ISSUE5

lestouUID: 2260126

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: 563          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2007-11-25 21:02:43
1．         小学生年龄太小，根本不知道自己的兴趣是什么。让他们自己决定可能会失去大片更美好的情景。
2．         当他们足够大，具有了一定的基础后，最好给他们足够自由
3．         每个学校也可以根据情况来安排些选修课，保证学生门的兴趣不会被抹杀。
Many people believe that out next generation, who is the future and hope of our society, should be required to take the unified curriculum which is designed by authority of the government. I strongly agree with this assertion.

For one thing, at the elementary stage, children just too young to decide what is the worthiest and what is a must to learn. When it comes to their turn to decide what to learn and what kinds of curriculum to take, they will tend to take those that they find interesting or relatively easy while shunning those they believe dull and difficult. Unfortunately, these "dull" and "difficult" subjects may play a key role in their future, especially in their college study, no matter what kind of major they choose.  For example, fundamental subjects, such as mathematician, physics, though  are relative boring, can serve as the basis to some other subjects that they have to learn in the future. So a curriculum arranged by authoriy can avoid students being isolated to their focus too earily and regret for that in the future.

On the contrary, if we let children to decide what to learn, we also can not bear a assumed result. In doing that, we are not giving them sufficient freedom; instead, we are jeopardizing their possibility of future , where  they may attain  better achievement if  all kinds of knowledge is available to them. For instance, in China, almost true forever is the abnormal phenomenon that the one who can write the best code is not the one who can get the best job in the class. In such a situation, these "gifted genius", regarded by teachers or our educational systems, were given sufficient freedom in order to allow them focused on whatever they like. Ironically, what result turns out is that these youngsters become incompetent when placed in their working position where all kind of knowledge is actually indispensable. Doubtlessly, teachers or in other words the traditional educational system, which fail to imbue them some necessary elemental all-around courses, should take up a major responsibility. Simply put, blindly focused on these toe-nails will make them oblivious to some more important subjects that they have to take advantage of in the future.

For another thing, when these juveniles grow old enough to enter the college where they not only already possess a all-around knowledge but also get mature enough to decide what they really like, it is better to give them sufficient freedom. Assume that we still force these pre-expert to learn all these subjects equally, then what will happen? We will be at the risk in a world where there's no experts at all, and that scenario is expected by none of us.

Though it is irresponsible to grant the local government the power to decide what curriculum to learn, it will beneficial to give them enough freedom to offer some un-compulsory courses for students to choose from which may help the local school to build its unique charisma as well as inspire students to go on their study more effectively by providing them opportunities of other aspects of knowledge.

For life is a paradox: it tells us to work on our interests to obtain our best efficiency, but it seldom allows us to deal with all these jobs without a comprehensive knowledge background.  However, requiring all the people to take the compulsory courses set by national authority might be a decisive step out of this dilemma.

兰子UID: 2404184

Many people believe that out next generation, who is the future and hope of our society, should be required to take the unified curriculum which is designed by authority of the government. I strongly agree with this assertion.

For one thing, at the elementary stage, children just too young to decide what is the worthiest and what is a(the) must to learn. When it comes to their turn to decide what to learn and what kinds of curriculum to take, they will tend to take those that they find interesting or relatively easy while shunning those they believe dull and difficult. Unfortunately, these "dull" and "difficult" subjects may play a key role in their future, especially in their college study, no matter what kind of major they choose.  For example, fundamental subjects, such as mathematician, physics, though  are relative boring, can serve as the basis to some other subjects that they have to learn in the future. So a curriculum arranged by authoriy can avoid students being isolated to their focus too earily and regret(和being isolated是并列的,应该也用ing形式) for that in the future.

