Issue50【challenge yourself小组】第二次作业 by infant~

infant~UID：2242949

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: 596          TIME: 01:22:17          DATE: 2008-7-26 12:15:01

Is it necessary for all faculty members at the college and university level to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach, as the speaker asserts? While I concede there are certain areas where these time are spent worthwhile toward improving the instructional quality, there are far more circumstances that are opposite to this assertion.

I agree with the author insofar as in some academic fields, experiences and fresh information outside the academia are useful or even necessary. After all, there are branches of science that are primarily purposed at utility. Consider, for example, the information technology (IT), where vast information is burgeoning as every moment past by. Not only do students in this profession need to master the basic theories and technical proficiency in order to achieve an academic degree, but also they need to be informed the latest explorations and innovations in the area so as to be better adjusted for a future career. An instructional guidance would be of great help if he/she has caught the latest trends through self experiences. Needless to say, working outside the academic world will be beneficial for professors in this area. Another apt illustration of the assertion involves the science of architecture. As an traditional science as well as a practical technology, architecture involves not only theorized knowledge such as architectural history, genres and so forth, but also it embraces a much wider ken of applicable skills, crafts, cooperation ability with other experts, and so forth, which are never to be fully mastered through written materials. A real-world working professor would adjust his/her curriculum according to self experience gained through outside working. By showing the students possible choices of careers, hardships and solutions in future jobs, the professor can contribute a lot to students' better accomplishments.

Aside from its utility in pragmatic academic branches, however, the time spent on working outside the academia has little merits, or even harmful to a complete and instructional education. Consider, for example, the divinity. Hardly any useful information would the students gain were the professor working outside the academic world. After all, what would a expert in divinity do outside academia?

Or consider the medical field. Not only would students gain nothing more from their instructor's outside working experience-considering the ample experiments and internship they already have, but rather, a job outside college or university would render both careers part-time-the education and the job in any medical organization. Common sense informs us that everyone has only 24 hours per day, and that sharing the working hours with an additional job would inevitably cut down on the original working hours for instruction, thereby lowering the quality.

Regardless of fields of study, any emphasis on outside experience would be harmful to instructional quality were this emphasis over amount. After all, a main and dominating assessment of a instructor's academic quality involves the pedagogical ability to educate. An instructor would never be a respected one if no marked academic accomplishment is achieved by his/her students. Sole credence to outside experience or neglect of indoor theory will lead to a harmful misunderstanding of the subjects. Such misunderstanding can easily come into being in student's minds if the teacher spends too much time working outside and refers too much in academic classes.

To sum up, for instructor of academic fields where experiences and up-to-date information domain, it is worthwhile to work outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach. Otherwise, neither in a nonempirical branch of science nor over emphasis of outside experience would nor be advisable.

infant~UID：2242949

1.经验和最新信息占主导的学科,同意
2.不以实用为前提的其他学科,外部工作是无意义和甚至有害的
3.过度的外部工作在任何学科都是不好的

qilluraUID：2186638

Is it necessary for all faculty members at the college and university level to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach, as the speaker asserts? While I concede there are certain areas where these time are spent worthwhile toward improving the instructional quality, there are far more circumstances that are opposite to this assertion.

I agree with the author insofar as in some academic fields, experiences and fresh information outside the academic are useful or even necessary. After all, there are branches of science that are primarily purposed at utility. Consider, for example, the information technology (IT), where vast information is burgeoning as every moment past by. Not only do students in this profession need to master the basic theories and technical proficiency in order to achieve an academic degree, but also they need to be informed the latest explorations and innovations in the area so as to be better adjusted for a future career.(这里not only的位置不对，看起来好像是不只学生要如何如何，应该是students not only如何如何but also如何如何) An instructional guidance would be of great help if he/she has caught the latest trends through self experiences. Needless to say, working outside the academic world will be beneficial for professors in this area. Another apt illustration of the assertion involves the science of architecture. As an traditional science as well as a practical technology, architecture involves not only theorized knowledge such as architectural history, genres and so forth, but also it embraces a much wider ken of applicable skills, crafts, cooperation ability with other experts, and so forth, which are never to be fully mastered through written materials. A real-world working professor would adjust his/her curriculum according to self experience gained through outside working. By showing the students possible choices of careers, hardships and solutions in future jobs, the professor can contribute a lot to students' better accomplishments.

Aside from its utility in pragmatic academic branches, however, the time spent on working outside the academia has little merits, or even harmful to a complete and instructional education.(语法部队even harmful前面的be动词不见了) Consider, for example, the divinity. Hardly any useful information would the students gain were the professor working outside the academic world. After all, what would a expert in divinity do outside academia?

