标题: [phoenix] issue50 第二次作业 by 5号 [打印本页] 作者: kusinerloo 时间: 2010-2-13 00:20:18 标题: [phoenix] issue50 第二次作业 by 5号
50"In order to improve the quality of instruction at the college and university level, all faculty should be required to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach."
The speaker claims that all faculties should be required to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach in order to improve the quality of instruction at the college and university level. In my observation, this claim is an over-statement while appealing in some respects.
Admittedly, faculty spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach have a positive effect on the quality of instruction, mainly reflected in two aspects. First, the vast majority faculties have not sufficient opportunities to confront the real-world problem because they spending most of the time in the campus, they can benefit from the experience of resolving the practical problem and have a deeper understanding of their professions. The academic standard of a college or university hinge on the faculty’s academic ability, undoubtedly the promotion of faculty represent the promotion of school. In the other side, the real-world experience could help faculty guide their students in the career, students’ destiny probable changed because of a correct suggestion from their guider. For these reasons, we can conclude those faculties spend time working outside the academic world in their professions definitely promote the academic standard of school.
However, let all the faculty spend time working outside is unnecessary to improve the quality of instruction, in my view. Although, real-world experience can be beneficial to the most of faculty, but it is not also applied to all of faculties. In the social science, real-world experience plays an irreplaceable role in a professor’s academic research, but in the science, especially in the pure theory subject, the real-world experience can do nothing except waste time and energy. Consider, an astronomy professor’s duty is uncover the secret of cosmos and celestial body, working outside the academic world is totally useless. The character of professor is another element should be taken in to account. For instance, Nobel was a prominent inventor who has contributed profoundly to our social progress, but in the coeval’s eye, noble is a crazy and ridiculous person. Similarly, while college request all faculty should be working outside, some professor probably have no interest. In short, working outside academic world is not suitable for all of faculties.
Consider the speaker another claim that faculties have real-work experience will lead to the promotion of the quality of instruction. In my observation, faculty’s experience is only one factor influencing the quality of instruction of a college, and it’s not the most important one. The quality of instruction of a college depends on several factors, including style of study, tradition, hardware equipment and so on.
In sum, real-world experience is important to the faculty, it can observably improve the academic ability of most of the faculty. But it is noteworthy that working outside academic world is not suitable for all of faculties. And in my observation, when it comes to improve the quality of instruction of a college, faculty’s real-world experience is a important factor but not the whole, other factors also should be thinking awfully.作者: ningbo1990 时间: 2010-2-13 13:08:59
50"In order to improve the quality of instruction at the college and university level, all faculty should be required to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach."
为了改善大学的教学质量，所有的教员都应该被要求花一定时间到学术领域以外去参加和他们所教科目相关的工作。
提纲：
教员从事研究领域的实际工作对于提升教学质量有积极意义
并不是所有的教员都应该去参加该项活动（既然作者说不是所有的教员，那么与第一段教员从事研究领域是否有逻辑上的矛盾？第一段应该说，承然一些教员从事工作有意义。）
一所大学的教学质量由许多因素决定，教员只是其中一个方面(我觉得，这篇文章的重心应该放在论述all faculty should be….上而不应该放在前面，这样写会不会跑题？)
The speaker claims that all faculties should be required to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach in order to improve the quality of instruction at the college and university level. In my observation, this claim is an over-statement while appealing in some respects. (开头直接引用标题是保分的一个好方法，LZ在练习的时候可以尝试下其他开头方法。)
Admittedly, faculty spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach have a positive effect on the quality of instruction, mainly reflected in two aspects. First, the vast majority faculties have not sufficient opportunities to confront the real-world problem because they spending most of the
their time in the (前面没有说明哪一个学校，不能用the,用their) campus, because/ by doing so they can benefit from the experience of resolving the practical problem and have a deeper (无比较) understanding of to their professions. The academic standard of a college or university hinge on the faculty’s academic ability (LZ这句话有逻辑上问题，LZ在第三段反应出学员只是反应大学一个方面，难道要自己反驳自己？可以加上basically or one aspect 等限定词), undoubtedly（逻辑同上句，明显我这里可以doubt非常多，我觉得issue里绝对话词语还是少用比较妥当。） the promotion of faculty represent the promotion of the school. In On the other side
（这里前面没有提及one side，是不是用in addition等更恰当？）, the real-world experience could help faculty guide their students in the career, students` destiny probably changed because of a correct suggestion from their guider. For these reasons, we can conclude those faculties spend time working outside the academic world in their professions definitely promote the academic standard(无法推出对academic standard有帮助，你第一点说还在standard上，第二点却说对学生有帮助，LZ应该加一句对学生的帮助提高也是academic standard提高的一个方面，这样才符合逻辑) of school.（该段中，LZ单独解释而没有给出形象例子说明显得空洞了点。）
However, letting all the faculty spend time working outside is unnecessary to improve the quality of instruction, （换个位置更好）in my view. Although, real-world experience can be beneficial（这个单词是这篇文章的高频） to the most of faculty, but（明显的中式英语） it is not also applied to all of
faculties
them.（没有举例信号是不是很突兀。）Paragons, such as
in the social science, real-world experience plays an irreplaceable role in a professor`s academic research, but (没有必要用转折把 while就可以了) in the science?? (Nature science or law?), especially in the pure theory subjects, the real-world experience can do nothing except waste time and energy(累赘). Consider
(巨突兀的连接词), an astronomy professor’s duty
responsibility is uncover the secret of cosmos and, celestial body, and other astronomy phenomenon
(这里犯了一个大的逻辑错误，那就是天文学家任务仅仅是揭开彗星和天体的秘密，还有彗星本来就包含在天体里所以还要改下就好。), so asking them working outside the academic world is totally useless. The character of professor is another element
aspect should be taken in to
into account. For instance, Nobel was a prominent inventor who has contributed profoundly to our social progress, but in the coeval’s eye, noble is a crazy and ridiculous person. Similarly, while college request all faculty should be working outside, some professor probably have no interest (这和前面Nobel的历史有没有相似性很难理解。). In short, working outside academic world is not suitable for all of faculties.（LZ要说明要求所有的员工出去工作是不合理的，第一点很有说服里，第二点就晕了，Nobel的例子反而让第二点更晕，建议扩展第一点，删去第二点。）
Consider the speaker another claim that faculties have real-work experience will lead to the promotion of the quality of instruction. In my observation, faculty’s experience is only one factor influencing the quality of instruction of a college, and it’s not the most important one（why? 作者在前文没有任何证明它不是最重要的，后面几个例子也没有说明它不是最重要的，我可以用argument思维快速反对。）. The quality of instruction of a college depends on several factors, including style of study, tradition, hardware equipment and so on.
In sum, real-world experience is important to the faculty, it can observably improve the academic ability of most of the faculty. But it is noteworthy that working outside academic world is not suitable for all of faculties. And in my observation, when it comes to improve the quality of instruction of a college, faculty’s real-world experience is an important factor but not the whole, other factors also should be thinking awfully.