寄托家园留学论坛 › 论坛 › 寄托学术类备考版 › GRE作文互动版 › 【无名小组】第一组第三次作业楼10.18

查看: 5390|回复: 14

上一主题

下一主题

[习作点评] 【无名小组】第一组第三次作业楼10.18 [复制链接]

HeronAlps
UID：3130247

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 267
注册时间: 2011-7-15
精华: 0
帖子: 33

电梯直达

跳转到指定楼层

楼主

发表于 2011-10-18 18:48:01 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 HeronAlps 于 2011-10-18 18:49 编辑

AetDezac之前辛苦了，今天我来建楼吧。

题目：89 Claim: Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system.
Reason: Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts or minds.

相关帖子

回应
0

使用道具举报

HeronAlps
UID：3130247

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 267
注册时间: 2011-7-15
精华: 0
帖子: 33

沙发

发表于 2011-10-18 18:55:07 |只看该作者

89 Claim: Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system.
Reason: Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts or minds.

I concede that laws and the legal system cannot solve many problems of modern society, and that coming to realize this fact by studying social situations can be beneficial in how to administrate our community. However, it is literally arbitrary to assert the reason of this issue is that laws cannot change what is in people’s hearts and minds. I disagree with this given reason in mainly four respects. First, laws are basically prevention mechanism which always lags behind the matters. Second, besides laws and the legal system, we also need other methods to regulate the society, such as morality and religions. Third, the social problems can rarely be solved without enacting the effective laws. Fourth, a legal system that stipulates all matters in daily life, whether important or trivial, would certainly weaken the creativity of the fellow citizens. I would try to demonstrate my viewpoints below.

I do agree with the claim insofar as modern society’s problem should not solely be solved by laws, yet the reason evidently is not the ineffectiveness of the laws but the social problems, such as inequality and crime, emerge and prevail in some wholly new forms which previously cannot be predicted when the laws was enacted. I believe almost every clause of an act lags behind the actual matters in reality, and that is why, in the case law system, the judges have the right to modify the details of the law through his judgments. We can not account on the laws and regulations to prevent the happening of the problems, therefore, the society needs some other mechanisms to ensure the basic ethics can not be violated.

In consequence, morality and religion, which constitutes the social system with the laws, take the parts of the function. Besides the laws, morality and religion provide the masses with another principle of living to conform, thus, effectively avert from scads of problems that should not resort to the laws. As the matter of fact, in some uncivilized regions abounding with illiterates, the strength of morality and religions totally play the key roles of regulating people’s behavior instead of the laws. The reason why the laws are not fully performed is not that it cannot change people’s minds, but fail to cultivate those uneducated people into the enlightened ones.

Even if consider the situation in the civilized community, the law is always esteemed as the symbol of social ethos and the real performer to carry the thoughts into act. For instance, Abraham Lincoln responds to the demands of abolition of the slavery through his famous Emancipation Proclamation in 1860s. The trend of thoughts should always be executed through the laws that reflect the consensus, or say compromise, of various sections of society. Perhaps we can take the Civil Right Movement in the US as other example as well. Dr. Martin Luther Jr., with all colored- races in the US, strived to demand the equal rights with the white man, and, as a result, the Senate finally passed The Civil Rights Act and The Voting Rights Act as the official ratification. As these two Acts were taken into effect, the rule of political correct and anti-discrimination has already become a common sense among the American people. In short, laws not only serve to practice the solution of social problem, but instill the righteous concepts into the masses gradually.

Admittedly, there definitely should be a boundary to circumscribe the laws, in case the over-expended legal system can impair the normal ethics of society. First, it is not difficult to imagine that a legal system which regulates almost every detail in our daily lives may dramatically increase the social costs, no matter in the enacting stage or in executing stage. Second, were such legal system token into effect, it would obviously muffle the creativity of the masses, like the strict censorship for the press. To sum up, the laws should stay within its effective zone and keep flexible enough not to confine the developing of individuals.

In conclusion, the laws truly can not solve every respect of problems in the modern society, despite humans made tremendous endeavor to perfect our legal system. Yet, it is not because the laws fail to change what is in people’s hearts or minds, but, for the laws always have some places to which it cannot stretch. Therefore, morality, religions, even the human nature, serves as the rudimentary system to ensure our society’s safety and well-being.

这篇四个观点，有点长了。虽然有让步，但是立场基本是完全反对。
1. 法律有滞后性。
2. 法律需要道德宗教来补充。
3. 社会思潮能付诸实行依靠法律。
4. 法律有边界，事无巨细的法律会增加社会成本，扼杀公民创造力。

使用道具举报

fadotian
UID：2733387

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 16
寄托币: 1404
注册时间: 2009-12-2
精华: 0
帖子: 167

板凳

发表于 2011-10-18 19:08:36 |只看该作者

89 Claim: Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system.
Reason laws cannot change what is in people's hearts or minds
The statement claims that in modern society, laws and legal systems can not solve all types of the problems since it is impossible for the laws to change people's minds. I have found that to clarify this issue, other reasons also lead to the finite effect of legislation to address problems of our society. Besides, the speaker's reason for the function of law is too extreme.

Although laws fail to embrace every detail of people's mind to make instructive and restrained function, on some fundamental aspect, laws could at least assist to establish the basic criteria between the misdeed and legal action. They play the deterrent role to prevent people from put their own desire on the interest of other people. For example, the legislation could restrain the corruption and appropriating of the public resources by punishing such offenses by judicial authority. Also, by enacting the laws to allow the homosexual people get married, most people would gradually accept the differentiated selection in sex.

However, when it comes to the moral realm, it seems that legislation is quite feeble to address the moral dilemmas which are existing everywhere in society. Since people are brought up and educated in totally different environment, as well as the various cultural and historic influence, they would cherish the values in a variety ways, sometimes, they are mutually excluded. For example, one living in a wealthy business family of the capitalistic nation would preserve the earning money as the fecility of his life, while in a communistic country, one would more worship the principle if sacrificing themselves to devote into the welfare of others. Although the laws offers the right of marring between lysabines, the law could not demand everybody to accept homosexuality sincerely, nor could the legislation convict those who discriminate homosexuality.

Moreover, in other cases, even if the conceptions or minds could be enforced to change by the force of laws, they could not help to solve the problems in an appropriate way. A myriad of factors contribute to the criminal behaviors, for instance, if one's misfortune can not be judged by the courts in a fair way, one would only resort to retaliation by his own hand, even if such action disobey the laws. Further, in some cases, when the legislation attempts to make change of people's mind, in essence, it impairs some of the most significant principles that every individual appreciate, such as justify and the liberty. The case of house demolition has reflected this claim. When the government is to dismantle the houses in order to improve the transportation condition by widening the roads, the indigenous residents would object to move out because they have adapted to the environment here, how could the laws force the residents to transfer to other place in the circumstance of resisting the justice?

