Issue32 new angle of salary

kamakiriUID: 193891

issue32 "A school or college should pay its teachers at the same rate in all disciplines, regardless of differences in salaries for related fields in the world outside of school. For example, entry-level teachers in mathematics and in the arts should receive the same pay, even if outside of school, math specialists earn a much higher salary on average than do specialists in the arts."

The statement is based on the response to two questions: one is "whether teachers of a school or college should be paid in the same rate in different disciplines"; the other one is "whether differences in salaries for related fields in the outside world can be regardless of". The speaker gives "yes" to both questions, however, I strongly disagree with the first contention, and suspect about the second one, that id I agree with it with reservation.

Before going into approving my assertion, it is necessary and essential to present my perspective and comprehension toward salary. From my point of view, salary epitomizes dual values of work itself and the contributions the workers make in their positions, which ultimately determines that salary is divided into two parts respectively decided by the couple of values. One part of the salary shows work value decided by work nature characterized by work's function, position, influence, development promise and so forth. Just as different foods function distinctly in keeping fit, different works contribute distinctly in improving society development. Thus, work value varies with work and goes in hand of society, changing according to work nature in different history period. This means nobody could change work nature individually, therefore, it is no need to focus on it here, but it cannot be ignored when recognizing the difference in salaries. The other part of salary is primarily from the contributions of the worker, being widely concerned with in reality, various salary criterion, ranging from paying by hour, by piece to production value, has been created in order to evaluate workers' contributions equally and rationally. These two parts are independent as well individable; the former one serves as a fundamental part, providing a foundation for the latter one which can be seen an additional part, but relatively flexible to fluctuate.

Taking the analysis of salary above as a starting point, the first contention can be easily found problemic and impractical. Teachers' work is to teach, to impart knowledge to students, no matter what discipline they take in, hence, with this same work nature, the fundamental part would be accordingly the same. Nevertheless, when it comes to the additional part that is only determined by contributions of the worker, it is a quite another case. Are the contributions of teachers in different disciplines the same? Definitely no. Then, how should they be paid in the same rate? If we insist doing so, without any regard of the rationality and equality, detrimental and negative result will follow: the teachers' enthusiasm would be greatly attacked, which would dilute the teaching quality and bring teaching innovations into a standstill; the complaints would be booming when they contrast their salary with that of others who did far less work than them. To be worse, when teachers take extreme actions such as strike, school or college, even it can be said, all of the education field would go into paralysis.

As far as speaker's second claim is concerned, the viewpoint of two-part salary is still helpful and effective. The example speaker cites refers to the differences in salaries between teachers and specialist in mathematics and art. For teachers, there exists a evaluation of system, which consists of students' response and performance, teachers' workload and achievement and so on, to evaluate their contributions, it is the same when come to specialists. However, the two systems distinguish themselves largely from the other one-they are independent of each other. In this sense, differences in salaries of specialists and teachers who engage in related fields and no matter how closely related, differences can be neglected, that is what agree with. Actually, what we disregard is just the differences in the additional part of salary. As for the remaining part-the fundamental part is still to be considered. The work natures will be bound to inevitably intertwined and interactional, as long as tow works belong to the same field. As a result, salaries of specialists and teachers in the identical field are more or less combined together, going up when this field is prosperous, and sliding down when it is unprosperous. Additionally, differences in salary in different fields is relatively fixed in given condition, accordingly, salary differences between specialists in art and mathematics and that between teachers in art and mathematics, though not completely proportionate, are similar and fluctuate with a similar amount. From this, the one-sidedness of the speaker's second claim is obvious, and that is why I said I agree with reservations.

