寄托家园留学论坛 › 论坛 › 寄托学术类备考版 › GRE作文互动版 › ☆☆四星级☆☆Economist Debate阅读写作分析----Univer ...

返回列表

查看: 1734|回复: 8

[资料分享] ☆☆四星级☆☆Economist Debate阅读写作分析----University recruiting [复制链接]

艾尘草
UID：2591798

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 18
寄托币: 909
注册时间: 2009-1-16
精华: 0
帖子: 11

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-5-4 10:09:24 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由草木也知愁于 2009-5-4 14:01 编辑

标出文中的GRE级别词汇：绿色
句型：紫色
作者的写作思路主线：黄色
适应于AW中的例子或者思路：红色
注释：淡紫色
结构
1 About This Debate & 介绍
2 background imformation- intelligence

===============

回应
0

使用道具举报

艾尘草
UID：2591798

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 18
寄托币: 909
注册时间: 2009-1-16
精华: 0
帖子: 11

沙发

发表于 2009-5-4 10:19:19 |只看该作者

Over the last several decades, large investments have been made to equip primary and secondary schools with computers and teacher training. Now it is time to examine whether there has been a sufficient return on this investment. Does technology really offer substantive advantages to students? Does technology accelerate or impede real progress in education? Similarly, does technology serve as a teaching crutch（支持） or does it offer the ability to promote sustainable change in the world's classrooms? And if so, is the technology deployed today being used to best possible advantage? What conditions need to exist in schools for technology to have an impact?

Defending the motion

Frances Cairncross Rector of Exeter College, Oxford A new and dreadful sort of protectionism is in the air. It is a desire to keep out foreign students.

Against the motion

Mrs Jessica M Vaughan Senior Policy Analyst for the Center for Immigration Studies At first glance, this looks like a no-brainer. Few American higher educational institutions would be caught dead these days without a foreign student recruiting program.

使用道具举报

艾尘草
UID：2591798

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 18
寄托币: 909
注册时间: 2009-1-16
精华: 0
帖子: 11

板凳

发表于 2009-5-4 13:25:17 |只看该作者

Background imformation
Intelligence
Dimming Oct 30th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Disturbing evidence of a decline in youngsters’ brainpower
Jupiter ImagesThe hands-on way to budding minds
EVERY year Britain’s school-children provide gratifying evidence（让人满意的证据） of their increasing smartness. More leave primary school having done well in tests of reading, writing and arithmetic; more get top grades in national exams at ages 16 and 18. Nay-sayers（诺诺之人~），though, think this progress overstated, even illusory. They attribute rising marks to dumbed-down curricula, downward-drifting grade boundaries and teaching to the test. （在I中的教育问题可以说~）But even the gloomiest assessment, it appears, may not go far enough. In important ways, the country’s children appear to be becoming dumber.
Michael Shayer of King’s College London has been testing children’s thinking skills since 1976, when he and colleagues started studying the development of reasoning abilities in young people. In 2006 and 2007 he got 14-year-olds to take some of the same tests as 30 years earlier. The findings, to be published early next year, are sobering（有节制的）. More than a fifth of youngsters got high scores then, suggesting they were developing the ability to formulate and test hypotheses. Now only a tenth do. （在A可以应该可以攻击这段的逻辑错误1 30年改变了很多其实外界环境改变好多的~）

The tests did not change, so the decline was not caused by different content or marking. And since they explored the ability to think deeply rather than to regurgitate information or whizz through tasks, the results matter deeply. In the purest test of reasoning, pupils were shown a pendulum and asked how to find out what affects the rate at which it swings. “Their answers indicated whether they had progressed from the descriptive thinking that gets us through most of our days, to the interpretative thinking needed to analyse complex information and formulate and test hypotheses,” Professor Shayer explains.
In 1976 more boys than girls did well, a fact the researchers put down to boys roaming further out of doors and playing more with tools and mechanical toys. Both sexes now do worse than before, but boys’ scores have fallen more, suggesting that a decline in outdoor and hands-on play has slowed cognitive development in both sexes. Britain’s unusually early start to formal education may make things worse, as infants are diverted from useful activities such as making sand-castles and playing with water into unhelpful ones, such as holding a pen and forming letters.
British children’s schooling may be hampered, too, by the tests that show standards rising. These mean teachers’ careers depend on coaching the weakest, rather than on stretching all children, including the most able. This interpretation is supported by another, more positive, finding from the research: that fewer children do very badly now than did 30 years ago.
When asked to speculate further on why fewer British teenagers now display mature reasoning, Professor Shayer eschews local explanations and puts the blame squarely on television and computers. （a中替换用词~）They take children away from the physical experiences on which later inferential skills are based, he thinks, and teach them to value speed over depth, and passive entertainment over active. That chimes with other researchers’ findings of cognitive （认识的有认识能力）gains on tasks that require speed rather than close reasoning—useful, perhaps, as the pace of life accelerates, but hardly a substitute for original thought.
So what of children elsewhere? Britain’s are not the only ones kept inside for fear of traffic or paedophiles, or slumped in front of a screen for much of the day. “There is no similar evidence from elsewhere,” says Professor Shayer. “No one has looked for it.” Perhaps they should.

