issue50【勇往直前】

nornsUID：2325187

TOPIC: ISSUE50 - "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."
WORDS: 735          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2007-8-7 18:59:04

Practice makes perfect! It is often believed that through practice one will better master a subject. Then someone suggest that all university faculties should work outside the academic world to improve teaching. Well, in some cases it holds true, but the author is too hasty to generalize. In fact in some respects it is not necessary and we can get a better way to make use of practise.

Admittedly sometimes working in professions relevant to the course they teach is a better way. For example, a specialist on management put sometime into practice, say, using his theory managing several people or training some will-be leaders. It will undoubtedly improve his understanding about the subjects, and while educating his students, he will have a more vivid and of the subject. In this way the quality of instruction is improved.

However, is this always the case? In fact the author failed to consider the two respects. As we know subjects distinctively different sometimes, for example, math and engineering, which relatively has litte to do with the real world, besides the author failed to consider the feasibility. As we discuss below.

Fundamentally, can this conclusion be applied to ever realm of inquiry? To the author's appointment, no. Recall the example that was cited above, Management is a subject has more to do with the real world, for the major task of it is study relationships and interplays among individuals. However, when it comes to math things will be different. Unlike management, math centers at the abstract symbols and the connotations among numbers. Therefore, we get little from the practices. Maybe in the ancient time we can get more understanding about math by perceiving the real world. But as the accumulation of our knowledge, present math is much more abstruse, for example, they started to research muti-dimensioned space, which does not exist in our three-dimensioned world. In this case the how can a mathematician find a job relevant to his research? Not to mention improving the quality of instruction.

  Furthermore, even if some times it has benefits for the quality of instruction, from the feasibility it is unwise. To weigh the quality of education, merely consider the beneficial respects is far from enough. We should first check whether there are some factors of the method that impede the quality of instruction? If it is the case, we should further consider a overall benefits. If it does more good than harm, we can adopt it, otherwise not. When it comes to this method that the author advised, it has one significant inefficiency-it can take up the limited time of a researcher so that they have little time for research and teaching. This can do more harm for instruction despite the benefits it might bring.

For supporting examples we need look no further than our university-one of the best university in China. However, two of our five professors that are teaching us are so involved in the industrial business that they have little to fulfill their duty of education. Several times the courses are taught by his assistant. Sometimes they also complained that the university assigned too much projects like this and hinders his teaching and research. So in detail consideration, this method might consume too much time of our professors and then do more harm than good.

Then how can we neutralize the benefit and avoid the harm of this method? Notice that the premise of its major inefficiency, as we discussed in the paragraph above, is not practical (the case of mathematician) and lack of time (the case of our university). These two respects are based on the compulsory actions to force faculty attend the professions outside. If we let them decide on their own and provide the possible convenience, things will be different: mathematician find it no need to do so, then he can devote himself into research and teaching; professors who find these activities will hinder his teaching will stop it; and who find this action necessary, with the convenience provided, can easily make use the practical chances for better teaching. This is a much more advisable way.

In summary, the author neglects the diversity of different subjects. He also failed to make a consideration to comprehensively evaluate the benefit and harm brought by this matter. If we take these respects into consideration, we would find the conclusion that the author draw is too hasty, a better means should be let the right of choice open to these professors.

[ 本帖最后由 norns 于 2007-8-8 10:16 编辑 ]

