ISSUE51

hudu464UID: 2512268

ISSUE51

"Education will be truly effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student."

This statement manifests the frequent lament that humanity's diversity and creativity are not paralleled or matched by corresponding education. More than that, it conceals infesting connotations far beyond whether education specifically designed to meet individual needs and interests is a truly effective. Proper goals of education and curriculum designed to reach these goals are at stake. It involves two competing roles education plays in fulfill its social function and achieving personal ambition. In alignment with its respective goal, two models for curriculum planning -- a centralized and an individual-based -- confront and perplex us. The evaluation of each model's efficacy, however, is not clear-cut given consideration to consistency and conflicts between social functions and personal ambitions imposed on education.

A preference over personal development between these two general educational goals is implied in this statement. Emphasis of this goal demands an individual-based curriculum which is carefully designed to cater individual needs and interests. To examine its efficacy, we should firstly look at how it serves it’s primarily goal -- personal development. Admittedly, the curbing effect in creativity and other accusations of traditional centralized model can be lifted through this individual-based curriculum. This seemingly personal-oriented model, however, overlooks necessary social skills for personal development and is hardly applicable for popularized education. A curriculum solely based on individual needs and interests could serve ultimately to undermine one's competitive ability in his or her pursuit of flourishing in the society unless these needs and interests are so well developed that he or she becomes another Mozart or Picasso. While this scenario can be possible for the very talented ones, the vast sum of money and energy devoted would be more efficiently allocated elsewhere.

Meantime, when taught in curriculum narrowly focusing in developing personal potentiality, these very gifted ones are unlikely to develop a set of sophisticated social skills to deal with problems like being isolated come along with their outstanding talents. Increasing suicide cases among students who receive education from special programs for gifted and talented education, which is becoming a thriving industry in the U.S. and around the world, can well demonstrate the negative impact on emotional development. Social pressures force these very talented and gifted students to "play down" their talents in an effort to blend with their peers. This "play down" strategy is often adopted by students with clinical depression, which can develop to acute emotional problems if left untreated. It is a tragedy to the talented individual who becomes inadvertent victims of their well-meaning designed curriculum to achieve personal ambition as its education aim.

The neglected social role education plays, however, remains to be a significant criterion in evaluating the effectiveness of education, and a truly effective education cannot be achieved unless joint efforts to reach both goals work hand in hand. Though giving primacy to social function of education, a centralized curriculum does not automatically exclude individual needs of interests of each student. Rather, alignments with individual needs and interests could be identified in its carefully-designed content, which is very likely to be taken upon by public agencies and conducted by experienced educators and teachers. Based on their expertise and researches, they define a desirable goal and select what are deemed worthwhile to transmit according to that goal. During this process, individual needs and interests of each student are naturally attended when referring to theoretical works about students and conducting scientific researches to investigate changing trends among students.

A centralized curriculum that stresses conformity at the expense of individual needs and interests may lead to a rigid education, but equally, an individual-based curriculum that claims an absolute autonomy from society is an idealistic goal rather than an achievable end. Without a diverse and balanced curriculum that is a settlement between competing goals, the education system would collapse immediately into a two-tier framework of winners and losers.

plukaUID: 2721764

This statement manifests the frequent lament that humanity's diversity and creativity are not paralleled or matched by corresponding education. More than that, it conceals infesting connotations far beyond whether education specifically designed to meet individual needs and interests is (a) truly effective. Proper goals of education and curriculum designed to reach these goals are at stake. It involves two competing roles education plays in fulfill its social function and achieving personal ambition. In alignment with its respective goal, two models for curriculum planning -- a centralized and an individual-based -- confront and perplex us. The evaluation of each model's efficacy, however, is not clear-cut given consideration to consistency and conflicts between social functions and personal ambitions imposed on education.

B1A preference over personal development between these two general educational goals is implied in this statement. Emphasis of this goal demands an individual-based curriculum which is carefully designed to cater （to） individual needs and interests. To examine its efficacy, we should firstly look at how it serves it’s primarily goal -- personal development. Admittedly, the curbing effect in creativity and other accusations of traditional centralized model can be lifted through this individual-based curriculum. This seemingly(M-W解释：outwardly or superficially evident but not true or real  *the seeming immortality of our heroes*可见本词是否定含义的，用在此处会不会给人一种‘貌似personal-oriented实际不是’的错觉？与后文无关。略觉不妥) personal-oriented model, however, overlooks necessary social skills（what skills) for personal development and is hardly applicable for popularized education. A curriculum solely based on individual needs and interests could serve ultimately to undermine one's competitive ability in his or her pursuit of flourishing(adj,flourish可做n) in the society（explain this, use not general statement but specific details or examples characterizing the dilemma) unless these needs and interests are so well developed that he or she becomes another Mozart or Picasso. While this scenario can be possible for the very talented ones, the vast sum of money and energy devoted would be more efficiently allocated elsewhere. 
段首指出题目倾向于personal-oriented model，后文考察其efficacy，觉得论述仍可specific一点。另外，T说的是偏好personal-oriented，后文仅简单让步了一下这个偏好的优势，集中于谈它的弱点，这样是否与T一致？