使用道具举报

艾尘草
UID：2591798

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 18
寄托币: 909
注册时间: 2009-1-16
精华: 0
帖子: 11

地板

发表于 2009-5-19 14:40:37 |只看该作者

winning announcement

The votes have been counted and the motion has been decided.

This house (in fact three quarters of it) accepts that "Governments and universities everywhere should compete to attract qualified students, regardless of nationality or residence."

Frances Cairncross, proposing the motion, warned that the alternative to such competition would be "protectionism" hurting students and universities alike. The majority of you evidently agreed with her, rejecting the argument of Jessica Vaughan that the motion was a "utopian(乌托邦)" one reliant for its appeal more on emotion than on calculation.（I中很好用）

Support for the motion may have derived, as Ms Cairncross said in her closing statement, from the degree to which the house represents a "global intellectual community" shaped already by the internationalisation of higher education. There is also, or so I would like to think, a principled stand among Economist readers in favour of free trade; and by comparing education to a "global trade in brains", Ms Cairncross has kept the argument on familiar and friendly ground.

To sum up, a well fought victory for the supporters of the motion and a graceful and perhaps inevitable loss for the opposition.（这个段落用了三个名词的排比很好的总结了上文，NN~ 收藏了）

Thanks are in order to all who participated. The debate's success was assured not only by the speakers' clear and well-reasoned arguments, but also by the guest participants, who laboured to clarify the discourseAbove all, I must thank the commenters for bringing their knowledge and experience to bear on the debate.

使用道具举报

艾尘草
UID：2591798

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 18
寄托币: 909
注册时间: 2009-1-16
精华: 0
帖子: 11

5楼

发表于 2009-5-19 16:11:08 |只看该作者

The moderator's closing remarks
Dec 19th 2007 | Mr Robert Cottrell
To my ear（A中可替换用词~）, the argument has been more finely balanced than the interim voting tally would suggest. （这句不明白）There is general acceptance, I judge, that it would be impractical or inappropriate （头韵结构在A中值得借鉴）for all universities to compete for students around the world. American community colleges have been cited as one deserving exception. （为了文章的严谨性作者进行了特殊情况的阐明）Others might be universities teaching in minor languages, and those with religious vocations. As commenter RTFSOUTH puts it: "The proposition would have you believe that the University of Lower Southwestern Bangladesh should recruit from the entire world. Why would the government or university system of Bangladesh even entertain the idea?" If so, on a strict interpretation, you might expect the motion to fail, since it invites no exceptions. Universities and governments "should" compete, and that is that. But commenters and voters are clearly responding to the perceived spirit of the motion, not to the letter of it—the spirit being that governments should not put barriers in the way of foreign students, and that competition among universities should be encouraged. I wonder, too, if we are making analogies between education and private industry rather lightly.（指出一些comments的不足之处~思维独特~在竞争话题当中可以学习此段中的关于INDUSTRY的论断~） It may be, as some supporters of the motion contend, that international competition will have the general effect of forcing universities to raise their standards. But the experience of private industry is that severe international competition tends to produce a few global winners, and a lot of global losers needing to be bailed out or left to fail. Does a "losing" country resign itself to the takeover or closure of its higher education "industry", as if it were the British car industry 25 years ago? I think not. Those quibbles aside狡辩, Frances Cairncross deserves her generous lead in the voting, for having taken a strong position and making it into an even stronger one. As you will recall, she executed a fine judo move at the rebuttal stage by taking part of her adversary's argument and turning it to her own purpose. 比喻好用法学了~If America did not want to compete for foreign students, she said, then all the more business for leading universities in other countries—such as her own, Oxford. Jessica Vaughan, meanwhile, deserves our admiration for putting up a fine fight in hostile terrain. Rightly or wrongly, The Economist is seen as a brand catering to the globally educated elite. To persuade even a fraction of an Economist.com audience to rethink the desirability of globalised education represents a considerable achievement. On now to the final interventions, and the final vote. If a successful debate is one that sends a clear signal, then the success of this one is already assured.
PS总结两个的思路但是显然后者有点。。。。

