新概念小组第一次作业 6月29日 by Ding

neahowUID: 3044715

好像等级不够不能上传附件，那就只好黏贴上来了。貌似直接从WORD里面复制会出现连字情况，但是从记事本里面复制出来就没问题了。
Issue 3
Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Admittedly, on the condition that colleges and universities assume an active role in manufacturing a batch of people who hold the power to beatify and consummate the whole society, the viewpoint appears indisputable. However, as to a person who just wants to simply find his interest and then devote to it, the institutions cannot and should not bear this burden. To account for the above-mentioned phenomena, several aspects must be pushed forward to help us gain a deep insight into what has happened.

It is tempting to agree with the speaker on the basis that an important aspect of education is about the relationship between education and achievement. This objective is, maybe utilitarian, to prepare new generation of citizens to function in society and then, to make contribution to it, which can be regarded as one guise of success. We can conclude this point from so many laureates of Nobel Prize, most of who possess two or three PhDs. These geniuses have made unparalleled innovation and creation to the world, and also totally changed the lives of humankind. Thus it is indeed a necessary role of the educational institutions to urge their students to devote themselves to the field that renders such dream a real possibility. Yet, in this very notion lies my argument with the speaker that what the exact definition of success is.

To the extent that success symbolizes a good-looking and lucrative job, at least a golden dream for many people, it is proper function of the college to persuade the students to embark on their journey for a prosperous professional, who is admired by the mass. We cannot blame the education system for such a seemingly money-worship behavior since many colleges has codified the principle--change the world--into their credo. And the sponsoring, which means the money, is an indispensable factor for the attainment of this goal. Also some of the young do choose to study job-oriented subjects, which they think will lead them to success, for the reason such as realizing that through Harvard Business School lies the road to riches. And it is for the same reason that many parents put money on courses that endow their children specific-profession security--courses that are pre-law, pre-medical, and pre-business. Thus, there is no reasonable justification for the university to neglect the central concern of their main objects.

However, is the meaning of success simply limited to getting a nice job? Some people treat the degree of contend as the standard to measure success, meanwhile some others visualize the successful man as the one who lives an enviably happy life. Success varies among different people, and in this sense we cannot arbitrarily figure out whether it is a duty for educational institutions, because as for dissimilar view to success, the difficulty of the responsibility the colleges and universities bear differs.  

Take the interest for example. As Socrates preached at his students, "look out your own selves and find the spark of truth that god has put into every heart, and only you can kindle to a flame." This remark indicates that interest acts as the best instructor. The example that aptly illustrates this argument involves the story of Copernicus, who studied the liberal arts other than astronomy for four years, and then went to Italy without receiving a bachelor degree. However it is in Italy that he found his interest and ignited it, which leads ultimately to his enthusiastic devotion to astronomy and the establishment of heli-center model for the solar system. Hence, on this condition, interest comes as the fundamental point a college should take care of. However, taking all the students' talent and interest into consideration is an extremely knotty goal, thus we cannot assign this sort of burden on all instructors. Anyone believes otherwise is considering a too consummate education system, which amounts to chimera at present.

In the final analysis, whether a college should persuade its students to pursue success depends on the definition of success. And success is, to the bottom, a kind of individual identification, based on one’s own value system and faith. For the young pursing a desirable job, the educational institutions are able and have responsibility to satisfy them. But when it comes to a boarder notion about success, such dedicating to interest, it is far beyond our ability and liability to do so.

Issue 12
Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition.
Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Admittedly, on the condition that authorities assume an active role in providing identical circumstances for all the students, thus in turn establishing a society with just and fair atmosphere, the viewpoint appears indisputable. However, with the proviso that the public education resources are limited and it is hard-pressed to grant students the assistance just owing to one’s pathetical financial situation, the speaker unnecessarily extends his broad assertion to an irreversible extreme. To account for the above-mentioned phenomena, several aspects must be pushed forward to help us gain a deep insight into what has happened.

It is tempting to agree with the speaker on the basis that providing the same access to college education to all students, including the poor students and the rich ones, acts as the surest guarantee to a society of equity. Subsidizing the impecunious young can assist them start from the same rooting as the affluent, and can help them devote to studying without bothered by any annoyance, such as the due installment for the heavy student loan, or the depreciation and deriding from other students. And this will finally give birth to a generation of citizens who stick to our society's credo--egalitarianism and would dedicate themselves to consummating our nation and building a more mature system aimed at fairness.