To conclude, what we should do is not to confound the two parts of salary and reach a impractical and insignificant conclusion as speaker does, but to focus on the additional part-an easily adjustable one in hand of human, then establish equal and just criterions live up to different work in order to avoid the instability due to salary problems.

davidjackyUID: 135962

Taken

kamakiriUID: 193891

自己up一下

davidjackyUID: 135962

No.1 Issue32 new angle of salary
issue32 "A school or college should pay its teachers at the same rate in all disciplines, regardless of differences in salaries for related fields in the world outside of school. For example, entry-level teachers in mathematics and in the arts should receive the same pay, even if outside of school, math specialists earn a much higher salary on average than do specialists in the arts."[下次把中文翻译和你的提纲放在前面，谢谢]

The statement is based on the response to two questions: one is "whether teachers of a school or college should be paid in the same rate in different disciplines"; the other one is "whether differences in salaries for related fields in the outside world can be regardless of". The speaker gives "yes" to both questions, however, I strongly disagree with the first contention, and suspect about the second one, that id I agree with it with reservation.[开头可以，不过that id是什么，那句话不要]

Before going into approving[Before addressing] my assertion, it is necessary and essential to present my perspective and comprehension toward salary. From my point of view, salary epitomizes dual values of work itself and the contributions the workers make in their positions, which ultimately determines that salary is divided into two parts respectively decided by the couple of values. One part of the salary shows work value decided by work nature characterized by work's function, position, influence, development promise and so forth. Just as different foods function distinctly in keeping fit, different works contribute distinctly in improving society development. Thus, work value varies with work and goes in hand of society[这是什么意思？], changing according to work nature in different history period. This means nobody could change work nature individually, therefore, it is no need to focus on it here, but it cannot be ignored when recognizing the difference in salaries. The other part of salary is primarily from the contributions of the worker, being widely concerned with in reality, various salary criterion, ranging from paying by hour, by piece to production value, has been created in order to evaluate workers' contributions equally and rationally. These two parts are independent as well individable; the former one serves as a fundamental part, providing a foundation for the latter one which can be seen an additional part, but relatively flexible to fluctuate.[词汇背的不错，我都忘的差不多了]

Taking the analysis of salary above as a starting point, the first contention can be easily found problemic and impractical.[其实我觉得你这样的写法倒不是不可以，我想最好还是开门见山的表述如何的有问题，然后予以论证] Teachers' work is to teach, to impart knowledge to students, no matter what discipline they take in, hence, with this same work nature, the fundamental part would be accordingly the same. Nevertheless, when it comes to the additional part that is only determined by contributions of the worker, it is a quite another case [opposite situation]. Are the contributions of teachers in different disciplines the same? Definitely no. Then, how should they be paid in the same rate? If we insist doing so, without any regard of the rationality and equality, detrimental and negative result will follow: the teachers' enthusiasm would be greatly attacked, which would dilute the teaching quality and bring teaching innovations into a standstill; the complaints would be booming when they contrast their salary with that of others who did far less work than them. To be worse, when teachers take extreme actions such as strike, school or college, even it can be said, all of the education field would go into paralysis.

As far as speaker's second claim is concerned, the viewpoint of two-part salary is still helpful and effective. The example speaker cites refers to the differences in salaries between teachers and specialist in mathematics and art. For teachers, there exists a[an] evaluation of[of不要] system, which consists of students' response and performance, teachers' workload and achievement and so on, to evaluate their contributions, it is the same when come to specialists. However, the two systems distinguish themselves largely from the other one-they are independent of each other[??是学来的吗/]. In this sense, differences in salaries of specialists and teachers who engage in related fields and no matter how closely related, differences can be neglected, that is what agree with. Actually, what we disregard is just the differences in the additional part of salary. As for the remaining part-the fundamental part is still to be considered. The work natures will be bound to inevitably intertwined and interactional, as long as tow works belong to the same field. As a result, salaries of specialists and teachers in the identical field are more or less combined together, going up when this field is prosperous, and sliding down when it is unprosperous. Additionally, differences in salary in different fields is relatively fixed in given condition, accordingly, salary differences between specialists in art and mathematics and that between teachers in art and mathematics, though not completely proportionate, are similar and fluctuate with a similar amount. From this, the one-sidedness of the speaker's second claim is obvious, and that is why I said I agree with reservations.

To conclude, what we should do is not to confound the two parts of salary and reach a impractical and insignificant conclusion as speaker does, but to focus on the additional part-an easily adjustable one in hand of human, then establish equal and just criterions live up to different work in order to avoid the instability due to salary problems.
[难得第一篇成文，这样吧，你不要贪多，这篇文章抽点时间压缩一下，另外模板痕迹太严重了，小心吃亏，期待你的下一篇，好吗？]