使用道具举报

艾尘草
UID：2591798

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 18
寄托币: 909
注册时间: 2009-1-16
精华: 0
帖子: 11

6楼

发表于 2009-5-19 16:53:33 |只看该作者

The proposer's closing remarks
Dec 19th 2007 | Frances Cairncross
ps 上面说的那个大牛牛出现了。。。。
This has been a wonderfully lively debate, a testament to the global intellectual community that Economist readers represent — and that the international market for education has helped to create. Three arguments have come through especially often. The first is from students and would-be students from developing countries. Most of them passionately support the proposition. If they had their way, universities in the rich world would offer them many more affordable places than they do today. I was struck by Tim A, who said "As a university student from a developing nation and studying in a developed country, I have to admit that my decision to vote Pro is based on my current stance. However, it is also true that the education I receive is inexistent in my country. If I were to compete against people from the developed world for a better living, I need a comprehensive education system that could only be offered by universities in developed world." Rarely have I heard a more succinct plea for equality of opportunity, on a global scale. Those of us in the rich world surely have an obligation to talk not just about aid and trade, but about the equality that access to top-quality education bestows. The second argument has also come from developing countries. It is that their universities raise their game because they fear the competition of the rich world. Olle a made this point on December 13th, arguing that "Considering the world's need for more and more knowledge it seems rational to use scarce resources of universities primarily to educate the best students, irrespective of the place where they were born.… it's all very easy to look just at the next-door domestic university for competition, which will not encourage institutions to do its best in a broader perspective of knowledge development… even the smallest local university college….should try to develop at least one or two world-class branches of education and research." A friend teaching at a university in a developing country wrote privately to me in the same vein. He said, "Things are gradually improving, as we have managed to recruit a few new brooms. Most of our slow and frequently painful progress is driven by fear, alas, rather than greed, because we are worried that foreign universities will come and recruit 'our' students, with the even more worrying corollary that [our] government might then no longer see why it has to support us financially". Both these arguments are powerfully in favour of the motion. But against is the repeated cry that, if you educate foreign students, they will not return to the land of their birth to help their fellow citizens. At my own Oxford college, we have asked all foreign students who come on scholarships to give an undertaking to return. We cannot enforce that, of course, in the way the Singapore government enforces the return of students to whom it gives scholarships to study abroad. But it is also up to the countries from which foreign students come to make them feel valued when they return. If they are parked in lowly jobs that do not use their skills, or treated in a disparaging or hostile way, they will prefer to work in the wealthier land of their higher education. The most difficult argument against throwing open the halls of learning to all-comers seems to me to be this one. A university education virtually guarantees a more successful career and higher lifetime earnings. The universities that students fight hardest to enter are — surprise, surprise — those that deliver the largest lifetime premia. At Oxford University, the academic community has just finished interviewing candidates for an undergraduate place next October. Turning down a student — and ineivtably, many do not secure places - is terribly stressful for the academics involved. Each student who is turned away loses not just the possibility of one of the world's finest undergraduate educations — but potentially a significant premium on his or her lifetime earnings. Of course, there are robust and clever youngsters who slip through the net, go somewhere else and do even better in life in spite of — or perhaps because of — this rejection (my own daughter is one of them). But overall, the figures show that top universities deliver top earnings and opportunities. No wonder, given the importance of universities today, that governments such as that in Britain worry about whether students from poor homes have adequate opportunities to get into the best universities. No wonder middle-class parents resent government efforts to open more places to the children of the poor. And no wonder they resent anything that increases the competition for those precious top places by opening the door to the cleverest foreign youngsters. Protectionism here is not just about protecting jobs, as when trade unions clamour for quotas on imports of shirts or butter. It is about protecting one's children's prospects. But to keep out the very best, in order to protect places for the adequately good, is not merely ungenerous: it is short-sighted and perverse. America's strength in the coming century will rest, more than anything else, on the fact that it is educating tomorrow's leaders. Britain and Australia and a few other countries are struggling to compete. Other countries have not even begun to think about this aspect of the global game. Where clever people are the key drivers of economic and cultural growth, the contest to educate the brightest young people in the world is the most important competition there is. If you have not yet done so, go and vote for it!
思路简单的举例~范围比较广泛的三个例子
然后对他们进行评价，说的都是最自然的道理
然后说明全球化对个人国家等等的好处~思路清晰~