Or consider the medical field. Not only would students gain nothing more from their instructor's outside working experience-considering the ample experiments and internship they already have, but rather, a job outside college or university would render both careers part-time-the education and the job in any medical organization. Common sense informs us that everyone has only 24 hours per day, and that sharing the working hours with an additional job would inevitably cut down on the original working hours for instruction, thereby lowering the quality.

Regardless of fields of study, any emphasis on outside experience would be harmful to instructional quality were this emphasis over amount. After all, a main and dominating assessment of a instructor's academic quality involves the pedagogical ability to educate. An instructor would never be a respected one if no marked academic accomplishment is achieved by his/her(his/her都不要就好了贝) students. Sole credence to outside experience or neglect of indoor theory will lead to a harmful misunderstanding of the subjects. Such misunderstanding can easily come into being in student's minds if the teacher spends too much time working outside and refers too much in academic classes.

To sum up, for instructor of academic fields where experiences and up-to-date information domain, it is worthwhile to work outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach. Otherwise, neither in a nonempirical branch of science nor over emphasis of outside experience would nor be advisable.

主要问题：生词太多拉！:mad:
结构很清晰明了，鼓掌～gxgx~bgbg~
个人觉得medical的例子不好，毕竟这个专业的intern是非常重要的，有实际救人经验的老师讲课应该更有力，也让未来的医生知道医生是怎么当的。恩。。。不如举个数学之类的。
建筑的例子很牛～
同样是2个例子 agree一段 disagree两段 不知道为什么- -b

IclandUID：2517723

Is it necessary for all faculty members at the college and university level to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach, as the speaker asserts? While I concede there are certain areas where these time are spent worthwhile toward improving the instructional quality, there are far more circumstances that are opposite to this assertion.

I agree with the author insofar as in some academic fields, experiences and fresh information outside the academia are useful or even necessary. After all, there are branches of science that are primarily purposed at utility. Consider, for example, the information technology (IT), where vast information is burgeoning as every moment past by. Not only do students in this profession need to master the basic theories and technical proficiency in order to achieve an academic degree, but also they need to be informed the latest explorations and innovations in the area so as to be better adjusted for a future career. An instructional guidance would be of great help if he/she has caught the latest trends through self experiences. Needless to say, working outside the academic world will be beneficial for professors in this area. Another apt illustration of the assertion involves the science of architecture. As an traditional science as well as a practical technology, architecture involves not only theorized knowledge such as architectural history, genres and so forth, but also it embraces a much wider ken of applicable skills, crafts, cooperation ability with other experts, and so forth, which are never to be fully mastered through written materials. A real-world working professor would adjust his/her curriculum according to self experience gained through outside working. By showing the students possible choices of careers, hardships and solutions in future jobs, the professor can contribute a lot to students' better accomplishments.

Aside from its utility in pragmatic academic branches, however, the time spent on working outside the academia has little merits, or even harmful to a complete and instructional education. Consider, for example, the divinity. Hardly any useful information would the students gain were the professor working outside the academic world. After all, what would a expert in divinity do outside academia?(个人感觉这段的实例主观性太强了，对神学的观点不同人可能会有不同的想法，所以这个例子对论点的支持打了折扣)

Or consider the medical field. Not only would students gain nothing more from their instructor's outside working experience-considering the ample experiments and internship they already have(关于这点我也持保留意见), but rather（but rather?第一次听说..）, a job outside college or university would render both careers part-time-the education and the job in any medical organization. Common sense informs us that everyone has only 24 hours per day, and that sharing the working hours with an additional job would inevitably cut down on the original working hours for instruction, thereby lowering the quality.

Regardless of fields of study, any emphasis on outside experience would be harmful to instructional quality were this emphasis over amount. After all, a main and dominating assessment of a instructor's academic quality involves the pedagogical ability to educate. An instructor would never be a respected one if no marked academic accomplishment is achieved by his/her students. Sole credence to outside experience or neglect of indoor theory will lead to a harmful misunderstanding of the subjects. Such misunderstanding can easily come into being（产生后果？） in student's minds if the teacher spends too much time working outside and refers too much in academic classes.

To sum up, for instructor of academic fields where experiences and up-to-date information domain, it is worthwhile to work outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach. Otherwise, neither in a nonempirical branch of science nor over emphasis of outside experience would nor be advisable.

句式和语法沿承了楼主的严谨作风哈，挑不出什么毛病。但既然选择从学科不同来进行破题，还是举出更加有说服力的例子才好，不然会陷入循环论证的怪圈哈～～不过总体一句话，像楼主学习～！