issue5 南智组luckychina第18次作业

luckychinaUID: 2131861

TOPIC: ISSUE5 - "A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer."
WORDS: 525          TIME: 0:50:00          DATE: 2007-1-25


Today, in a highly competitive society requiring increasingly strict criteria to talents, education has to imbue students with general abilities. To provide them an equal start, a united standard, and prevent from resource wasting, elementary education should require all students to study the same national curriculum rather than different ones designed by various parts of the nation.

Before discussing who should be responsible and entitled to design the curriculum, we had better to consider the original purpose of education first, especially to students before entering college or university. On the one hand, basic academic knowledge, such as math, verbal, language, history, philosophy, psychology, humanities, etc, is important, not only set a firm foundation to their further study, but providing a scientific and logical perspective to the mundane world as well. On the other hand, moral and ethic standards exert a fundamental role to students' life. It is highly necessary for them to realize which is "right" and which is "wrong", to recognize which can do and which can not. These two purposes of elementary education would make students potential qualified citizens, no matter who they would be, what they would do and where they would go.

In this sense, the national core curriculum could meet the demands above and have a lot of advantages to students. The same curriculum gives an equal start to every individual. It would never happen that children in less advanced region are not able to benefit from the latest modern educational theories. That is called, No Child Left Behind. Moreover, after students graduate from high school, chances that they take SAT with the same examining standards and get access to ideal college or university would be of little difference. Every student is entitled to enter Harvard with high score and qualified characteristic, developed in the same national curriculum. Besides, this unition is on the correct side with an economic perspective. Different parts draft different curriculums by collecting numerous experts, long time and luscious money. No rational tax payer would deny that it is better to invest in better faculties and equipments than to waste time and money on the repeating project of designing a local curriculum. Therefore, the national core curriculum should be advocated.

Admittedly, some claim that different parts of the nation should be entitled to design different curriculum, to maintain the local culture and traditions and mold students in a more proper way, especially in a world with globalization where everything in everywhere is likely to tend to be the same with each other. However, the argument is biased. California born and California grown, for example, students could be willy-nilly influenced by the environment around them. If students are not required to be experts on the local specialties, it is unnecessary to set some disciplines to cultivate them the local dialect and tradition in school for an individual who is always immersed in such atmosphere. The life has taught them, and that is enough.

In sum, to require all students to learn the same curriculum before college does not equal to refuse any local specialties and it is also impossible concerning that humans are socialized animals, including children.

本来觉得教育类的还比较好写，但例子还是很少，字数怎么还是老是提不上去呢~~

[ 本帖最后由 luckychina 于 2007-1-27 21:37 编辑 ]

qqwuweiyiUID: 2223826

Today, in（with）a highly competitive society requiring increasingly strict criteria to talents, education has to imbue students with general abilities. To provide them with an equal start, a united standard, and prevent from （去掉）resource wasting, elementary education should require all students to study the same national curriculum rather than different ones designed by various parts of the nation.

Before discussing who should be responsible for and entitled to design the curriculum, we had better to consider the original purpose of education first, especially to students before entering into college or university. On the one hand, basic academic knowledge, such as math, verbal, language, history, philosophy, psychology, humanities, etc, is important, not only set a firm foundation to (lay a firm foundation for) their further study, but also providing (provide) a scientific and logical perspective to the mundane world as well（去掉）. On the other hand, moral and ethic standards exert a fundamental role(exert 好像没有见过用role的，用play an important role in比较好) to students' life. It is highly necessary for them to realize which is "right" and which is "wrong", to recognize (用to recognize容易引起歧义，改成and recognize) which can do and which can not (这里得which 都应该是what). These two purposes of elementary education would make students potential qualified citizens, no matter who they would be, what they would do and where they would go.

In this sense, the national core curriculum could meet the demands above and have a lot of advantages to students.（ The same curriculum gives an equal start to every（each）individual. It would never happen that children in less advanced region are not able to benefit from the latest modern educational theories. That is called, No Child Left Behind. Moreover, after students graduate from high school, chances that they take SAT with the same examining(examine) standards and get access to ideal college or university would be of little difference. Every student is entitled to enter Harvard with high score and qualified characteristic, developed in(which depends on) the same national curriculum. Besides, this unition is on the correct side with an economic perspective. Different parts draft different curriculums by collecting numerous experts, which needs long time and luscious(wastes of) money. No rational tax payer would deny that it is better to invest in better faculties and equipments than to waste time and money on the repeating project of designing a local curriculum. Therefore, the national core curriculum should be advocated.

