新概念小组6月29号作业

ltx525UID: 2323504

Lucy's first assignment
June 29, 2011

6 Competition for high grades seriously limits the qualityof learning at all
levels of education.


People compete for different thingsall the time and competition for high grades is common at all levels ofeducation. There is a health competition--it is a means to facilitate learning.There is also an unhealthy competition-- it becomes an end in itself. I believeunhealthy competition for high grades is detrimental for the quality oflearning at all levels of education. Moreover, healthy competition can promotelearning at an introductory level of education but does not usually work for theadvanced level.


Unhealthy competition for highgrades deceives students to believe that grades are more important than actualknowledge or skills. Students and parents might be under the illusion thatgrades are the only criteria for school performance. In China, for example,parents send their children to go to cram schools in order to get good gradesfor exams. Too much emphasize on grades leads people to ignore the importance oflearning for its own sake. Taken this unhealthy competition into consideration,many colleges and universities do not require perspective students to submitSAT or GRE scores. The admission officers want students be good writers or goodreaders rather than getting high grades in writing or reading exams. Unhealthycompetition for high grades distracts students from learning, the true end ofeducation.


Unhealthy competition also takesaway the joy of the learning process and thus limits the quality of learning.The fear of receiving low grades might keep students from studying things inwhich they are truly interested. For example, Professor Johnson was known to bea hard-grader at his university. Many of the students were afraid to choose hisclasses although Professor Johnson’s classes were engaging and interesting.Some competitive students decided to take classes that are known to be GPAboosters, but they never had a chance to enjoy Professor Johnson’s classes forthe fear of getting low grades. This example demonstrates that unhealthyobsession with high grades keeps students from taking enjoyable classes.




Although unhealthy competition forhigh grades is an anathema for genuine education, healthy competition for highgrades can be a good incentive for students at an elementary level. Healthycompetition means that competing for good grades is only a means to an end. Theend is to encourage students to learn. For a lower level of education, such aselementary schools, students are unfamiliar with most of the fields of study.Sometimes, adopting the approach of carrot and stick can help to discipline studentsto form a learning habit. In an environment of healthy competition, forexample, elementary school students might initially study math for the sake of gettinggood grades. But as time goes by, they might develop an interest in math andlove studying math for its own sake. Healthy competition can instill studentsthe love of learning at a young age.

As students advance in theirstudies, they are dedicated to learning on their own and do not usually needthe reward and punishment system. For most undergraduate or graduate students,they sign up for classes they like or choose the field they are interested in. Therefore,students at high level of education are more concerned about the subjectmatters than the grades. Grades become just letters or numbers and what makesthem tick is their expertise. Thus, competition for high grades is no longer animportant incentive for advanced students.

In conclusion, unhealthycompetition for high grades, such as cramming for exams, seriously limits thequality of learning, and healthy competition only works for lower levelstudents not advanced ones. Besides competing for high grades, another way toincrease the quality of learning is to make study a joy for every student.


3 Educational institutions should actively encourage theirstudents to choose fields of study that will prepare them for lucrativecareers.

Students who go through generaleducation system sooner or later will have to decide their fields of study. Inorder to make a well-informed choice, students usually rely on the resources oftheir educational institutions. Educational institutions for most studentsembody an authorial voice and thus, they should be careful in guiding theirstudents in making these life-changing decisions. Educational institutionsshould never actively encourage their students to choose their fields of studyaccording to the orientation of the market.

Universities are different fromprofessional schools. Their purpose is to spread universal knowledge. Threetraditional lucrative careers are in the fields of law, medicine and business.People who want to enter those fields have to be matriculated into professionalschools. But those institutions admit people from all majors so it is futilefor universities to persuade their students to choose the “relevant” majors. Infact, most professional schools encourage students to major in somethingcompletely different from their future professional training. One study showsthat the most wanted major for medical schools is music, since students ofmusic would bring diversified experience and knowledge for the career ofmedicine. If universities align themselves too closely with the function ofprofessional schools, this will defeat the purpose of university. John HenryNewman in his book The Idea of Universitystates that [university] “is a place of teaching universal knowledge”. This impliesthat its object is intellectual, not lucrative. The end of learning should bethe diffusion and extension of knowledge rather than making people better atmaking money.