On the contrary, if we let children to decide what to learn, we also can not bear a assumed result. In doing that, we are not giving them sufficient freedom; instead, we are jeopardizing their possibility of future , where  they may attain  better achievement if  all kinds of knowledge is available to them. For instance, in China, almost true forever is the abnormal phenomenon that the one who can write the best code is not the one who can get the best job in the class. In such a situation, these "gifted genius", regarded by teachers or our educational systems, were given sufficient freedom in order to allow them focused on whatever they like. Ironically, what result turns out is that these youngsters become incompetent when placed in their working position where all kind of knowledge is actually indispensable. Doubtlessly, teachers or in other words the traditional educational system, which fail to imbue them some necessary elemental all-around courses, should take up a major responsibility. Simply put, blindly focused on these toe-nails will make them oblivious to some more important subjects that they have to take advantage of in the future.

For another thing, when these juveniles grow old enough to enter the college where(我觉得想表达的是走进大学时,应该是时间状语从句,用when) they not only already possess a all-around knowledge but also get mature enough to decide what they really like, it is better to give them sufficient freedom. Assume that we still force these pre-expert to learn all these subjects equally, then what will happen? We will be at the risk in a world where there's no experts at all, and that scenario is expected by none of us.

Though it is irresponsible to grant the local government the power to decide what curriculum to learn, it will beneficial to give them enough freedom to offer some un-compulsory courses for students to choose from which may help the local school to build its unique charisma as well as inspire students to go on their study more effectively by providing them opportunities of other aspects of knowledge.(补充说明得不错,让观点平衡了!)

For life is a paradox: it tells us to work on our interests to obtain our best efficiency, but it seldom allows us to deal with all these jobs without a comprehensive knowledge background.  However, requiring all the people to take the compulsory courses set by national authority might be a decisive step out of this dilemma.(总结的很好啊,dilemma用的很贴切)


感觉真的和issue51很类似,列举的理由也很相似,不知道这样地作文ets会判几分呢?

shuwenyingUID: 2233183

1．         小学生年龄太小，根本不知道自己的兴趣是什么。让他们自己决定可能会失去大片更美好的情景。
2．         当他们足够大，具有了一定的基础后，最好给他们足够自由
3．         每个学校也可以根据情况来安排些选修课，保证学生门的兴趣不会被抹杀。
Many people believe that out next generation, who is the future and hope of our society, should be required to take the unified curriculum which is designed by authority of the government. I strongly agree with this assertion.

For one thing, at the elementary stage, children just too young to decide what is the worthiest and what is a must to learn. When it comes to their turn to decide what to learn and what kinds of curriculum to take, they will tend to take those that they find interesting or relatively easy while shunning those they believe dull and difficult. Unfortunately, these "dull" and "difficult" subjects may play a key role in their future, especially in their college study, no matter what kind of major they choose.  For example, fundamental subjects, such as mathematician, physics, though  are relative boring, can serve as the basis to some other subjects that they have to learn in the future. So a curriculum arranged by authoriy can avoid students being isolated to their focus too earily and regret for that in the future.

On the contrary, if we let children to decide what to learn, we also can not bear a assumed result. In doing that, we are not giving them sufficient freedom; instead, we are jeopardizing their possibility of future , where  they may attain  better achievement if  all kinds of knowledge is available to them. For instance, in China, almost true forever is the abnormal phenomenon that the one who can write the best code is not the one who can get the best job in the class. In such a situation, these "gifted genius", regarded by teachers or our educational systems, were given sufficient freedom in order to allow them focused on whatever they like. Ironically, what result turns out is that these youngsters become incompetent when placed in their working position where all kind of knowledge is actually indispensable. Doubtlessly, teachers or in other words the traditional educational system, which fail to imbue them some necessary elemental all-around courses, should take up a major responsibility. Simply put, blindly focused on these toe-nails will make them oblivious to some more important subjects that they have to take advantage of in the future.

For another thing, when these juveniles grow old enough to enter the college where they not only already possess a all-around knowledge but also get mature enough to decide what they really like, it is better to give them sufficient freedom. Assume that we still force these pre-expert to learn all these subjects equally, then what will happen? We will be at the risk in a world where there's no experts at all, and that scenario is expected by none of us.

Though it is irresponsible to grant the local government the power to decide what curriculum to learn, it will beneficial to give them enough freedom to offer some un-compulsory courses for students to choose from which may help the local school to build its unique charisma as well as inspire students to go on their study more effectively by providing them opportunities of other aspects of knowledge.