In sum, the law could guide and instruct the basic codes of individuals, yet it wane when it comes to the ethical controversies.
因为掐了时间，所以结尾就简单点
提纲
同意。但是理由并不完全是如此。理由太绝对了
（1）法律可以改变人们的想法。法律建立社会的一套普遍的标准，树立基本的价值观念，至少可以建立是非观念。不损害他人的利益。
（2）肯定上述的理由，很多道德层面的问题无法解决，因为这个社会不同的人对问题有不同的看法，法律无法改变人们的价值观。
（3）即使法律可以改变人的想法，那么很多问题也无法解决。因为多种因素造成了人们犯罪，a例如环境所迫。例如一个人因为得不到公正的判决不得已只能报私仇。b 例如利益上的冲突。如果你让一方服从另一方（改变想法）则会损害其他一些原则，公平性。拆迁（不拆就影响交通，拆的话就损伤当地人的利益）

使用道具举报

rourourou_dada
UID：2985653

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 394
注册时间: 2011-1-1
精华: 0
帖子: 0

地板

发表于 2011-10-18 19:27:53 |只看该作者

89Claim: Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the
legal system.
Reason: Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts or minds.

Legal system of any nations is usually be criticized by the political critics or even citizens in that there is some problems of modern society cannot be completely solved by laws . Nevertheless, the purpose of the legal system and laws is to regulate the public's behaviour and inhibit their exorbitant desires instead of changing what is in people's hearts or minds. Yet it is surprising that when time goes, laws gradually change people's hearts and minds.

The laws which was made as the opposite of what people really want in fact impair people's freedom. In this case, people will not retreat by being deterred by the laws, and they will even circumvent the legal system at the risk of punishment to achieve what they want. The act of forcing oppression inevitably bring about counterproductive effects. The Prohibition was carried out in 1920 by the Volstead Act to hope to solve the problems of domestic violence caused by alcoholism, which ignored the ordinary need of drink. The prosperity of the black market, the higher rate of violence accidents and the corruption of government officials to drink resulted in the repealing the act later. From this case, some problems cannot be resolved only by laws and the legal systems, especially when they are relevant to people's hearts and minds.

The laws and legal system, however, are not created to change people's hearts or minds. It is just to regulate people's daily behaviours which will not hurt one another or harm the benefits of the whole society. Just like that it is hard to negate that seven deadly sins——lust, gluttony, avarice, sloth, wrath, vanity, covetousness——are people's nature, people are restricted themselves only by gospel. Laws and legal systems have the similar functions, and the only distinction is people who break the laws will have a concrete punishments. Laws are created from the moral rules which to forbid mankind to do damage to others including people and societies. Through the source and reason of creation of laws, it is now clear to us that the goal of enacting laws is to make countries develop on the way in order which is irrelevant to people's hearts and minds.

Although the aim of the goal is not to change people's hearts and minds, when people are told what to do and what not to do for a long time, they will form a system of morality by their own. The process of evolvement is like the formation of culture and customs which is told and passed on from one generation to another, so that people change their hearts and behaviours as traditions. In similar, laws and legal system gradually enable people to formulate a concept what could do and what could not by regulating their behaviours. Abraham Lincoln put forward the Emancipation Proclamation to propose the equity between the slaves and the public. There was still opposition to the laws at that time, but till now, it is nearly that no one thinks it is somewhat wrong. Thus, laws and legal system actually affect people's hearts and minds, even if their purpose is not to change people's hearts but to regulate their behaviours.

In conclusion, laws and legal systems cannot solve all the problems which are opposed to what the most people's needs. Yet it is laws' goal to change people's hearts and minds; so it is unfair to blame laws for their ineffectiveness according to that they cannot change people's ideas sometimes. In fact, laws can gradually affect what in people's mind and hearts by regulating their behaviours to form their own moral standards.

使用道具举报

fadotian
UID：2733387

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 16
寄托币: 1404
注册时间: 2009-12-2
精华: 0
帖子: 167

5楼

发表于 2011-10-18 19:40:28 |只看该作者

I concede that laws and the legal system cannot solve many problems of modern society, and that coming to realize this fact by studying social situations can be beneficial in how to administrate our community. However, it is literally arbitrary to assert the reason of this issue is that laws cannot change what is in people’s hearts and minds(这句话感觉语法有点问题，it is ....后面还有一个 is that .....). I disagree with this given reason in mainly four respects. First, laws are basically prevention mechanism which always lags behind the matters. Second, besides laws and the legal system, we also need other methods to regulate the society, such as morality and religions. Third, the social problems can rarely be solved without enacting the effective laws. Fourth, a legal system that stipulates(这个词用得好，学下） all matters in daily life, whether important or trivial, would certainly weaken the creativity of the fellow citizens. I would try to demonstrate my viewpoints below.

I do agree with the claim insofar as modern society’s problem should not solely be solved by laws, yet the reason evidently is not the ineffectiveness of the laws but the social problems, such as inequality and crime, emerge and prevail in some wholly new forms which previously cannot be predicted when the laws was enacted(我觉得这里定语好多，直接说new forms of inequality and crime emerge and prevail after the prior laws). I believe almost every clause of an act lags behind the actual matters in reality, and that is why, in the case law system, the judges have the right to modify the details of the law through his judgments(立法不是要走很多程序么？不是只有一个法官就可以决定的吧）. We can not account（depend) on the laws and regulations to prevent the happening of the problems, therefore, the society needs some other mechanisms to ensure the basic ethics(用principles或者codes?) can not be violated(这个过渡不错）.

In consequence, morality and religion, which constitutes the social system with the laws, take the parts of the function. Besides the laws, morality and religion provide the masses with another principle of living to conform, thus, effectively avert from scads of problems that should not resort to the laws（后半句和前半句是相同的意思吧，后半句我又看不懂啦）. As the matter of fact, in some uncivilized regions abounding with illiterates, the strength of morality and religions totally play the key roles of regulating people’s behavior instead of the laws. The reason why the laws are not fully performed is not that it cannot change people’s minds, but fail to cultivate those uneducated people into the enlightened ones.