nbta03UID：2326371

Practice makes perfect! It is often believed that through practice one will better master a subject. Then someone suggest that all university faculties should work outside the academic world to improve teaching. Well, in some cases it holds true, but the author is too hasty to generalize. In fact in some respects it is not necessary and we can get a better way to make use of practise. Admittedly sometimes working in professions relevant to the course they teach is a better way. For example, a specialist on management put sometime into practice, say, using his theory managing several people or training some will-be leaders. It will undoubtedly improve his understanding about the subjects, and while educating his students, he will have a more vivid and(understanding) of the subject. In this way the quality of instruction is improved.However, is this always the case? In fact the author failed to consider the two respects. As we know subjects distinctively different sometimes, for example, math and engineering(工程学和现实没有关系么), which relatively has litte（little） to do with the real world, besides the author failed to consider the feasibility. As we discuss below.Fundamentally, can this conclusion be applied to ever（every） realm of inquiry? To the author's appointment, no. Recall the example that was cited above, Management is a subject has more to do with the real world, for the major task of it is study（studying） relationships and interplays among individuals.上面的例子再说一遍有必要么？ However, when it comes to math things will be different. Unlike management, math centers at the abstract symbols and the connotations among numbers. Therefore, we get little from the practices. Maybe in the ancient time we can get more understanding about math by perceiving the real world. But as the accumulation of our knowledge, present math is much more abstruse, for example, they started to research muti-dimensioned space, which does not exist in our three-dimensioned world. In this case the how can a mathematician find a job relevant to his research? Not to mention improving the quality of instruction.  Furthermore, even if some times it has benefits for the quality of instruction, from the （+respect of）feasibility it is unwise. To weigh the quality of education, merely consider the beneficial respects is far from enough. We should first check whether there are some factors of the method that impede the quality of instruction? If it is the case, we should further consider a overall benefits. If it does more good than harm, we can adopt it, otherwise not. When it comes to this method that the author advised, it has one significant inefficiency-it can take（takes） up the limited time of a researcher so that they have little time for research and teaching. This can do more harm for instruction despite the benefits it might bring.这段的TS是怀疑可行性，可内容大多数却是在提出建议For supporting examples we need look no further than our university-one of the best university in China. However, two of our five professors that are teaching us are so involved in the industrial business that they have little to fulfill their duty of education. Several times the courses are taught by his assistant. Sometimes they also complained that the university assigned too much projects like this and hinders his teaching and research. So in detail consideration, this method might consume too much time of our professors and then do more harm than good.Then how can we neutralize the benefit and avoid the harm of this method? Notice that the premise of its major inefficiency, as we discussed in the paragraph above, is not practical (the case of mathematician) and lack of time (the case of our university). These two respects are based on the compulsory actions to force faculty attend the professions outside. If we let them decide on their own and provide the possible convenience, things will be different: mathematician find it no need to do so, then he can devote himself into research and teaching; professors who find these activities will hinder his teaching will stop it; and who find this action necessary, with the convenience provided, can easily make use （+of）the practical chances for better teaching. This is a much more advisable way.In summary, the author neglects the diversity of different subjects. He also failed to make a consideration to comprehensively evaluate the benefit and harm brought by this matter. If we take these respects into consideration, we would find the conclusion that the author draw is too hasty, a better means should be let the right of choice open to these professors.

好的就不多说拉，限时能写700＋还是很佩服你的。
不过倒数2、3段的举例和提出解决方法阐述的可能有些罗嗦，倒数2和4段的内容有些重复

woodmanUID：161906

Practicemakes perfect! It is often believed that through practice one will bettermaster a subject. Then someone suggest that all university faculties shouldwork outside the academic world to improve teaching. Well, in some cases itholds true, but the author is too hasty to generalize. In fact in some respectsit is not necessary and we can get a better way to make use of practice.

Admittedlysometimes working in professions relevant to the course they teach is a betterway. For example, a specialist on management put sometime into practice, say,using his theory managing several people or training some will-be leaders. Itwill undoubtedly improve his understanding about the subjects, and whileeducating his students, he will have a more vivid and of the subject. In thisway the quality of instruction is improved.

However,is this always the case? In fact the author failed to consider the tworespects. As we know subjects distinctively different sometimes, for example,math and engineering（工程不是偏实践？）, whichrelatively has little to do with the real world, besides the author failed toconsider the feasibility. As we discuss below.

Fundamentally,can this conclusion be applied to ever realm of inquiry? To the author's appointment(这个表达有点怪怪的), no. Recall the example that wascited above, Management is a subject has more to do with the real world, forthe major task of it is study relationships and interplays among individuals.However, when it comes to math things will be different. Unlike management,math centers at the abstract symbols and the connotations among numbers.Therefore, we get little from the practices. Maybe in the ancient time we canget more understanding about math by perceiving the real world. But as theaccumulation of our knowledge, present math is much more abstruse, for example,they started to research muti-dimensioned space, which does not exist in ourthree-dimensioned world. In this case the how can a mathematician find a jobrelevant to his research? Not to mention improving the quality of instruction.

Furthermore,even if （不要让步了）some times it has benefits for thequality of instruction, from the feasibility it is unwise. To weigh the qualityof education, merely consider the beneficial respects is far from enough. We shouldfirst check whether there are some factors of the method that impede thequality of instruction? If it is the case, we should further consider a overallbenefits. If it does more good than harm, we can adopt it, otherwise not. Whenit comes to this method that the author advised, it has one significantinefficiency-it can take up the limited time of a researcher so that they havelittle time for research and teaching. This can do more harm for instructiondespite the benefits it might bring.