2988290_1310270748706i.jpg
http://sns.gter.net/attachment/201107/10/2988290_1310270869t5JX.jpg 网页用的代码和word不一样，目前只能自己动手微调 本帖最后由 Silpakorn 于 2011-7-11 01:28 编辑
Should educational institutes dissuade students from pursuing field of study in which they have slim chance to succeed? The speaker says yes. As far as I am concerned, following the speaker does have some short-term benefits for the certain educational institute, but it is sure to create long-term negative effect on the society as a whole.
First of all, doing what the speaker advocates only serves the narrow interest of educational institutes. Educational institutes, like other agencies, are also concerned about their own reputation. They are competing with each other how successful their graduates are. They are competing with each other in the number of award their students earn each year.They are competing with each other how many donations they received from their successful alumni annually. In other words, they all expect fast returns than those invisible and uncertain ones. Dissuading their students from something in which they are less likely to succeed, is the first step to count on these faster returns in the future, which may only help build up reputation for the educational institutes.
Besides, we have to answer a question: who are in the position to determine who can succeed in a certain field? Society today are profoundly influenced by practicality and educational institutes are not exception. Hobbies like music, painting and carving, are always deemed by educators as merely hobbies not a valuable field to study. They are unwilling to, and sometimes unable to recognize students' talent in these fields. In that case, it is obviously unwise to follow their well-intentioned suggestion since only these students can answer how long they are able to go in their pursuit.
Many people may contend that pursuing those difficult task would incur necessary cost, including both money and human resources, which could have been deployed to other areas. It might be true for those profit-centered enterprised but not for educational insitutes. If we take long-term benefits we can expect from our educational institutes, into account, those who are only concerned about their own interests are truly evading their social responsibilities. Education is not only about reputation. It is the way that we can nurture talent to contribute our overall understanding of the world and make it a better place to live in. Those areas, which seem to be unable to succeed right now, always have enormous potential benefits. For example, elimination of small pox, which have taken heavy toll on human beings, used to be considered as an impossible dream. In the history, a host of people had devoted themselves to the mission impossible. Elimination of small pox, by any definition, was a field of study in which people are unlikely to succeed and is also dangerous. And now no one can undervalue its contribution to our society. If people at that time were all dissuaded by their teachers from carrying out these undertaking, our world is still mired in its desperate struggle with this fatal disease. In that case, many of today's achievement might be inconceivable.
To sum up, dissuading students from pursuing something that they are unlikely to succeed only serves the selfish interests of certain educational institutes and their definition of success might not be applicable to everyone since they are unable to accurately pinpoint whether a student may succeed in a certain field. By doing so, these institutes might just stifle many highly beneficial discoveries. 咋看像北美的模板？ 本帖最后由 Silpakorn 于 2011-7-12 01:31 编辑
4# leonlong
不知道是该高兴还是...呵呵，北美我也没仔细看过啊。 ISSUE 7
http://sns.gter.net/attachment/201107/11/2988290_13104053357i26.jpg
http://sns.gter.net/attachment/201107/11/2988290_1310405335UJ2p.jpg
http://sns.gter.net/attachment/201107/11/2988290_1310405336z9fd.jpg 3# Silpakorn 1.第一段开头写明自己的立场，我觉得这样的开头很好，值得学习。
2.第二段第三段逻辑非常明确，分别从教育机构是为了私利和成功不能被教育机构定义两方面来支持自己的观点，我觉得可行。但不足之处在于这两段例子没有，有点泛泛而谈。
3.第四段我觉得值得商榷，这段主要讲追求困难的工作是有社会责任的表现。但以此来反驳题目不鼓励做不容易成功的工作似乎显得有点牵强。毕竟，困难的工作也可能是显然会带来利益的，不困难的工作也许是不能带来利益所以不被教育机构鼓励的。故这段我觉得离题了，不知作者觉得呢？我觉得应该把重点放在学生愿不愿意去做，而非工作本身难不难，这样或许更切合题意。 楼主语言很好。
说一说我觉得的存在的问题。
2,3段分两点谈了government funding 的好处。但我觉得逻辑性不够强，或者说原有的逻辑性没有表达出来。2,3段开始花了很大的篇幅谈了当前的问题，而只有一两句话提及government funding对解决问题所起的作用，我认为重点应该放在后部分。
第4段，不知楼主对integrity是如何理解的，我认为是艺术作为一个整理其各个领域全面发展。而楼主强调政府将艺术作为宣传工具，以及不同阶层的人对艺术的access不同，而并没有强调这如何破坏的integrity。
所以，我认为楼主并没有抓住各个段的主题进行论证，着力点有些偏。
以上愚见，欢迎讨论。 3# Silpakorn
最好把题目打在开头哦 6# Silpakorn
有一点语法错误，可以用window找出来的
结构比较清晰，但个人感觉用的例子不是很具有代表性 政府资助会给艺术带来什么样的好处还可以多谈一下，比如促进艺术的多方面发展谈的比较单薄 1# Silpakorn
个人认为例证用的比较丰富，文章阐述的还行 语言还挺通顺的
文中提到关于传统服饰的问题，乡村的传统服饰一定很多吗？感觉不太合理。
打字的时候太多没有空格了， 造成了一定的阅读障碍
加油哦~~~
页:
[1]