使用道具举报

艾尘草
UID：2591798

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 18
寄托币: 909
注册时间: 2009-1-16
精华: 0
帖子: 11

7楼

发表于 2009-5-19 23:28:47 |只看该作者

The opposition's closing remarks
Dec 19th 2007 | Mrs Jessica M Vaughan

If there is one recurring theme to the statements and comments in response to the House proposal, it is that cross-cultural experience, whether through study abroad or contact with foreign students on one's home campus, is a valuable enhancement to higher education. But that sentiment, which I share, is not enough to compel support for the House proposal. Ultimately, support for this utopian proposal relies on emotion, anecdote, and unproven assumptions.(好句型。。。LIKE IT) A Surely readers of The Economist require more to persuade them. Let's put emotion aside and look at the proposal in the daylight of the real world: "Governments and universities everywhere should compete to attract qualified students, regardless of nationality or residence." One of the commonly-held assumptions about the benefits of foreign students has been dismantled（拆开） with data presented in my opener and rebuttal: because of public subsidies to higher education and other forms of assistance, foreign students are not necessarily paying as much of their own way as we have been led to believe by representatives of the higher education sector. Ms. Cairncross attempted to respond by suggesting that perhaps this subsidy should be considered an investment, because foreign students may contribute disproportionately in entrepreneurship and innovation. Nice thought, but unfortunately the facts do not cooperate. A recent study on this topic by scholars at Duke University, led by Vivek Wadhwa, found that foreign-born economic and intellectual contributions are statistically consistent with the population share — no more, no less. My venerable opponent suggested that if public subsidies of foreign students are the issue, then by all means drop them (the subsidies, not the students). Since one of the main ways universities compete for qualified students is by offering financial support, she is essentially saying that some universities should stop trying to compete, which amounts to a rejection of the house proposal. If PRO concedes, doesn't that mean CON wins? But she's right about one thing — it's not just about the money, or even about competition. It's about the appropriate roles and priorities of governments and universities. Supporting this proposal requires one to agree that what is good for one university is good for all; that what is good for one nation is good for all; and that what is good for universities is always good for the nation. I would submit that for the sake of a nation's long-term economic security, it is imperative for a government to cultivate home-grown talent and skill as well as to import it. Rather than trying to arrive at some kind of formula or quota on the proper mix of foreign vs. domestic students, as was suggested by several well-meaning commenters, I would suggest instead that some institutions decide for themselves what works, and others (those that depend heavily on public subsidies) be expected to refrain from trying to compete globally in order to give priority to local students. It is perfectly understandable that those universities choosing to compete globally would press governments to allow them unfettered（不受约束的）students. They have both academic and financial reasons for doing so. But these institutional interests do not always align with the national or public interest. While acknowledging all of the contributions that the higher education sector makes to the good of the nation, governments must be careful not sacrifice the economic or physical security of their own citizens simply to boost the academic interests or market share of universities. Similarly, universities must accept that some limits are necessary. The House proposal sounds harmless in theory, but falters under careful scrutiny and consideration of facts on the ground.（句型很好观点不赞同） It is not hard to see why so many have enjoyed a flirtation with the PRO arguments, but all sensible and realistic readers must eventually come to see the truth of the CON position. (There's still time to change your vote.) Thanks to the editors, commenters, and fellow participants for a most enjoyable and enlightening debate.
这段比上一个层次的内涵更深刻但是观点还是不敢苟同~
句型和结构很多赞的地方

使用道具举报

艾尘草
UID：2591798

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 18
寄托币: 909
注册时间: 2009-1-16
精华: 0
帖子: 11

8楼

发表于 2009-5-28 15:46:34 |只看该作者

Audience participation
Comments from the floor.