In addition, field of studies arenot necessarily equal to careers, just like good students are not necessarilygood workers. One of the most well-paid jobs is CEOs but a few of them learnhow to be a good CEO at school. To be a successful CEO, one has to gainhands-on experience which can never be learned in ivory tower.


Even if universities adopt theapproach of actively encouraging students to choose lucrative majors, studentsmight end up being less wealthy than those who choose what interests them most.Some so-called lucrative careers can be not really lucrative while some bleakcareers can be promising. In a hypothetical situation, Peter majored incomputer science after consulting with the career center at his school. Thecareer center staff told Peter that the current market would pay a lot of moneyto hire information technicians. Peter went ahead and studied computer science.Nevertheless, when Peter was about to enter the job market, the internet bubblecollapsed and too many IT people could not find jobs. Peter’s classmate Paul,on the other hand, did not listen to the career center but chose a field ofstudy that interested him the most, namely English Literature. He enjoyedreading Shakespeare and Chaucer although the staff from the career center toldhim that English literature was the least lucrative subject to study. Paul,however, eventually got a PhD in English and became a professor at a well-knownuniversity. Paul’s career turned out to be more lucrative than that of Peter’s.This example shows that schools are not always the best guide for findinglucrative careers.



In conclusion, educationalinstitutions are non-profit organizations and helping their student make monkeyshould not be their only goal. In addition, too much emphasize on students’career orientation can distract the institutions from teaching and spreadinguniversal knowledge. Lastly, schools are not always the best guide fordetermining what the most lucrative career for each student is. I stronglydisagree with the statement that schools should actively encourage theirstudents to choose fields of study according to how lucrative the career wouldbe.

5 Governments should offer college and universityeducation free of charge to all students.

In recent years, educationalexpenses have scaled up. The statement suggests one possible solution for theproblem of the costly tuitions. This solution, however, is neither practicalnor effective. Admittedly, it will expand the opportunities for accessing highereducation but its shortcomings far more outweigh its benefits. It will burdenthe tax-payers and will also run the risk of lowering students’ overallexperience of higher education. I believe that governmental process is not theanswer to the rising costs of college tuition. Rather, educational institutionsshould put more effort in fund-raising to cover the need of students.

In first glance, free universitieswill be ideal for educating the public and spreading universal knowledge.Nevertheless, when those universities rely on governmental funds, theconsequence of this solution will be devastating for tax-payers. Fewgovernments would have the money to offer higher education free of charge foreveryone, so that government will surely increase taxes. Some might think thattax-payers would be happy to support the cause of making higher educationavailable for all, but people tend to have disparate understandings ofprivileges and rights. Some believe that higher education is a privilege foronly a few people, while others advocate that higher education is a fundamentalright which should be available for everyone. Many people refuse to acknowledgethe fact that everyone has a fundamental right to health care and highereducation. Given the controversy of the current healthcare reform debate, it isreasonable to believe that the universal taxation for higher education willhave profound ramifications. Since not everyone agrees that higher education isa fundamental right, the government should not levy taxes for funding freeuniversities.

In addition to the impracticalityof relying on governmental funds, making universities free of charge will takeaway students’ initiative to be independent, a very valuable collegeexperience. When schools do not spoil their students with free tuitions,students tend to stretch themselves to make ends meet. For examples, they canwrite proposals for grants, applying for scholarship, or working part-time. Onone hand, students might improve their writing and interpersonal skills; on theother hand, they may gain a sense of independence in managing their financialproblems. Studies also show that students who work part-time jobs at collegeare more appreciative for the education they receive than those who do not.Therefore, free universities can be harmful for allowing students to bedependent and not creative in funding their studies.

Offering universities free ofcharge will further decrease the overall college experience since a largeamount of schools’ revenue comes from students’ tuitions. Schools will likelyto cut down some athletic or music programs in order to prune the budget. Thiswill be a misfortune for college students who wish to participate in sports orchoirs. I propose that universities should still charge students tuitions forthe sake of maintaining the quality of educational and extracurricularprograms. Rather than relying on government to offer universities free ofcharge, schools should rely on private donations, such as their alums and otherprivate scholarship programs, for assisting students in their college tuition.







.