[i习作temp] issue34 第一次写，球拍o(∩_∩)o... [复制链接]

catherinesjtu
UID: 2513634

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 120
注册时间: 2008-7-9
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-8-12 20:19:21 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

第一次写，感觉好难，绞了3个小时的脑汁~~求教o(∩_∩)o...

Is it necessary that students today only need to study courses that prepare them for jobs in their chosen fields--for the reason that the contemporary world is increasingly work-oriented? The author believes so, also I disagree. In my view, such a statement does not only bring about damages to the society but also largely underestimates the value of human life.

The primary reason for my disagreement with the statement is its reckless implication that people only live for work. Such a belief is an insult to the intelligence of human. Only lower-ranked animals struggle throughout their lives longing for food and procreation. We humans worth more than that, and we have a far more complex and well-balanced life than animals. What we need is more than eight hours of work. We entertain with our family, hang out with our friends, and go to the theatres with girlfriends or boyfriends. We even have hobbies, such as painting, writing, sculpting, and so on. Obviously, none of those can be acquired through career-oriented study, while many of them actually came into being through certain special principles irrelevant to our majors.

Another reason for my disapproval of a career-oriented curriculum is that, due to the narrow scope of courses, a student might miss the subject he or she actually is talented in, resulting in a loss for both the student and the society. Such occasions are largely possible, considering the great diversity of modern knowledge. Had Newton not come across the masterpieces of Galileo and Nicolaus Copernicus in Trinity College of Cambridge, the physical world of the seventeenth century would have sadly ushered in a relatively darker era. Had Churchill not found his talents in politics, although a great writer he might become, the atlas of Europe, together with the entire modern history would have been rewritten. Similar cases are abundant in various areas, including sports, show biz, politics and the various fields of science.

Further more, as proven by many professionals and specialists, a moderate knowledge of other disciplines can actually help and inspire the study of their own fields. The fact that physicists usually get inspiration from the harmony of music is evident, with eminent paragons such as Albert Einstein and Max Planck. More typical examples are Francis Bacon and Aristotle. The former gained his fame as a speaker in parliament and as a lawyer in the courts; as a writer and philosopher he consistently pursued the principles of knowledge while occupying the political position as loyal chancellor for James I. The later is worshiped by scholars throughout history for his great contribution of classifying knowledge into its various branches, known as physics, metaphysics, psychology, rhetoric, poetics and logic. Or more precisely, he laid the foundation of modern sciences. Those examples illustrates the fact that aesthetical interest and scientific view are not exclusive inherently, instead, they complement each other. And thus a blockade between different disciplines will not only hamper new discoveries, but also prevent infusion of new ideas and inspiration.

Admittedly, to state that students do not have to put any focus on their chosen fields is also impractical, which renders the students uncompetitive in the increasingly work-oriented society. Thus a better curriculum should be a combination of both compulsory courses including across disciplines which offer students basic knowledge of their fields, and a wide range of non-work-oriented courses aiming at broadening their horizon and exploit their interests and talents.