For life is a paradox: it tells us to work on our interests to obtain our best efficiency, but it seldom allows us to deal with all these jobs without a comprehensive knowledge background.  However, requiring all the people to take the compulsory courses set by national authority might be a decisive step out of this dilemma.

首先，很重要的一点，这个题目跟issue51的最大不同在于，本题目是指让学校决定课程，不是让学生自己决定，也就是说是学校决定vs国家决定。个人觉得写成让学生决定就偏题了！
个人认为除了第三点，‘ 每个学校也可以根据情况来安排些选修课，保证学生门的兴趣不会被抹杀。’可以用在这篇文章中，其余两点偏离了题目，希望作者在总结解题思路的同时，能够注意到题目之间的不同！
仅为个人观点，还请辩证看待，欢迎讨论～
留链求回拍
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=769161&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid1771129377

liyue24UID: 2350787

同意。
看题目里面没有任何出现需要学生自己拿主意的句子。rather than前后两端的核心是论述的主题和方向。

lestouUID: 2260126

恩,同意.因为写过类似的,一下就顺下来了,呵呵.捎不注意就走题了.:funk: :funk: ,要谨慎啊.类容确实需要做大修改,等下QQ里我重发给你

[ 本帖最后由 lestou 于 2007-11-27 15:32 编辑 ]

lestouUID: 2260126

1．      地方学校自己制定课程不可能完善,（由于自己的知识，资金等问题）
2．      他们可能会将自己的爱好强加到学生身上，导致学生偏科。      
3．         “WHEN THEY ENTER COLLEGE”，具有了一定的基础后，最好给他们足够自由
4．         每个学校也可以根据情况来安排些选修课，保证学生门的兴趣不会被抹杀。
Many people believe that out next generation, who is the future and hope of our society, should be required to take the unified curriculum which is designed by authority of the government. College students, whom, unlike the elementary students, they know what they really like with their sophisticated educational experience, should grant enough freedom to design their own curriculum.  I strongly agree with this recommendation.

For one thing, local government, confined by their limited resources, both software and hardware, can hardly design an all- around curriculum for students. Assume that curriculum can design by each school willfully, and then what will happen? It is self-evidence that curriculum will be largely determined by the unbalanced knowledge background of the designer, and influenced by the culture of the local custom.   For example, a teacher may look into this biased textbook for guidance in deciding what to teach for their students, and their students, who are imbued with this unbalanced knowledge, in turn will take the advantage of “precious” knowledge to formulate some different ideas and distinctive principles, therefore, they eventually become aberrant and deviated by only using a limited knowledge background. Needless to say, such a scenario is expected by none of us.

Another thing is that, they will tend to only attach attention to few subjects that they believe worth to learn. In doing that, we are not giving students sufficient freedom; instead, we are jeopardizing their possibility of future, where they may attain better achievement if all kinds of knowledge is available to them. For instance, in China, almost true forever is the abnormal phenomenon that the one who can write the best code is not the one who can get the best job in the class. In such a situation, these "gifted genius", regarded by teachers or our educational systems, were given sufficient freedom in order to allow them focused on whatever they like. Ironically, what result turns out is that these youngsters become incompetent when placed in their working position where all kind of knowledge is actually indispensable. Doubtlessly, teachers or in other words the traditional educational system, which fail to imbue them some necessary elemental all-around courses, should take up a major responsibility. Simply put, blindly focused on these toe-nails will make them oblivious to some more important subjects that they have to take advantage of in the future.

What’s more, when these juveniles grow old enough to enter the college, when they not only already possess a all-around knowledge but also get mature enough to decide what they really like, it is better to give them sufficient freedom. Assume that we still force these pre-expert to learn all these subjects equally, then what will happen? We will be at the risk in a world where there's no experts at all, and that scenario is expected by none of us.

Though it is irresponsible to grant the local government the power to decide what curriculum to learn, it will beneficial to give them enough freedom to offer some un-compulsory courses for students to choose from which may help the local school to build its unique charisma as well as inspire students to go on their study more effectively by providing them opportunities of other aspects of knowledge.