Even if consider（considering) the situation in the civilized community, the law is always esteemed as the symbol of social ethos and the real performer to carry the thoughts into act.(这里为什么要让步呢？是接着上面的uncivilized的来说吗？但是上面说在未开化的社会，宗教之类是主要的，而这句说，即使考虑到文明社会，法律也总是呗认为是社会道德的象征。这两句联系不大吧，求解释） For instance, Abraham Lincoln responds to the demands of abolition of the slavery through his famous Emancipation Proclamation in 1860s. The trend of thoughts should always be executed through the laws that reflect the consensus, or say compromise, of various sections of society. Perhaps we can take the Civil Right Movement in the US as other example as well. Dr. Martin Luther Jr., with all colored- races in the US, strived to demand the equal rights with the white man, and, as a result, the Senate finally passed The Civil Rights Act and The Voting Rights Act as the official ratification. As these two Acts were taken into effect, the rule of political correct and anti-discrimination has already become a common sense among the American people. In short, laws not only serve to practice the solution of social problem, but instill the righteous concepts into the masses gradually. （这段是说law的作用么？）

Admittedly, there definitely should be a boundary to circumscribe the laws（限制法律?法律是不能被限制的吧，我觉得应该防止rigorous laws）, in case the over-expended legal system can impair the normal ethics of society. First, it is not difficult to imagine that a legal system which regulates almost every detail in our daily lives may dramatically increase the social costs, no matter in the enacting stage or in executing stage（老实说这半句我觉得多余）. Second, were such legal system token（taken) into effect, it would obviously muffle the creativity of the masses, like the strict censorship for the press. To sum up, the laws should stay within its effective zone and keep flexible(法律要很灵活吗？一般法律都是比较objective的吧，如果法律随便变动的话哪来的说服力呢？） enough not to confine the developing of individuals.

In conclusion, the laws truly can not solve every respect of problems in the modern society, despite humans made tremendous endeavor to perfect our legal system. Yet, it is not because the laws fail to change what is in people’s hearts or minds, but, for the laws always have some places to which it cannot stretch. Therefore, morality, religions, even the human nature, serves as the rudimentary system to ensure our society’s safety and well-being.

1. 法律有滞后性。
2. 法律需要道德宗教来补充。
3. 社会思潮能付诸实行依靠法律。（我觉得这一段似乎是在说法律优点）
4. 法律有边界，事无巨细的法律会增加社会成本，扼杀公民创造力。
那么既然1.2.4都是说缺点，为什么3说优点夹在中间呢？
我的观点，仅供参考~

使用道具举报

AetDezac
UID：3182074

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 2
寄托币: 356
注册时间: 2011-10-7
精华: 0
帖子: 8

6楼

发表于 2011-10-18 20:24:47 |只看该作者

89 Claim: Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system.
Reason: Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts or minds.

Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.

The speaker gave bitter comment on the use of legal systems today, circumscribing a limited scope for it. What lends credibility for the claim is the presumption that laws are meritless in changing people’s thought. For the conclusion of the speaker I fully agree, though the ambiguous term ‘many’ threatens to ruin the sensibleness of the whole proposition and therefore needs clarifying. I nevertheless reject the reason on which the unexceptionable conclusion is deduced, and I dare to search for more solid reason in this essay.

In this essay I would consider both areas not meant to be regulated by legal systems and those where laws are proper to exert power. In both cases, we find numerous examples of my viewpoint. Since modern men often have the illusion that all aspects of life, given the reasonableness of them, should be governed by ‘laws’ as in the physical world, it is advisable to start with pointing out areas outside the clout of laws. My position is that purely private affairs can not be guided by laws. For example, one can decide how to spend a Saturday night, whether by doing something helpful to himself, or by drinking in local bars. In the process he may encounter decisions concerning spending money. And it is his freedom to spend the money in any manner so long as he does not endanger others’ rights. For the rights he owns, at least under some constitutions, he may choose to abandon or part with other people. Laws do form the boundaries of these activities, but they do not fix the problems occurring within. Among sciences, economics, rather than jurisprudence, best solves problems of such kind, because it focuses on the allocation of rare resources like money and free time.

In areas meant to be regulated by laws, being mainly public and interpersonal affairs, we discover problems not solvable through legal means as well. In today’s world, myriad of new things spout into existence every second, bringing even more problems than legislature could possibly respond to swiftly. Consider environment problems. We observe clearly how serious the problems must have been in the face of rising temperature across globe and melting icecaps, but little has been done to guide people’s behavior in the form of legislature. In smaller scale, routine interpersonal activities involve problems unsolvable by laws as well. These include mainly undefined or fuzzy terms, or simply new situations unthought of beforehand. For example, is it right for a photographer to take photos of passers-by without permission, for the sake of creation of art? This became a problem only after photographers began to do so out in the streets, and legal systems today can not determine decisively whether this is an illegal action. Such problems would be better settled by moral education, or by seeking consent, either in a small group of people or among nations.

Applauding as I may be towards his claim, I strongly oppose to the speaker’s assumption that laws cannot modify people’s minds. To note that a large proportion of moral doctrines formulates under the instillation of past laws, is to substantiate my position. Hans Reichenbach, the American philosopher, once commented on Kant’s moral system (and I paraphrase) that the system was an image of Prussian social structures, including the legal structure in the society. What Anglo-Saxon philosophers tend to argue about mores is so disparage from that by German philosophers and both resemble so astoundingly to the individualism and federalism tradition of legislature, that one can hardly think of mores and legislature as unrelated. Laws have also served to modify some of the most ancient habits of human nature, such as the desire to kill, to use violence, or to deceit. The common habits of thinking shared by most modern humans have been shaped, or, in a stronger sense, domesticated by laws.

Here ends my brief essay. In sum, although I cannot agree with the speaker’s reason for my observation contradicts it; I sincerely believe in the claim that many problems in present societies cannot be solved by laws alone. Indeed it would be very undesirable if all problems can be solved by law, for that means the elimination of private space for individuals. Other problems, on the other hand, can be settled by law but today’s legislature simply could not keep in pace with changing circumstances.