Admittedly, some claim that different parts of the nation should be entitled to design different curriculum, to maintain the local culture and traditions and mold students in a more proper way, especially in a world with globalization where everything in everywhere is likely to tend to be the same with each other. However, the argument is biased. California born and California grown, for example, students could be willy-nilly influenced by the environment around them. If students are not required to be experts on the local specialties, it is unnecessary to set some disciplines to cultivate them the local dialect and tradition in school for an individual who is always immersed in such atmosphere. The life has taught them, and that is enough.（这里仅从local specialties角度来说，我觉得证明不是很充分）

In sum, to require all students to learn the same curriculum before college does not equal to refuse any local specialties and it is also impossible concerning that humans are socialized animals, including children.

[ 本帖最后由 qqwuweiyi 于 2007-1-29 09:37 编辑 ]

lalahUID: 2215160

嘿嘿。。。稍等哈~

lalahUID: 2215160

TOPIC: ISSUE5 - "A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer."WORDS: 525          TIME: 0:50:00          DATE: 2007-1-25

Today, in a highly competitive society requiring increasingly strict criteria to talents, education has to imbue students with general abilities. To provide them (with) an equal start, a united standard, and prevent from resource wasting (prevent resource from <being可省略> wasted), elementary education should require all students to study the same national curriculum rather than different ones designed by various parts of the nation.既然后面谈到了可以有地区性的教育，这里也可以点一下。


Before discussing who should be responsible and entitled to design the curriculum, we had better to consider the original purpose of education first, especially to （这里的衔接~有点问题。especially前面应该有个形容词或是程度副词的）students before entering college or university. （这一句是要说基础教育的目的，也就是学生在进入大学之前应具备的素质，最好能有一句总结下，或是有一句过度的。）On the one hand,(这个应该是并列的吧，这对词组是表转折的，建议用for one thing…for another) basic academic knowledge, such as math, verbal, language, history, philosophy, psychology, humanities, etc, is important, not only sets a firm foundation to their further study, but providing (provides) a scientific and logical perspective to the mundane world as well. (其实这里还可以延伸一下，如数学为他们在大学里选择读物力，经济或是统计之类的打基础，也是他们发展自己的专业领域的基础，语文就谈到文学，历史，评论，甚至是政治，法律，基本的文字理解能力，等等。。。) On the other hand, moral and ethic standards exert a fundamental role to students' life. <这里的话，可以谈谈一些道德准则是社会稳定的基础及其重要性，但是这属不属于国家统一安排课程？我不敢下判断，其实还以有国家文化的统一价值观，有利于国家的统一与培养孩子的民族或国家的认同感>【It is highly necessary for them to realize which (what) is "right" and which (what) is "wrong", to recognize which can do and which can not <主动或是被动，有两种改法>】(我翻写了，It is highly necessary for them to tell the “right” from the “wrong”, and realize and recognize what they should do and what they should not.). These two purposes of elementary education（这里最好体现出统一课程的好处吧~） would make students potential qualified citizens, no matter who they would be, what they would do and where they would go.（前后都有总结挺好的~）

In this sense, the national core curriculum could meet the demands above and（这里有个因果关系~加therefore）have a lot of advantages to students. The same curriculum gives an equal start to every individual. It would never happen that children in less advanced region are not able (unable) to benefit from the latest modern (应该是最基本的，最普遍的教育，而不是最新的吧~) educational theories（教育理念或所教育的内容，理论有许多流派，各国家所支持的和采用的又有不同）. That is called, No Child Left Behind. Moreover, after students graduate from high school, chances that they take SAT with the same examining standards and get access to ideal college or university would be of little difference. Every student is entitled to enter Harvard with high score and qualified characteristic, developed （人用growing好点吧~） in the same national curriculum. Besides, this unition<?> is on the correct side with an economic perspective. Different parts draft different curriculums by collecting numerous experts, long time and luscious money. No rational tax payer would deny that it is better to invest in better faculties and equipments than to waste time and money on the repeating project of designing a local curriculum.<这句话与这段话有什么关系？我不是很懂~> Therefore, the national core curriculum should be advocated. (这段是要阐述国家统一课程的好处吧，但是在下面的论证中的力度不够明显，也就是学生从中获得的好处，平等，可以谈谈兼顾学生的差异性，但老师不一样也可能带来不平等。其实国家统一课程不仅仅是为了学生的平等权利的保障，除了上面的民族认同感之类的，还有的是该国家的文化传统的延续，保证民族不会因地区的差异性而内乱之类的。)