For life is a paradox: it tells us to work on our interests to obtain our best efficiency, but it seldom allows us to deal with all these jobs without a comprehensive knowledge background.  However, requiring all the people to take the compulsory courses set by national authority might be a decisive step out of this dilemma.

lestouUID: 2260126

好象一直在说各自为政的坏处,忘记说如果同意安排课程的好处了,呵呵.

anita840808UID: 2431016

低见:文章写得很有思想,再注意一下语言的运用,比如说避免词语的重复使用就更好了.


Many people believe that our next generation, the future and hope of our society, should be required to take the unified curriculum which is designed by authority of the government. College students, whom, unlike the elementary students, they know what they really like with their sophisticated educational experience, should be granted enough freedom to design their own curriculum.  I strongly agree with this recommendation.

For one thing, local government, confined by their limited resources, both software and hardware, can hardly design an all-around curriculum for students. Assume that curriculum can be designed by each school willfully, and then what will happen? It is self-evidence that curriculum will be largely determined by different designers with unbalanced knowledge background, and influenced by the culture of the local custom.  For example, a teacher may look into this biased textbook( how did you definite the local syllabus to be biased?) for guidance in deciding what to teach for their students, and their students, who are imbued with this unbalanced and inconclusive knowledge, in turn will take the advantage of “precious” knowledge to generate some extraordinary ideas and distinctive principles, therefore, they eventually have a great possibility to become aberrant and deviated on the basis of a limited knowledge background. Needless to say, such a scenario is expected by none of us.( pretty concise and powerful conclusion to the above argument~~ up up )

Besides, they will tend to only concentrate on few subjects that they consider to be worth learning. In doing that, we are not giving students sufficient freedom; instead, we are jeopardizing their possibility of future, where they may attain better achievement if all kinds of knowledge is available to them. For instance, in China, almost true forever is the abnormal phenomenon that the one who can write the best code is not the one who can get the best job in the class. In such a situation, these "gifted genius", regarded by teachers or our educational systems, were given sufficient freedom to contribute themselves to  whatever they like. Ironically, what result turns out is that most of these youngsters are incompetent to their parctical work when placed in society where all kind of knowledge is actually indispensable. Doubtlessly, teachers or in other words the traditional educational system, which fail to imbue them some necessary elemental all-around courses, should take up a major responsibility. Simply put, blindly focusing on these toe-nails will make them oblivious to some more important subjects that they have to take advantage of in the future.

What’s more, when these juveniles grow old enough to enter the college, when they not only already possess a all-around knowledge but also get mature enough to decide what course they would like to recieve, it is better to give them sufficient freedom. Suppose that we still force these pre-expert to learn all these subjects equally, then what will happen? We will be at the risk in a world where there's no experts at all, and without strongly supporting evidence, the assumption is unsustainable.
Though it is irresponsible to grant the local government the power to decide what curriculum to learn, it will be beneficial to give them enough freedom to offer some un-compulsory courses for students to choose from which may help the local school to build its unique charisma as well as inspire students to go on their study more effectively by providing them opportunities of other aspects of knowledge. (wonderful long and complex sentence)

For life is a paradox: it tells us to work on our interests to obtain our best efficiency, but it seldom allows us to deal with all these jobs without a comprehensive knowledge background. However, requiring all the people to take the compulsory courses set by national authority might be a decisive step out of this dilemma.(the conclusion seems to be a little bit irrelevant to the subject. In my opinion, a simple and natural end may be better.)