B2 Meantime, when taught in curriculum narrowly focusing in developing personal potentiality, these very gifted ones are unlikely to develop a set of sophisticated social skills to deal with problems like being isolated come along with their outstanding talents. Increasing suicide cases among students who receive education from special programs for gifted and talented education, which is becoming a thriving industry in the U.S. and around the world, can well demonstrate the negative impact on emotional development. Social pressures force these very talented and gifted students to "play down" their talents in an effort to blend with their peers(explain this, I'm not convinced yet about the causes and corresponding adverse influence). This "play down" strategy is often adopted by students with clinical depression, which can develop to acute emotional problems if left untreated. It is a tragedy to the talented individual who becomes inadvertent victims of their well-meaning designed curriculum to achieve personal ambition as its education aim. 
本段指出个性化教育对有天赋的学生也有不利影响。与上一段“A curriculum solely based on individual needs and interests could serve ultimately to undermine one's competitive ability in his or her pursuit of flourishing in the society”有所交叉。为了更清晰地分类，或者就在上段指明是针对ordinary students这段针对talented ones。
关于special programs for gifted and talented education的例子，觉得或有可商榷之处。题中指出的是“meet the individual needs and interests of each student”，而此类精华班面对的其实还是一个group而不是each students。

B3 The neglected social role education plays, however, remains to be a significant criterion in evaluating the effectiveness of education, and a truly effective education cannot be achieved unless joint efforts to reach both goals work hand in hand. Though giving primacy to social function of education, a centralized curriculum does not automatically exclude individual needs of interests of each student. Rather, alignments with individual needs and interests could be identified in its carefully-designed content, which is very likely to be taken upon by public agencies and conducted by experienced educators and teachers. Based on their expertise and researches, they define a desirable goal and select what are deemed worthwhile to transmit according to that goal. During this process, individual needs and interests of each student are naturally attended when referring to theoretical works about students and conducting scientific researches to investigate changing trends among students. （真是这样吗？那这个issue还讨论啥，直接敲板：让专家写份报告出来，咱们开‘个性化’的大课！)
本段讲centralized curriculum并非机械地排除个人需求，而是考虑了学生的兴趣和需要的，似乎有些解释公共课也能个性化的意思。Bluntly I'm a little perplexed。centrailized与individualized本身就是对立的，公共课程虽然考虑了学生的需求和兴趣（当然），然而它只能抓大放小，不可能照顾到每个学生，也就与individual-designed的精神相背。当然，能够理解此处作者的意思是强调公共课也很人性，但段尾的结论未免失之仓促和简单。既然上一段论述了专门教育的社会缺陷，不妨就找一找大众教育的优点比如社会化啊易执行啊啥的，没必要非把它往个人兴趣上靠。

A centralized curriculum that stresses conformity at the expense of individual needs and interests may lead to a rigid education, but equally, an individual-based curriculum that claims an absolute autonomy from society is an idealistic goal rather than an achievable end. Without a diverse and balanced curriculum that is a settlement between competing goals, the education system would collapse immediately into a two-tier framework of winners and losers.

来看脉络：
T（教育的社会与个人职能相互矛盾统一，简单地分别估量通识教育与专门教育的效率是困难的）——>B1（段首指出题目倾向于personal-oriented model，但后文更多谈的是专门教育的弊端）——>B2（谈论针对天才学生的专门教育的弊端）——>B3（通过调查研究和改进，通识教育也能迎合学生个性）——>结论（隔离二者不可行，要平衡）

发现了没，虽然开头和结尾都是平衡论点，但文章主体部分却明显偏向于批评专才教育。这样不能算平衡。另外，主题句指出的教育的社会目标和个人目标没有很清楚地论述。看完全文，仍不是很明白在作者看来，教育的社会目标是啥，个人目标又是啥。另建议再考虑一下B1和B2的关系，是contrast，还是并列，还是进一步解释。
以上~