高频issue50 大 胆 求 拍

542424UID: 2635222

事先声明下，我的语言很朴实无华...:L   改完了我就照着背去了


"In order to improve the quality of instruction at the college and university level, all faculty should be required to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach."  



Should faculty spend time on working outside as the academic world as the speaker asserts?  In a sense, I tend to agree that it benefit to improve the quality of instruction. However, it would seem to be a rather shallow statement that implies that all faculties should be required to do like this.



First, there is no denying the fact that some subject does need faculty work outside to gain experience. For example, our computer teacher, once worked in Microsoft Company, tells us his work experience, the vivid story attract us and increase our interest in computer. The psychologist said that people will focus more attention on the knowledge which will be used in reality in aftertime. In this sense, student may learn more seriously at the class and bear the knowledge in mind. On the other hand, faculty can understand the demand of present society and adjust their trend of teaching. As we know, the rapid development of the technology gives us the more and more convenient and makes us have to adapt the better and better new skills soon, there must has some hysteresis quality of the information in book which students are using, what the real purpose is that make student keeping pace with the times. As a result, there is a good sense to let faculty teach their students after worked outside.



Despite the merits of the speaker asserts, nevertheless, I disagree with the statement that the faculties in all disciplines are always fit for this way. For instance, it is hard to find a job to be a math teacher, although he got the job, the work experience have a little sense to help but occupied a large amount of time. At the even worse, the philosophy and history, which need abstract thinking and prominent imagination, are better to stay in laboratory rather than work outside. Furthermore, there may has not enough occupations to find by faculties, even if they got the job and gained the salary, they should pay more attention on more workload that have not enough time in teaching. In addition, if the way of work for educate can make more money, it would improves their quality of life and may turns their attention to it, but at the same time would cease to be education. In short, it is presumptuous to judge that to work outside is good for education in some case.



Finally, and perhaps the most important, the education does not impart knowledge, instead, it is meant to improve the student's personality and form of thinking, to stimulate their desire to probe into the unknown, and to practise their ability to self-improve. The college should develop the quality of instruction, increase the funds to encourage the young teacher to work hard. Otherwise, they should promote the communication between the faculty and students, this way
can also
solve the problems of student and make the class more interesting. Therefore, people should understand the essence of education deeply, and to judge what the faculty need to do.



In conclusion, I agree the optimal approach that we need to seek balance and view this perspective from all sides. While the way of work outside is correct, we should not overemphasize to educate by work experience, a resolve to this complicated issue depends on the dissimilar situations.


谢谢大家！