中无有义，无得无失。

使用道具举报

rourourou_dada
UID：2985653

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 394
注册时间: 2011-1-1
精华: 0
帖子: 0

7楼

发表于 2011-10-18 20:27:17 |只看该作者

2# HeronAlps

I concede that laws and the legal system cannot solve many problems of modern society, and that coming to realize this fact by studying social situations can be beneficial in how to administrate our community. However, it is literally arbitrary to assert the reason of this issue is that laws cannot change what is in people’s hearts and minds. I disagree with this given reason in mainly four respects. First, laws are basically prevention mechanism which always lags behind the matters. Second, besides laws and the legal system, we also need other methods to regulate the society, such as morality and religions. Third, the social problems can rarely be solved without enacting the effective laws. Fourth, a legal system that stipulates all matters in daily life, whether important or trivial, would certainly weaken the creativity of the fellow citizens. I would try to demonstrate my viewpoints below.这四个论点是1、2、4反对，3支持吗？我觉得不要分开，3直接放到最后段或开头段，否则思路显得不清

I do agree with the claim insofar as modern society’s problem should not solely be solved by laws, yet the reason evidently is not the ineffectiveness of the laws but the social problems, such as inequality and crime, emerge and prevail in some wholly new forms which previously cannot be predicted when the laws was enacted. I believe almost every clause of an act lags behind the actual matters in reality, and that is why, in the case law system, the judges have the right to modify the details of the law through his judgments. We can not account on the laws and regulations to prevent the happening of the problems, therefore, the society needs some other mechanisms to ensure the basic ethics can not be violated.法律滞后性这个观点很不错

In consequence, morality and religion, which constitutes the social system with the laws, take the parts of the function. Besides the laws, morality and religion provide the masses with another principle of living to conform, thus, effectively avert from scads of problems that should not resort to the laws.不是不应该求助法律吧 As the matter of fact, in some uncivilized regions abounding with illiterates, the strength of morality and religions totally play the key roles of regulating people’s behavior instead of the laws. The reason why the laws are not fully performed is not that it cannot change people’s minds, but fail to cultivate those uneducated people into the enlightened ones.未开化的地区现在毕竟不太多吧，这样太夸张了

Even if consider the situation in the civilized community, the law is always esteemed as the symbol of social ethos and the real performer to carry the thoughts into act. For instance, Abraham Lincoln responds to the demands of abolition of the slavery through his famous Emancipation Proclamation in 1860s. The trend of thoughts should always be executed through the laws that reflect the consensus, or say compromise, of various sections of society. Perhaps we can take the Civil Right Movement in the US as other example as well. Dr. Martin Luther Jr., with all colored- races in the US, strived to demand the equal rights with the white man, and, as a result, the Senate finally passed The Civil Rights Act and The Voting Rights Act as the official ratification. As these two Acts were taken into effect, the rule of political correct and anti-discrimination has already become a common sense among the American people. In short, laws not only serve to practice the solution of social problem, but instill the righteous concepts into the masses gradually.法律能影响人的想法。上段一直提到法律并不是不能影响人的想法，就把这段提前吧

Admittedly, there definitely should be a boundary to circumscribe the laws, in case the over-expended legal system can impair the normal ethics of society. First, it is not difficult to imagine that a legal system which regulates almost every detail in our daily lives may dramatically increase the social costs, no matter in the enacting stage or in executing stage. Second, were such legal system token into effect, it would obviously muffle the creativity of the masses, like the strict censorship for the press. To sum up, the laws should stay within its effective zone and keep flexible enough not to confine the developing of individuals.有条件限制的立法~

In conclusion, the laws truly can not solve every respect of problems in the modern society, despite humans made tremendous endeavor to perfect our legal system. Yet, it is not because the laws fail to change what is in people’s hearts or minds, but, for the laws always have some places to which it cannot stretch. Therefore, morality, religions, even the human nature, serves as the rudimentary system to ensure our society’s safety and well-being.

使用道具举报

rourourou_dada
UID：2985653

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 394
注册时间: 2011-1-1
精华: 0
帖子: 0

8楼

发表于 2011-10-18 20:40:06 |只看该作者

3# fadotian

The statement claims that in modern society, laws and legal systems can not solve all types of the problems since it is impossible for the laws to change people's minds. I have found that to clarify this issue, other reasons also lead to the finite effect of legislation to address problems of our society. Besides, the speaker's reason for the function of law is too extreme.

Although laws fail to embrace every detail of people's mind to make instructive and restrained function, on some fundamental aspect, laws could at least assist to establish the basic criteria between the misdeed and legal action. They play the deterrent role to prevent people from put（应该是putting） their own desire on the interest of other people. For example, the legislation could restrain the corruption and appropriating of the public resources by punishing such offenses by judicial authority. Also, by enacting the laws to allow the homosexual people get married, most people would gradually accept the differentiated selection in sex.同性恋的例子好像和criteria无关

However, when it comes to the moral realm, it seems that legislation is quite feeble to address the moral dilemmas which are existing everywhere in society. Since people are brought up and educated in totally different environment, as well as the various cultural and historic influence, they would cherish the values in a variety ways, sometimes, they are mutually excluded. For example, one living in a wealthy business family of the capitalistic nation would preserve the earning money as the fecility of his life, while in a communistic country, one would more worship the principle if sacrificing themselves to devote into the welfare of others. 社会主义和资本主义的法律本来就不一样吧，这个例子不太好，最好是同一社会下的道德问题Although the laws offers the right of marring（应该是marrying） between lysabines（应该是lesbians女同性恋吧）, the law could not demand everybody to accept homosexuality sincerely, nor could the legislation convict those who discriminate homosexuality.

Moreover, in other cases, even if the conceptions or minds could be enforced to change by the force of laws, they could not help to solve the problems in an appropriate way. A myriad of factors contribute to the criminal behaviors, for instance, if one's misfortune can not be judged by the courts in a fair way, one would only resort to retaliation by his own hand, even if such action disobey the laws. 法律的不完整性和公平性Further, in some cases, when the legislation attempts to make change of people's mind, in essence, it impairs some of the most significant principles that every individual appreciate, such as justify and the liberty. The case of house demolition has reflected this claim. When the government is to dismantle the houses in order to improve the transportation condition by widening the roads, the indigenous residents would object to move out because they have adapted to the environment here, how could the laws force the residents to transfer to other place in the circumstance of resisting the justice?这个例子政府没有想改变居民内心的想法吧……

In sum, the law could guide and instruct the basic codes of individuals, yet it wane（wines） when it comes to the ethical controversies.

掐时间已经很不错了，我都不知道自己会写成什么样，下次试试！！

使用道具举报

fadotian
UID：2733387

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 16
寄托币: 1404
注册时间: 2009-12-2
精华: 0
帖子: 167

9楼

发表于 2011-10-18 20:40:51 |只看该作者

Legal system of any nations is usually be criticized by the political critics or even citizens in that there is（are) some problems of modern society cannot be completely solved by laws . Nevertheless, the purpose of the legal system and laws is to regulate the public's behaviour and inhibit their exorbitant desires instead of changing what is in people's hearts or minds. Yet it is surprising that when time goes, laws gradually change people's hearts and minds.