Featured guest
Ms Deborah L Wince-Smith

This house proposes governments and universities everywhere should be competing to attract and educate all suitably-qualified students regardless of nationality and residence. All foreign students studying in the United States should have a green card stapled to their diplomas upon completion of an advanced degree and a satisfactory background security check.[观点语出惊人~] Anything less is to shortchange the innovation capacity of America's economy. Border security is important and an unrestricted or unenforced immigration policy creates unacceptable economic and security challenges. However, what will differentiate the United States from other countries and lead to high-value economic activity? A diverse and multidisciplinary workforce.【指出根本原因以疑问句的方式进行回答】 Diversity of thought is critical in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Over the past 15 years, 25 percent of all U.S. public venture-backed companies, including Intel, eBay, Yahoo! and Google, were launched by foreign-born entrepreneurs. These companies have created thousands of high paying jobs and billions of dollars in high value economic activity. 【很好的例证】The environment the U.S. government creates — whether welcoming or suspicious — plays a critical role in determining how successfully we innovate and, in turn, how our economy grows. Either government enables businesses and universities to attract the best and brightest or industry goes elsewhere to find talent and locate facilities — and the jobs lost don't come back. We know that U.S. multinationals are now increasing their foreign R&D investments at the same rate they are increasing their domestic R&D. In other words, businesses will follow talent. Reliance on foreign talent is not enough to ensure future economic growth and individual prosperity. America has an edge in the global talent race, for now. American workers command as much as four times the wages of their foreign counterparts in developing countries. Therefore, they must bring to the table four times the creativity, entrepreneurship and value creation if America is going to earn, keep and grow its most innovative industries. Research by the McKinsey Group demonstrates that while developing countries like China and India produce far more scientists and engineers, U.S. multinationals are more likely to hire U.S.-trained workers because of their ability to cross disciplines, take risks and question the status quo. But this lead is not guaranteed and there are several challenges on the horizon. American students score in the middle of the pack or lower on international standardized tests in math and science. More than half of our Ph.D. candidates are foreign born and fewer are choosing to remain and work in the United States. If America is going to remain the world's economic leader, we must educate and train our people with a foundation in technical skills and the ability to cross disciplines and take risks. We must also attract the best and brightest from around the world to ensure diversity of thought and a constant influx of new ideas and ambitions【提出结论】

使用道具举报

艾尘草
UID：2591798

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 18
寄托币: 909
注册时间: 2009-1-16
精华: 0
帖子: 11

9楼

发表于 2009-5-28 16:12:14 |只看该作者

The moderator's rebuttal remarks
Dec 14th 2007 | Mr Robert Cottrell

The mood of the meeting these first three days has been with Frances Cairncross, in support of the motion, though the opposition has made up in strength of feeling what it has so far lacked in numbers.
I applaud Paul G and Cognate for raising one very basic question about the motion itself: what are "governments" doing in there at all? Shouldn't we encourage and allow universities to decide what it best for themselves?
Perhaps, in general, we should. But for the purposes of this motion, governments and universities do have to be aligned. Even if we can plausibly privatise education, I doubt we can plausibly privatise visa and immigration policy. And there would be little point in having universities' competing for foreign students, if governments were to bar the way.
Jessica Vaughan's arguments for national security have struck a chord. But so far, the prevailing （generally current）view seems to be that student visas are not a special problem, and should be a containable one. As Bluesphere puts it: "Yes, there are issues, but the state is paid to mitigate those threats." And, to judge from Ms Cairncross's rebuttal, the American state has actually been doing quite a good job of mitigation, in the case of students.
Given the weight of voting, I am going to assume that the arguments in favour of the motion are speaking for themselves at this stage, ably assisted by Ms Cairncross—and by Deborah Wince- Smith, our guest from the US Council on Competitiveness.
For those opposed to the motion, I would venture to say that three promising lines of attack still suggest themselves.
First: are we confident that we can calculate the full long term economic costs and benefits of educating a foreign student versus educating a local student? If not, the commercial arguments in favour of more aggressive recruiting overseas are greatly weakened.
Second: it would not be unreasonable to argue that the education of home students should be a priority. And, if so, how much of a priority should it be? Funnily enough, I think this consideration is best crystallised by a question from Granito, couched in the opposite sense: "If there are qualified candidates at home, but there are candidates abroad who are more qualified, why should the locals be preferred?" Why indeed? I imagine there are reasons.【这个例子好绝啊~0~】
Third, Frances Cairncross tells us that American, British and Australian universities already attract many of the best (and the best paying) students from the rest of the world. There is much to be said for such competition, and for more such competition, and who can say how it would shake out in the long term. But in the short term, I enjoy Yauponder's analogy with water rights in the western United States: "If these were all available to the highest bidder, Las Vegas would own them all, and poorer towns would literally dry up." Can it be to the advantage of even the United States, let alone of poorer countries, to have the intellectual life of poorer countries "dry up"?
A fine and illuminating opening round. Let me conclude this intervention by pointing out that, on past form, the number of votes cast in these first days is relatively small relative to the final total. If those in favour of the motion have a clear lead for the moment, there is plenty of scope for closing the gap.

使用道具举报