However, on the other hand is a compelling argument that discloses the fallacies of the speaker's statement. To grant students the tuition assistance only according to his poverty is naturally an unfair behavior since there are a great deal of others who perform better or possess more worthy potential but have no access to it just due to his comparative wealth! Considering that the fervid subsidy will run the risk of letting the students regard college education as just a cheap “service”, thus in turn inducing the waste of this valuable public education assistance, it seems more unreasonable for a standard to determine whether to subsidize only referring to his or her pocket and account. In addition, even some ingrates would indulge themselves in carouse in excuse of no burden; after all, it is common sense that one would dedicate more for a cause due to his former paying, for this certain case that is, the parental subsidy or his hard-working in the work-study program. Thus the help on the tuition may unfortunately bring about the wasteful loss of public financial resources, which are from the pockets of thousands of hundreds to tax payers.

Another reason why I essentially disagree with the speaker is that assisting the students imposes a tough responsibility on the national finance, which also cares about other fundamental industry, including research development, military affairs, and public welfare. Thereby irrationally assigning public subsidy to so many students will exacerbate the downward national finance situation, even ultimately leading to the break-up and paralysis of other enterprises. Besides, according to the laws, advanced education proves to be an opportunity other than the mandatory regulation for the populace, so it's hard-pressed for me to treat it as a necessary function of the whole society, especially considering there are still many people going without food, clothes, and shelter, because it is obvious that the charity to these people should take precedence over the assistance to poor students.

In the final analysis, as I see it, it is of great help for the whole society to subsidize the poor young to attend college for the purpose of creating a charitable and impartial nation. However, governments cannot justify assisting all the poor students because there lies the unfairness and impracticality behind this idea. In other words, when it comes to the subsidy to the poor students, government should take as many factors as the grade, performance, potential, and the like, into consideration.

Issue 17
Formal education tends to restrain our minds and spirits rather than set them free.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The speaker asserts that formal education brings about the adverse impact on us because it places our soul in bondage. In my view this extreme position misses the point entirely. Indeed, formal education might leave us the impression of rigidity and tending to arbitrarily inculcate the students what they have no context for, but actually it pushes us to free our brain. Moreover, it is us human beings’ immanent factors that deserve to be blamed for the restraint. To account for the above-mentioned phenomena, several aspects must be pushed forward to help us gain a deep insight into what has happened.

One reason for my fundamental disagreement with the speaker is that formal education provides people with the logical thinking, analysis, creative problem-solving, in short words, life skills, which are regarded as the epitome of a free mind and spirit. Some people may argue that at present our education system cannot offer such quintessence but force the students passively absorb the insipid facts--chemical formulas, mathematical axioms, classical proverbs, and so forth. At this point I concede this argument but it is this very reason that our students indeed learn the invaluable skills because by applying the axioms to figure out math puzzle we develop our logics, through reciting the adages our inspiration and dialectic thinking are ignited, and via observing the chemical phenomena we gradually generalize the natural principles even though maybe we do not realize and notice our involuntary process of generalization. Thus it is unfair to assert that formal education keeps our thinking in check. Moreover, in a society that admires education, a person without any degree might even forfeit the life security because there would be no vacancy for these unenlightened people. Thus the absence of teaching may fetter the people within the lowest level of human beings where we only care about the trivial things, and let alone the freedom of our soul.

The second reason for my disagreement involves the basic function of education. When we are receiving formal education, the fundamental knowledge paves the way for the superior stage of education, that is, applying the expertise to create and innovate, which is a kind of emancipation of our mind and spirit. Consider the example of Karl Marx, who spent 46 years to not only learn and study but also doubt and question to profoundly understand the politics, economics, and philosophy, and this invaluable experience with formal education ultimately assist him to fulfill his aspiration and give birth to the magnum opus <Das Kapital>. Or consider a neophyte who just dabbles in physics without absorbing the essence of normal instruction. Can this sort of person deeply comprehend the Newton's Three Laws of Motion, then to be able to find its inaccuracy, ultimately to discover and create the Relativism and quantum mechanics? Thus formal education assumes an important and active role to prepare a person to embark on the journey to become unfettered and be capable of holding his or her free heart, and it is also this kind of people who account for the majority part of the great men who make vital contribution to the advancement of all humanity.

In the final analysis, in my observation, I regard the education as a neutral method of instructing people, which cannot bring neither positive nor negative effect itself. It is owing to our humanity to tend to follow the authority, along with the populace's jejune minds, that induces us to be entangled in dogmatism. One example that aptly illustrates this point involves the story of blind belief in scholasticism, which results in the medieval miserable darkness. Also we can conclude this argument from the excessive cult of Mao Zedong, the Chinese Communist leader who contributed to the Great Leap Forward and brought China to the brink of a utopian communist society. This bondage of mind and spirit cannot headstrongly be blamed on the formal education but our inborn identity. In short words, it is ourselves, not other extrinsic reasons, that restrain our brain.

In sum, the speaker begs the question. There is no reasonable justification for us to charge the normal teaching, and in my observation, formal education, unexpectedly but actually, helps the humankind a lot. Meanwhile, it’s time for us to introspect ourselves prudently.