The laws which was made as the opposite of what people really want（这句话有点怪，法律也没有完全和人的想法对着干吧） in fact impair people's freedom. In this case, people will not retreat by being deterred by the laws, and they will even circumvent the legal system at the risk of punishment to achieve what they want. The act of forcing oppression inevitably bring about counterproductive effects. The Prohibition was carried out in 1920 by the Volstead Act to hope to solve the problems of domestic violence caused by alcoholism, which ignored the ordinary need of drink. The prosperity of the black market, the higher rate of violence accidents and the corruption of government officials to drink resulted in the repealing the act later. From this case, some problems cannot be resolved only by laws and the legal systems, especially when they are relevant to people's hearts and minds.(法律不能解决所有问题）

The laws and legal system, however, are not created to change people's hearts or minds. It is just to regulate people's daily behaviours which will not hurt one another or harm the benefits of the whole society. Just like that it is hard to negate that seven deadly sins——lust, gluttony, avarice, sloth, wrath, vanity, covetousness——are people's nature, people are restricted themselves only by gospel. Laws and legal systems have the similar functions, and the only distinction is people who break the laws will have a concrete punishments（这里是说laws和legal system的区别么？）. Laws are created from the moral rules which（is) to forbid mankind to do damage to others including people and societies. Through the source and reason of creation of laws, it is now clear to us that the goal of enacting laws is to make countries develop on the way in order which is irrelevant to people's hearts and minds.(我觉得这段的意思是法律可以规范人的行为，使人们不去干某事，但是无法避免人们不去“想”干坏事）
Although the aim of the goal is not to change people's hearts and minds, when people are told what to do and what not to do for a long time, they will form a system of morality by their own. The process of evolvement is like the formation of culture and customs which is told and passed on from one generation to another, so that people change their hearts and behaviours as traditions. In similar, laws and legal system gradually enable people to formulate a concept what could do and what could not by regulating their behaviours. Abraham Lincoln put forward the Emancipation Proclamation to propose the equity between the slaves and the public. There was still opposition to the laws at that time, but till now, it is nearly that no one thinks it is somewhat wrong. Thus, laws and legal system actually affect people's hearts and minds, even if their purpose is not to change people's hearts but to regulate their behaviours.
(这段是上一段的补充么？）
In conclusion, laws and legal systems cannot solve all the problems which are opposed to what the most people's needs. Yet it is laws' goal to change people's hearts and minds; so it is unfair to blame laws for their ineffectiveness according to that they cannot change people's ideas sometimes. In fact, laws can gradually affect what in people's mind and hearts by regulating their behaviours to form their own moral standards.
我觉得文章的结构有点不清楚哦。
你的提纲是：1.法律不能解决有些问题 2.法律不能解决人的想法，但可以规范行为 3 是2的补充么？

使用道具举报

HeronAlps
UID：3130247

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 267
注册时间: 2011-7-15
精华: 0
帖子: 33

10楼

发表于 2011-10-18 20:45:45 |只看该作者

1.However, it is literally arbitrary to assert the reason of this issue is that laws cannot change what is in people’s hearts and minds这句的assert后面少用了一个that，所以看起来好像不通。这句写得确实啰嗦。改之！你下面写的new forms of inequality and crime emerge and prevail after the prior laws就很凝练。
2.effectively avert from scads of problems that should not resort to the laws我想说：有效的避免了许多不应诉诸法律的问题。
3.在英美法系中，法官可以通过对有鲜明特点的案例进行裁决，然后影响后世的法官对此类案件的裁决。法官利用这种方式，对于成文法进行微调，算是在立法程序之外，对法律制度的一种补充。
4.Even if consider（considering) the situation in the civilized community, the law is always esteemed as the symbol of social ethos and the real performer to carry the thoughts into act. 你说的对，这句的让步确实有点突兀，不应该用让步语气。这段中我的意思是，当社会思潮被法律付诸实践之后，人们才开始接受这种思想，所以可见法律是可以改变人的意识的。
5.circumscribe是想说设立法律行政的边界，不可事无巨细，很多事不能用法律来规定。关于flexible，是指执行法律要具体情况具体分析，可以参考ISSUE21.
6.我没有谈法律的优缺点，我是想表达法律的确不能解决现代社会的很多问题，却不是因为不能改变人的思想，而因为其他原因。
5# fadotian

使用道具举报

AetDezac
UID：3182074

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 2
寄托币: 356
注册时间: 2011-10-7
精华: 0
帖子: 8

11楼

发表于 2011-10-18 20:52:27 |只看该作者

89 Claim: Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system.
Reason: Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts or minds.

I concede that laws and the legal system cannot solve many problems of modern society, and that coming to realize this fact by studying social situations can be beneficial in how to administrate our community. However, it is literally arbitrary to assert the reason of this issue is that laws cannot change what is in people’s hearts and minds. I disagree with this given reason in mainly four respects. First, laws are basically prevention mechanism which always lags behind the matters. Second, besides laws and the legal system, we also need other methods to regulate the society, such as morality and religions. Third, the social problems can rarely be solved without enacting the effective laws. Fourth, a legal system that stipulates all matters in daily life, whether important or trivial, would certainly weaken the creativity of the fellow citizens. I would try to demonstrate my viewpoints below.
【第三、四点算是反对作者reason的理由吗？更像是支持他claim的理由吧。我想也许可以分开列？】

I do agree with the claim insofar as modern society’s problem should not solely be solved by laws, yet the reason evidently is not the ineffectiveness of the laws but the social problems, such as inequality and crime, emerge and prevail in some wholly new forms which previously cannot be predicted when the laws was enacted. I believe almost every clause of an act lags behind the actual matters in reality, and that is why, in the case [of] law system, the judges have the right to modify the details of the law through his judgments. We can not account on the laws and regulations to prevent the happening of the problems, therefore, the society needs some other mechanisms to ensure the basic ethics can not be violated.
【所以主要是说法律有滞后性，因此法官可以有自由裁量权。感觉支持或让步claim和反驳reason是同时进行的，后面一段似乎也是。我的想法是，不如在每段内部加一些连接词区分一下两个部分，好形成比较清楚的布局。】

In consequence, morality and religion, which constitutes the social system with the laws, take the parts of the function. Besides the laws, morality and religion provide the masses with another principle of living to conform [to], thus, effectively avert from scads of problems that should not resort to the laws. As the matter of fact, in some uncivilized regions abounding with illiterates, the strength of morality and religions totally play the key roles of regulating people’s behavior instead of the laws. 【我觉得这里可以加一个Again，提醒一下读者段落内部的结构】The reason why the laws are not fully performed is not that it cannot change people’s minds, but fail to cultivate those uneducated people into the enlightened ones.