Admittedly,some claim that different parts of the nation should be entitled to design different curriculum, to maintain the local culture and traditions and mold students in a more proper way, especially in a world with globalization where everything in everywhere is likely to tend to be the same with each other.（makes most regions similar to each other） However,（这两个转折词有点乱~） the argument is biased. California born and California grown, for example, students could be willy-nilly influenced by the environment around them. If students are not required to be experts on the local specialties, it is unnecessary to set some disciplines to cultivate them the local dialect and tradition in school for an individual who is always immersed in such atmosphere. （不是说学生不要求成为专家，就不需要设置具有地区性的课程。首先是地区有可能设置较其他地区更为先进的课程，如90年代初北京中小学可能设置电脑课，而国家并没有开设，包括一些较为落后的地区入西藏，新疆等的中小学就没开；或是少数民族的学生已经汉化了，有点不会讲民族语言，其实有必要开设这样的课程来保存民族的语言，文化等，当然其他民族的学生也欢迎学习。）The life has taught them, and that is enough.（这段论证有点勉强~那两个转折词，可以先提出后面的，再用even though…做一个小让步~）

In sum, to require all students to learn the same curriculum before college does not equal to refuse any local specialties and it is also impossible concerning that humans are socialized animals, including children.（这句有点~我不是很懂~）

alive1986UID: 2241739

Today, in a highly competitive society requiring increasingly strict criteria to talents, education has to imbue students with general abilities. To provide them an equal start, a united standard, and prevent from resource wasting, elementary education should require all students to study the same national curriculum rather than different ones designed by various parts of the nation

Before discussing who should be responsible and entitled to design the curriculum, we had better to consider the original purpose of education first, especially to students before entering college or university.（这一句不能算上TS句，只能用作过渡） On the one hand, basic academic knowledge, such as math, verbal, language, history, philosophy, psychology, humanities, etc, is important, not only set a firm foundation to their further study, but providing a scientific and logical perspective to the mundane world as well. On the other hand, moral and ethic standards exert a fundamental role to students' life. It is highly necessary for them to realize which is "right" and which is "wrong", to recognize which can do and which can not. These two purposes of elementary education would make students potential qualified citizens, no matter who they would be, what they would do and where they would go.

In this sense, the national core curriculum could meet the demands above and have a lot of advantages to students.(还是TS的问题，必须总领本段大意) The same curriculum gives an equal start to every individual. It would never happen that children in less advanced region are not able to benefit from the latest modern educational theories. That is called, No Child Left Behind. Moreover, after students graduate from high school, chances that they take SAT with the same examining standards and get access to ideal college or university would be of little difference. Every student is entitled to enter Harvard with high score and qualified characteristic, developed in the same national curriculum（这里结论过于牵强，参加SAT考试的例子可以说明，学生在进入大学后不会在基础上有太大差别，因为SAT对他们进行了一次筛选）. Besides, this unition is on the correct side with an economic perspective. Different parts draft different curriculums by collecting numerous experts, long time and luscious money. No rational tax payer would deny that it is better to invest in better faculties and equipments than to waste time and money on the repeating project of designing a local curriculum. Therefore, the national core curriculum should be advocated.

Admittedly, some claim that different parts of the nation should be entitled to design different curriculum, to maintain the local culture and traditions and mold students in a more proper way, especially in a world with globalization where everything in everywhere is likely to tend to be the same with each other. However, the argument is biased. California born and California grown（像是NCE里的句子，欣赏）, for example, students could be willy-nilly influenced by the environment around them. If students are not required to be experts on the local specialties, it is unnecessary to set some disciplines to cultivate them the local dialect and tradition in school for an individual who is always immersed in such atmosphere. The life has taught them, and that is enough.（最后一段显得并说服力不足，环境是可以交给一个学生地方行的特色，但不等于可以取代教育上各地的差异，建议这段采取让步的方式谈national curriculum的缺点）

In sum, to require all students to learn the same curriculum before college does not equal to refuse any local specialties（改为the absence of local specialties是否好些？） and it is also impossible concerning that humans are socialized animals, including children.