[phoenix] issue50 第二次作业 by 3号

ningbo1990UID: 2641538

50. "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."

提纲：
1.诚然，一些学科课外实践很重要，比如社会科学学科
2.然而，这些学科不能代表所有的学科，另一些学科不需要实践，比如物理，化学等。
3.这些不该实践的学科如果出去实践可能导致老师忽略学校教学


In the era of highlighting the importance of education, the competition between colleges and universities are more excited than before, in order to become the survivors in the competition the quality of instruction is being taken as the most important aspect to improve. They came out various ways to improve their quality of instruction; mostly one is combining practice to knowledge. It seems practice really can help teaching, and the announcement that all faculties should have working outside experience is reliable. The announcement, however, is basically paradox.

Admittedly, a faculty who connect knowledge on books with working experience is perfect, by doing this he can not only teach the visible knowledge printing in the textbooks but express some invisible experience out of classes. Also, there is a research show that a faculty with outside working experience can give more exciting classes than whom not. Paragons, such as economics, finance, human recourses professors, if they do not have outside working experience it is hardly for them to explain what the textbooks write, maybe he or she can only explain the definition of Bills of Exchange but cannot answer the uses of it. Also, his or her class must be boring. While when a faculty had worked in a bank, such as Citibank or one of others, and had dealt with Bills of Exchanges, he or she may not only concern about the definition of it but at the same time adding experience of himself or herself when teaching classes, these vivid examples can effectively attract students. There are also other instances can support the theories a working outside experience really helps a faculty and then improve the quality of instruction.

Although, the conclusion outside working helps quality improving is true, asking all faculty should be required as the same is ridiculous. Admittedly, economics, finance, these social science needs working outside experience; while the physics, chemistry, these nature science is need not. Faculty in these sciences is mainly doing experiments in their labs. They need doing various failure experiments before success. Without lab they are like a bird without wings, they can do nothing. For instance, Marie Gurie found radium in her lab not during the time when working in the supermarket; V·N Weumann invented the first computer also in his lab, not during the working time of machine factory.

Furthermore, to require these nature science faculty spend time working outside may make mistakes. The faculty can easily find a high paid job for they have more academic knowledge than others. If firms pay much higher than the wage of college or university, he or she may hardly concern on his or her academic study and even leave college or university. A faculty without responsibility on teaching how good qualities of instruction can comes out? There have too much examples that computer professors or other area in nature science gave up their teaching career and worked for famous corporations, how dare a college or university put its faculty into the society and ask for outside working experience?

The issue says that all faculty should be required to spend time working outside is not reliable after I discussed. With more and more firm connection between college or university and commerce, the most effective way of improving the quality of instruction is to encourage the society faculty to have outside experience while the nature ones should be required working on their labs.

wilber5945UID: 2709861

1号组员批改：
In the era of highlighting the importance of education, the competition between colleges and universities are more excited than before, in order to become the survivors in the competition the quality of instruction is being taken as the most important aspect to improve. They came out various ways to improve their quality of instruction; mostly one is combining practice to knowledge. It seems practice really can help teaching, and the announcement that all faculties should have working outside experience is reliable. The announcement, however, is basically paradox.

Admittedly, a faculty who connect knowledge on books with working experience is perfect, by doing this he can not only teach the visible knowledge printing in the textbooks but express some invisible experience out of classes. Also, there is a research（最好能编一个牛B一点的机构） show that a faculty with outside working experience can give more exciting classes than whom not. Paragons, such as economics, finance, human recourses professors, if they do not have outside working experience it is hardly for them to explain what the textbooks write, maybe he or she can only explain the definition of Bills of Exchange but cannot answer the uses of it. Also, his or her class must be boring. While when（两个一起要打架了） a faculty had worked in a bank, such as Citibank or one of others, and had dealt with Bills of Exchanges, he or she may not only concern about the definition of it but at the same time adding experience of himself or herself when teaching classes, these vivid examples can effectively attract students. There are also other instances can support the theories a working outside experience really helps a faculty（faculty 貌似不能这样用,改为 a faculty member好些） and then improve the quality of instruction.

Although, the conclusion outside working helps quality improving is true, asking all faculty should be required as the same is ridiculous. Admittedly, economics, finance, these social science needs working outside experience; while the physics, chemistry, these nature science is need not. Faculty in these sciences is mainly doing experiments in their labs. They need doing various failure experiments before success. Without lab（改为实验室经验比较好吧） they are like a bird without wings, they（这句话出现第二个主语了） can do nothing. For instance, Marie Gurie found radium in her lab not during the time when working in the supermarket; V·N Weumann invented the first computer also in his lab, not during the working time of machine factory.（嘻嘻，收藏啦！不客气啦！）

Furthermore, to require these nature science faculty spend time working outside may make mistakes（没有主语）. The faculty can easily find a high paid job for they （who）have more academic knowledge than others. If firms pay much higher than the wage of college or university, he or she may hardly concern on his or her academic study and even leave college or university. A faculty without responsibility on teaching how good qualities of instruction can comes out? There have too much examples that computer professors or other area in nature science gave up their teaching career and worked for famous corporations,（觉得讲一个具体的出来比较好些） how dare a college or university put its faculty into the society and ask for outside working experience?

The issue says that all faculty should be required to spend time working outside is not reliable after I discussed. With more and more firm connection between college or university and commerce, the most effective way of improving the quality of instruction is to encourage the society faculty to have outside experience while the nature ones should be required working on their labs.

crossbowUID: 2689120

俺是小菜鸟，拜读了一下你的文章。整体还行。有两点可能有改进余地。
入题慢，首段末句才来了个however, 力度不够。我也有这毛病，害我在开头浪费时间，正在改正。
语言不够地道。我的做法是翻题目和新概念，中英对比，替换头脑里的中式用法。再有，在写各个主题之前，从黄一教主的TOEFL写作词汇里面扣出十来个，然后套进来。
纯属愚见，有不周之处，还望指正。

ningbo1990UID: 2641538

3# crossbow
非常感谢你的宝贵意见。你说的那个TOEFL书具体指那一本？

crossbowUID: 2689120

4# ningbo1990
TOEFL iBT写作词汇小伴侣。

ningbo1990UID: 2641538

5# crossbow
谢谢