Even if 【缺个主语】 consider the situation in the civilized community, the law is always esteemed as the symbol of social ethos and the real performer to carry the thoughts into act. For instance, Abraham Lincoln responds to the demands of abolition of the slavery through his famous Emancipation Proclamation in 1860s. The trend of thoughts should always be executed through the laws that reflect the consensus, or say compromise, of various sections of society. Perhaps we can take the Civil Right Movement in the US as other example as well. Dr. Martin Luther Jr., with all colored- races in the US, strived to demand the equal rights with the white man, and, as a result, the Senate finally passed The Civil Rights Act and The Voting Rights Act as the official ratification. As these two Acts were taken into effect, the rule of political correct and anti-discrimination has already become a common sense among the American people. In short, laws not only serve to practice the solution of social problem, but instill the righteous concepts into the masses gradually.
【我觉得开头可以写明白一些，老实说看到最后才明白这段的主旨……】

Admittedly, there definitely should be a boundary to circumscribe the laws, in case the over-expended legal system can impair the normal ethics of society. First, it is not difficult to imagine that a legal system which regulates almost every detail in our daily lives may dramatically increase the social costs, no matter in the enacting stage or in executing stage. Second, were such legal system token into effect, it would obviously muffle the creativity of the masses, like the strict censorship for the press. To sum up, the laws should stay within its effective zone and keep flexible enough not to confine the developing [development] of individuals.

In conclusion, the laws truly can not solve every respect of problems in[problems in every respect of?] the modern society, despite humans made tremendous endeavor to perfect our legal system. Yet, it is not because the laws fail to change what is in people’s hearts or minds, but, for the laws always have some places to which it cannot stretch. Therefore, morality, religions, even the human nature, serves as the rudimentary system to ensure our society’s safety and well-being.

【总体上是说法律有其合适的范围，但并不代表法律不能改变人们的思想。大家的立场蛮一致的。不过我觉得倒数第二段的内容似乎放在前面会更好，毕竟都是讲法律应该限制在一定范围里的。】

中无有义，无得无失。

使用道具举报

fadotian
UID：2733387

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 16
寄托币: 1404
注册时间: 2009-12-2
精华: 0
帖子: 167

12楼

发表于 2011-10-18 20:56:43 |只看该作者

The speaker gave bitter comment on the use of legal systems today, circumscribing a limited scope for it. What lends credibility for the claim is the presumption that laws are meritless in changing people’s thought. For the conclusion of the speaker I fully agree, though the ambiguous term ‘many’ threatens to ruin the sensibleness of the whole proposition and therefore needs clarifying（你的思维真缜密）. I nevertheless reject the reason on which the unexceptionable conclusion is deduced, and I dare to search for more solid reason in this essay.

In this essay I would consider both areas not meant to be regulated by legal systems and those where laws are proper to exert power. In both cases, we find numerous examples of my viewpoint. Since modern men often have the illusion that all aspects of life, given the reasonableness of them, should be governed by ‘laws’ as in the physical world, it is advisable to start with pointing out areas outside the clout of laws. My position is that purely private affairs can not be guided by laws. For example, one can decide how to spend a Saturday night, whether by doing something helpful to himself, or by drinking in local bars. In the process he may encounter decisions concerning spending money. And it is his freedom to spend the money in any manner so long as he does not endanger others’ rights. For the rights he owns, at least under some constitutions, he may choose to abandon or part with other people. Laws do form the boundaries of these activities, but they do not fix the problems occurring within. Among sciences, economics, rather than jurisprudence, best solves problems of such kind, because it focuses on the allocation of rare resources like money and free time.
（这段是想说很多私人的生活是不能被法律决定的，这里是说法律作用局限性1）
In areas meant to be regulated by laws, being mainly public and interpersonal affairs, we discover problems not solvable through legal means as well. In today’s world, myriad of new things spout into existence every second, bringing even more problems than legislature could possibly respond to swiftly. Consider environment problems. We observe clearly how serious the problems must have been in the face of rising temperature across globe and melting icecaps, but little has been done to guide people’s behavior in the form of legislature. In smaller scale, routine interpersonal activities involve problems unsolvable by laws as well. These include mainly undefined or fuzzy terms, or simply new situations unthought of beforehand. For example, is it right for a photographer to take photos of passers-by without permission, for the sake of creation of art? This became a problem only after photographers began to do so out in the streets, and legal systems today can not determine decisively whether this is an illegal action. Such problems would be better settled by moral education, or by seeking consent, either in a small group of people or among nations（这是法律局限性2，总落后于时代）.

Applauding as I may be towards his claim, I strongly oppose to the speaker’s assumption that laws cannot modify people’s minds. To note that a large proportion of moral doctrines formulates under the instillation of past laws, is to substantiate my position(这句话看得好拗口的样子,不理解）. Hans Reichenbach, the American philosopher, once commented on Kant’s moral system (and I paraphrase) that the system was an image of Prussian social structures, including the legal structure in the society. What Anglo-Saxon philosophers tend to argue about mores is so disparage from that by German philosophers and both resemble so astoundingly to the individualism and federalism tradition of legislature, that one can hardly think of mores and legislature as unrelated. Laws have also served to modify some of the most ancient habits of human nature, such as the desire to kill, to use violence, or to deceit. The common habits of thinking shared by most modern humans have been shaped, or, in a stronger sense, domesticated by laws.

Here ends my brief essay. In sum, although I cannot agree with the speaker’s reason for my observation contradicts it; I sincerely believe in the claim that many problems in present societies cannot be solved by laws alone. Indeed it would be very undesirable if all problems can be solved by law, for that means the elimination of private space for individuals. Other problems, on the other hand, can be settled by law but today’s legislature simply could not keep in pace with changing circumstances.
啊~为什么这篇文章看着像是GRE的阅读呀。
需要讨论讨论。

使用道具举报

HeronAlps
UID：3130247

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 267
注册时间: 2011-7-15
精华: 0
帖子: 33

13楼

发表于 2011-10-18 21:09:25 |只看该作者

The statement claims that in modern society, laws and legal systems can not solve all types of the problems since it is impossible for the laws to change people's minds. I have found that to clarify this issue, other reasons also lead to the finite effect of legislation to address problems of our society. Besides, the speaker's reason for the function of law is too extreme.