[ 本帖最后由 anita840808 于 2007-11-27 21:44 编辑 ]

shuwenyingUID: 2233183

语言方面anita840808该得很仔细，我就不重复了。主要讲讲整体结构的大方面。
1．      地方学校自己制定课程不可能完善,（由于自己的知识，资金等问题）
2．      他们可能会将自己的爱好强加到学生身上，导致学生偏科。      
3．         “WHEN THEY ENTER COLLEGE”，具有了一定的基础后，最好给他们足够自由请再将题目看一遍，题目已经明确限定在until they enter college所以不用再讨论enter college之后的情况。再说，题目没有讨论学生个人兴趣
4．         每个学校也可以根据情况来安排些选修课，保证学生门的兴趣不会被抹杀。
Many people believe that out next generation, who is the future and hope of our society, should be required to take the unified curriculum which is designed by authority of the government. College students, whom, unlike the elementary students, they know what they really like with their sophisticated educational experience, should grant enough freedom to design their own curriculum.请再将题目看一遍，题目已经明确限定在until they enter college所以不用再讨论enter college之后的情况  I strongly agree with this recommendation.
For one thing, local government, confined by their limited resources, both software and hardware, can hardly design an all- around curriculum for students. Assume that curriculum can design by each school willfully, and then what will happen? It is self-evidence that curriculum will be largely determined by the unbalanced knowledge background of the designer, and influenced by the culture of the local custom.   For example, a teacher may look into this biased textbook for guidance in deciding what to teach for their students, and their students, who are imbued with this unbalanced knowledge, in turn will take the advantage of “precious” knowledge to formulate some different ideas and distinctive principles, therefore, they eventually become aberrant and deviated by only using a limited knowledge background. Needless to say, such a scenario is expected by none of us. 这个论点挺有说服力的！
Another thing is that, they will tend to only attach attention to few改成a few subjects that they believe worth to learn. In doing that, we are not giving students sufficient freedom不是给学生自由，而是给学校自由; instead, we are jeopardizing their possibility of future, where they may attain better achievement if all kinds of knowledge is available to them. For instance, in China, almost true forever is the abnormal phenomenon that the one who can write the best code is not the one who can get the best job in the class. In such a situation, these "gifted genius", regarded by teachers or our educational systems, were given sufficient freedom in order to allow them focused on whatever they like. Ironically, what result turns out is that these youngsters become incompetent when placed in their working position where all kind of knowledge is actually indispensable. Doubtlessly, teachers or in other words the traditional educational system, which fail to imbue them some necessary elemental all-around courses, should take up a major responsibility. Simply put, blindly focused on these toe-nails will make them oblivious to some more important subjects that they have to take advantage of in the future. 这一点似乎跟第一点意思上有点重复,也是说学生知识不完善，而且有偏向让学生自由选择课程的嫌疑，似乎没有脱离上面那篇文章的影响
What’s more, when these juveniles grow old enough to enter the college, when they not only already possess a all-around knowledge but also get mature enough to decide what they really like, it is better to give them sufficient freedom. Assume that we still force these pre-expert to learn all these subjects equally, then what will happen? We will be at the risk in a world where there's no experts at all, and that scenario is expected by none of us. 题目已经明确限定在until they enter college所以不用再讨论enter college之后的情况。所以这一点可以删掉
Though it is irresponsible to grant the local government the power to decide what curriculum to learn, it will beneficial to give them enough freedom to offer some un-compulsory courses for students to choose from which may help the local school to build its unique charisma as well as inspire students to go on their study more effectively by providing them opportunities of other aspects of knowledge.
For life is a paradox: it tells us to work on our interests注意题目要求讨论学校选课和国家规定课程 to obtain our best efficiency, but it seldom allows us to deal with all these jobs without a comprehensive knowledge background.  However, requiring all the people to take the compulsory courses set by national authority might be a decisive step out of this dilemma.
总的来说比上一篇好很多，看得出是在努力脱离前文的影响
但是某些段落仍然在讨论学生个人兴趣，本题涉及这个方面，请务必注意
还有，个人认为不必讨论college的情况，也是题目给了明确的限定和提示
个人意见，欢迎讨论啊

lestouUID: 2260126

anita840808 的仔细修改十分感谢,肯定是费了不少力气(这点我是最清楚的,)更何况是用英文做的评价,更加难能可贵了.你做的修改基本上是十分贴切的,我都仔细看了一遍.

过段时间我会重写一遍贴上,希望能有不同的思路,呵呵,到时候继续来拍啊.


SHUWENYING,这个走题的问题,等下我在QQ里和你讨论