Issue50 请各位拍砖！

xiaoheUID: 162707

------题目------
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.

------正文------
It is important for the colleges and universities to maintain a high quality of instruction. But in order to achieve a higher quality, is it necessary for all faculty to work in some non-academic profession relevant to the courses they teach? No, it’s not. It may be of some help, but it’s not always a practical or feasible requirement.

Having some relevant working experience is good for some college teachers of some application subjects. In those application subjects such as accounting, business administration, computer programming and so on, the students are mainly prepared for entering certain non-academic professions. Thus, the teachers are expected to give the most up-to-date knowledge to them, which will help them to become a technologically competent staff as soon as possible. If the teachers already had some direct experience from the relevant real-world, they will know how to meet the need in their class. Otherwise, they may cling to some out-of-date knowledge which has no use at all. In this sense, the working experience helps to improve the quality of college instruction.

However, without the working experience in relevant non-academic world, the teachers can equally improve their quality of instruction.

On the one hand, to keep the content of the courses to be the most practical and most up-to-date, instead of entering the profession, one can employ many other ways including reading academic reports and analysis, doing field research, holding interviews with the professionals etc. These ways are usually more efficient than becoming a professional oneself, since one can have a broad view of the subject from more perspectives within a comparatively shorter period of time. While entering the profession means you have to spend a lot of time fulfilling the tasks assigned to you before you have time or chance to learn more toward the essence.

On the other hand, for those courses that have no problem with the contents, it’s obvious that improving the teaching methods and teaching skills is the correct way to improve the quality of instruction instead of requiring teachers to enter non-academic professions. Leading interactive classes instead of giving a lecture all by oneself, applying multi-media devices instead of using only a blackboard and a white chalk, a teacher is bound to enormously improve his teaching quality.
.
Furthermore, besides application subjects, there are also many basic subjects at colleges and universities, such a mathematics, theoretical physics and so on. They go from theories to theories, which are not directly applied in our societies. In these subjects, how is it possible for the teachers to enter a relevant profession outside of academic world? And what’s the need for them to do so?  

In one word, there is no direct connection between improving the quality of instruction at college and the faculty working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach, and it should not be required for all faculty to do so.

imongUID: 140258

听Daj说想邀请你做行前版的斑竹的...不知道有没有兴趣呢:)

文笔感觉还是挺流畅的 不过文章立意还应该再加深一些。
Application subject似乎不是正确的表达（我感觉） 看起来好古怪的样子

所谓的立意加深 就是说各个细节的分析展开再深入一些
比如b1写到教师的工作经验运用于课堂讲解对将来学生工作有帮助 那么这里能不能拿出一个实际的例子好好分析一下呢？两三句话 说服力就上去了

b2 b3 b4提到了其他的方面：例如增大content，改进教学方法，对某些学科找这种工作不切实际。增大content和改进教学方法都像b1一样，应该写得更细致一些。而且整篇文章应该存在一个judgementation的问题：开头的总论点是"没必要"，那么这个判断从何而来？你是不是以"效率"作为判断的标准，然后针对不同的情况发现不同的结论？

整个line of reasoning，大的框架要搭好，该深入的分析要做精细，文章就非常有力了。

xiaoheUID: 162707

很受启发，我再仔细琢磨琢磨。还请继续指导啊！

关于Application subject，我是想说“应用学科”，一时搞不清地道说法，也就将就了，如果有谁知道，一定告诉我吧。

听Daj说想邀请你做行前版的斑竹的...不知道有没有兴趣呢
关于这一点，很惭愧哩。我也没做什么嘛，只是觉得有一点经验就应该拿出来分享嘛，否则岂不是太浪费了。加上我一直都忙，最近更是为了考G焦头烂额，上网只能尽力而为。很不好意思的说！

fhxyweiUID: 157384

赞同imong的意见，阅读你的文章，非常的轻松，没有什么复杂的难句，论证思路清晰。
但有一点，就是如同imong说的，可能差点例证，没有深入下去。在这一点上，我恰恰相反，老想的就是“事实胜于雄辩”，将一些例子生吞进文章里面，分析不够。这个两个极端最好不要走！
：）