Although laws fail to embrace every detail of people's mind to make instructive and restrained function, on some fundamental aspect（aspects）, laws could at least assist to establish the basic criteria between the misdeed and legal action. They play the deterrent role to prevent people from put（putting） their own desire on the interest of other people.(这句的意思是说防止人们为了私利损害他人利益吗？put sth on sth 有这个含义吗？ ) For example, the legislation could restrain the corruption and appropriating of the public resources by punishing such offenses by judicial authority. Also, by enacting the laws to allow the homosexual people get married, most people would gradually accept the differentiated selection in sex.（没明白，什么是differentiated selection）

However, when it comes to the moral realm, it seems that legislation is quite feeble to address the moral dilemmas which are existing everywhere in society. Since people are brought up and educated in totally different environment, as well as the various cultural and historic（historical） influence, they would cherish the values in a variety ways, sometimes, they are mutually excluded. For example, one living in a wealthy business family of the capitalistic nation would preserve the earning money as the fecility of his life, while in a communistic country, one would more worship the principle if sacrificing themselves to devote into the welfare of others. (这个说法，老美肯定不同意，哈哈！)Although the laws offers the right of marring between lysabines（lesbians）, the law could not demand everybody to accept homosexuality sincerely, nor could the legislation convict those who discriminate homosexuality.

Moreover, in other cases, even if the conceptions or minds could be enforced to change by the force of laws, they could not help to solve the problems in an appropriate way. A myriad of factors contribute to the criminal behaviors, for instance, if one's misfortune can not be judged by the courts in a fair way, one would only resort to retaliation by his own hand, even if such action disobey the laws. Further, in some cases, when the legislation attempts to make change of people's mind, in essence, it impairs some of the most significant principles that every individual appreciate, such as justify（justice） and the liberty. The case of house demolition has reflected this claim. When the government is to dismantle the houses in order to improve the transportation condition by widening the roads, the indigenous residents would object to move out because they have adapted to the environment here, how could the laws force the residents to transfer to other place in the circumstance of resisting the justice?

In sum, the law could guide and instruct the basic codes of individuals, yet it wane when it comes to the ethical controversies.
你这篇的逻辑和我的思路有很大出入。我是讨论claim和reason之间的关系，你是讨论claim本身。这个问题还要讨论。

使用道具举报

AetDezac
UID：3182074

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 2
寄托币: 356
注册时间: 2011-10-7
精华: 0
帖子: 8

14楼

发表于 2011-10-18 21:26:17 |只看该作者

@Fadotian

89 Claim: Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system.
Reason laws cannot change what is in people's hearts or minds
The statement claims that in modern society, laws and legal systems can not solve all types of the problems since it is impossible for the laws to change people's minds. I have found that to clarify this issue, other reasons also lead to the finite effect of legislation to address problems of our society. Besides, the speaker's reason for the function of law is too extreme.

Although laws fail to embrace every detail of people's mind to make instructive and restrained function, on some fundamental aspect, laws could at least assist to establish the basic criteria between the misdeed and legal action. They play the deterrent role to prevent people from put their own desire on the interest of other people. For example, the legislation could restrain the corruption and appropriating of the public resources by punishing such offenses by judicial authority. Also, by enacting the laws to allow the homosexual people [to] get married, most people would gradually accept the differentiated selection in sex.
【第一段首先提出法律可以影响人们的思想。

However, when it comes to the moral realm, it seems that legislation is quite feeble to address the moral dilemmas which are existing everywhere in society. Since people are brought up and educated in totally different environment, as well as the various cultural and historic influence, they would cherish the values in a variety ways, sometimes, they are mutually excluded. For example, one living in a wealthy business family of the capitalistic nation would preserve the earning money as the fecility 【真的有这个词吗？】 of his life, while in a communistic country, one would more worship the principle if sacrificing themselves to devote into the welfare of others. Although the laws offers the right of marring between lysabines [lesbians?], the law could not demand everybody to accept homosexuality sincerely, nor could the legislation convict those who discriminate homosexuality.
【第二段是说不同人的道德观不一样，这个问题法律解决不了。

Moreover, in other cases, even if the conceptions or minds could be enforced to change by the force of laws, they could not help to solve the problems in an appropriate way. A myriad of factors contribute to the criminal behaviors, for instance, if one's misfortune can not be judged by the courts in a fair way, one would only resort to retaliation by his own hand, even if such action disobey the laws. Further, in some cases, when the legislation attempts to make change of people's mind, in essence, it impairs some of the most significant principles that every individual appreciate, such as justify and the liberty. The case of house demolition has reflected this claim. When the government is to dismantle the houses in order to improve the transportation condition by widening the roads, the indigenous residents would object to move out because they have adapted to the environment here, how could the laws force the residents to transfer to other place in the circumstance of resisting the justice?
【这段攻击的是reason的充分性：即使改变了，也可能解决不了很多问题。可能我理解的问题，但总觉得说这个没什么必要……】

In sum, the law could guide and instruct the basic codes of individuals, yet it wane when it comes to the ethical controversies.

中无有义，无得无失。

使用道具举报

AetDezac
UID：3182074

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 2
寄托币: 356
注册时间: 2011-10-7
精华: 0
帖子: 8

15楼

发表于 2011-10-18 22:11:33 |只看该作者

@rourou

89Claim: Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the
legal system.
Reason: Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts or minds.

Legal system of any nations is usually be criticized by the political critics or even citizens in that there is some problems of modern society cannot be completely solved by laws . Nevertheless, the purpose of the legal system and laws is to regulate the public's behaviour and inhibit their exorbitant desires instead of changing what is in people's hearts or minds. Yet it is surprising that when time goes, laws gradually change people's hearts and minds.

The laws which was made as the opposite of what people really want in fact impair people's freedom. In this case, people will not retreat by being deterred by the laws, and they will even circumvent the legal system at the risk of punishment to achieve what they want. The act of forcing oppression inevitably bring about counterproductive effects. The Prohibition was carried out in 1920 by the Volstead Act to hope to solve the problems of domestic violence caused by alcoholism【今天在微经书看到这个例子了……】, which ignored the ordinary need of drink. The prosperity of the black market, the higher rate of violence accidents and the corruption of government officials to drink resulted in the repealing the act later. From this case, some problems cannot be resolved only by laws and the legal systems, especially when they are relevant to people's hearts and minds.
【法律不但改变不了人们的思想，跟人们的思想对立的时候还会失败，很有力的论点。】

The laws and legal system, however, are not created to change people's hearts or minds. It is just to regulate people's daily behaviours which will not hurt one another or harm the benefits of the whole society. Just like that it is hard to negate that seven deadly sins——lust, gluttony, avarice, sloth, wrath, vanity, covetousness——are people's nature, people are restricted themselves only by gospel. Laws and legal systems have the similar functions, and the only distinction is people who break the laws will have a concrete punishments. Laws are created from the moral rules which to forbid mankind to do damage to others including people and societies. Through the source and reason of creation of laws, it is now clear to us that the goal of enacting laws is to make countries develop on the way in order which is irrelevant to people's hearts and minds.

Although the aim of the goal is not to change people's hearts and minds, when people are told what to do and what not to do for a long time, they will form a system of morality by their own. The process of evolvement is like the formation of culture and customs which is told and passed on from one generation to another, so that people change their hearts and behaviours as traditions. In similar, laws and legal system gradually enable people to formulate a concept what could do and what could not by regulating their behaviours. Abraham Lincoln put forward the Emancipation Proclamation to propose the equity between the slaves and the public. There was still opposition to the laws at that time, but till now, it is nearly that [nearly] no one thinks it is somewhat wrong. Thus, laws and legal system actually affect people's hearts and minds, even if their purpose is not to change people's hearts but to regulate their behaviours.

In conclusion, laws and legal systems cannot solve all the problems which are opposed to what the most people's needs. Yet it is laws' goal to change people's hearts and minds; so it is unfair to blame laws for their ineffectiveness according to that they cannot change people's ideas sometimes. In fact, laws can gradually affect what in people's mind and hearts by regulating their behaviours to form their own moral standards.

【好吧，正在讨论的时候我在看这篇，该说的都说了……】

中无有义，无得无失。

使用道具举报

问答

Offer

投票

面经

【问答】有哪些因素会导致安调？

专业比如cs ece ai，个人背景比如本科10043学校，或者敏感一点的工作。

23/24 FALL北美生信PhD求定位

香港的本科直博（4年制博士）和三年制博士在网申的时候是在同一个池子里面pk吗？

本科直博和读了硕士申请博士的要求一般是不一样的，但其实对于本科直博的要求会更高，很多同学想增强成功率会先读硕士积累文章再...

英美混申 24fall 工作党 LLM求定位

你好，很酷的经历，根据这个背景分享，建议可以尝试考虑牛剑或LSE冲冲看。祝顺利～

哥本哈根商学院

Advanced Econ & Fin

MSc | 24Fall | 被拒

瓦赫宁根大学

Sustainable Supply Chain Analytics

MSc | 24Fall | Offer

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

MSc | 24Fall | Offer

南洋理工大学

MSc | 24Fall | Offer

芬兰赫尔辛基 VS 继续等德国学校出结果

楼主有幸拿了赫尔辛基CS的全奖offer，但是因为本身申请的最初目的是想留下找工的，所以一直想去德国。但是现在五月中旬我所有的德国申请没有一点消息，等待很艰难。在想着要不要接了芬兰的开始准备了。主要原因有几点： 1. 芬兰安全，且学生生活还是很愉快的 2. 芬兰毕业后可以去欧陆其他国家找工但是不知道可行性如何，来求助一下uu们的意见，谢谢大家了?

康奈尔MS AEM还是芝加哥MACSS

欧陆bme选校

工作or读博都可，但听说瑞典和芬兰近两年很难留，大概还是需要回国。 kth的track授课比较杂（想做信号/硬件方向），相对感觉很好毕业，qs高 aalto的课程设置很喜欢，感觉人均资源多，但是qs偏低

欧陆地理信息选校

本人背景：山川吉之一，均分排名较高，少科研无产出，一些竞赛。不知道对选项能不能有一些参考。目前意愿：申博≈留欧找工＞回国，有转行的想法，个人不太喜欢编程，工薪家庭，还是偏向能省则省但选项中的花费都在预算内。请大家帮忙投票，方便的话在评论区写一写理由，不胜感激。 eit：可持续交通项目。Aalto入UPC出，优点是给了excellent奖学金而且可以转行，缺点是听说不好读博以及西班牙不好找工找实习。 lund：GIS and Remote Sensing项目，之前很想去的项目，参照官网给的花费参考大概是40w左右。伊拉姆斯：GEM双学位项目，Geo-information Science and Earth Observation for Environmental Modelling and Management，lund进twente itc出。花费比lund少。

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

1.自我介绍2.具体项目相关3.关于本专创业想法

The University of Hong Kong

25fall hkumed phd informal meeting实验室ap和research officer一起问的1.自我介绍，ap介绍了一下实验室2....

Glasgow School of Art

transformation design

1.自我介绍2.申请动机3.选择一个作品进行介绍4.作品相关问题5.毕业后想成为什么样的设计师总时长大概20多分...

Lingnan University

1.自我介绍2.你的专业背景和工作经历可以怎么帮助你学习这个项目3.职业规划4.工作中遇到的困难，你是如何应...

最新

精华

澳大利亚明年开始限制留学生数量

【资讯】美国TOP30名校捡漏专业（7）

【资讯】英国各院校list最新要求（6）

【资讯】英国各院校list最新要求（5）

【资讯】美国TOP30名校捡漏专业（6）

香港前五商科类留学申请要求（二）

【国际会议 | EI检索】2024年第六届金属材料加工与制造国际会议 (ICMMPM 2024)

第四届人工智能、信息处理与云计算国际会议（AIIPCC 2024）

【SPIE 出版|EI, Scopus Index】第六届图像、视频处理和人工智能国际会议(IVPAI 2024)

【资讯】美国各院校GRE成绩最新要求

【资讯】南安普顿大学公布最新截止日期

双非3.1GPA申瑞典cs，求择校推荐

澳洲艺术留学热门院校和专业的盘点

5个学期成绩单即可申请澳洲院校

非法本（财务）申请cuhk llm（cbl）经验贴

In progress和reviewing有什么区别？

BostonU MA Econ/MAEP/MAGDE项目杂谈

加拿大留学GIC办理指南：最新政策、流程及专属福利

24fall欧洲名校硕士申请拒录情况汇总

瑞典硕士DIY申请攻略之名校介绍——LU隆德大学/LTH隆德工学院

博士申请常见问题Q&A

【干货】教你如何写MBA简历

【经验贴】欧洲申博血泪史：7个全奖博士offer，却gap了两年（附各国签证风险盘点）

普签 / 大龄 / 本科二学位 / DIY

毕业工签踩大雷 - unauthorized work before submitting PGWP - 附解决办法

2023FALL申请总结兼日本CS SGU申请及劝退贴（东大京都东工大阪）

Cornell AEM MS一点杂谈

伯明翰MSW面试&卡内基梅隆MSPPM录视频题目

东京大学UBE-UPN面试经验分享攒人品

学签安全调查迷你百科

美国ny bar备考经验分享

工作党（RA）记录一下药学PhD申请过程

转发

转发该帖子

【无名小组】第一组第三次作业楼10.18

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1311429-1-1.html

复制链接

发送

报offer 祈福爆照

回顶部