issue50 [Jet小组] 第四次作业

teeweeUID: 2456185

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."

字数533
I agree with the speaker’s broad assertion that some faculty should spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach in order to improve the quality of instruction at the college and university level. However, the speaker unnecessarily extends this broad assertion to ‘all faculty’; while ignoring certain compelling reasons that some subjects might be impracticability(impractical). My points of contention with the speaker involve the nature of instruction at the college and university level and characteristics of some specific subjects, as discussed below.

The pivot of instruction at college and university level is the primary thing that should be discussed while talking about this issue. ‘The goal of a broad, general education is to prepare students with the thinking and learning skills they need to create a meaningful life and deal with life’s challenges.’ said by Kevin Lee in his newly published article ----‘What Is the Purpose of a College Education?’(Kevin Lee is an educational consultant and college counselor based in Southern California). I agree with the idea mentioned above that instruction at college and university level should focus on imparting students thinking and learning skills. Kevin Lee also referred that ‘Though developing some practical job skills is important, this is not the major emphasis of most colleges.’ Although there is a growing public concern over the topic ----‘the instruction at college and university level’, I think Kevin Lee’s standpoint is widely accepted. Thinking and learning skills are playing much more important roles than practical job skills are aptly illustrated by the former disputation.
这一段引用太多。

Spending time on working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach can help most faculties improving(improve) the quality of instruction. Some people may argue that working outside do(does) not bring good effects on getting breakthrough in pure academic research, because the outside working is always associated with mature technology that has nothing to do with cutting edge knowledge(one). To some extent, this viewpoint is reasonable. However, when pay attention on improving quality of instruction, working outside revealed(reveals) its indispensable status. As an old saying ‘Experience is the best teacher.’(As an old saying goes, Experience is the best teacher.) Through working outside faculties’ instruction quality could be improved, it(which) is resulted from more deeply(deep) comprehending(comprehension) of the knowledge. Obviously, faculties’ thinking and learning skill can be trained while experience is got(accumulated) in working outside删掉. All those things are just what the students trying to learn via college and university study. So the quality of instruction could be improved through bringing the thinking and learning skills, which has got from working outside, back to the classroom.

Reality is not always as perfect as people’s expectation. Some subjects, such as Philosophy and Theoretical Physics, are impracticable. All the faculties of those fields can do is doing删掉 pure research; consequently working outside the academic world is obviously impossible. So the speakers(speaker) can not extend the board assertion to those specific subjects.

In sum, it is very likely that the speaker’s standpoint, faculties should working outside the academic world in order to improve quality of instruction, is convincible. However, he or she(s/he) should pay more attention on(to) the complexity of this topic. That means some specific subjects with special characteristics are exceptions.
第三段和结尾单薄了点，头重脚轻。

[ 本帖最后由 teewee 于 2008-2-13 12:20 编辑 ]

txjlionUID: 2445370

字数533
I agree with the speaker’s broad assertion that some faculty should spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach in order to improve the quality of instruction at the college and university level. However, the speaker unnecessarily extends this broad assertion to ‘all faculty’; while ignoring certain compelling reasons that some subjects might be impracticability. My points of contention with the speaker involve the nature of instruction at the college and university level and characteristics of some specific subjects, as discussed below.

The pivot of instruction at college and university level is the primary thing should be discussed while talking about this issue. ‘The goal of a broad, general education is to prepare students with the thinking and learning skills they need to create a meaningful life and deal with life’s challenges.’ said by Kevin Lee in his newly published article ----‘What Is the Purpose of a College Education?’(Kevin Lee is an educational consultant and college counselor based in Southern California). I agree with the idea mentioned above that instruction at college and university level should focus on imparting students thinking and learning skills. Kevin Lee also referred that ‘Though developing some practical job skills is important, this is not the major emphasis of most colleges.’ Although there is a growing public concern over the topic ----‘the instruction at college and university level’, I think Kevin Lee’s standpoint is widely accepted. Thinking and learning skills are playing much more important roles than practical job skills are aptly illustrated by the former disputation.

Spending time on working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach can help most faculties improving the quality of instruction. Some people may argue that working outside do not bring good effects on getting breakthrough in pure academic research, because the outside working is always associated with mature technology that has nothing to do with cutting edge knowledge. To some extent, this viewpoint is reasonable. However, when pay attention on improving quality of instruction, working outside revealed its indispensable status. As an old saying ‘Experience is the best teacher.’ Through working outside faculties’ instruction quality could be improved, it is resulted from more deeply comprehending of the knowledge. Obviously, faculties’ thinking and learning skill can be trained while experience is got in working outside. All those things are just the students trying to learn via college and university study. So the quality of instruction could be improved through bring the thinking and learning skills, which has got from working outside, back to the classroom.

Reality is not always as perfect as people’s expectation. Some subjects, such as Philosophy and Theoretical Physics, are impracticable. All the faculties of those fields can do is doing pure research; consequently working outside the academic world is obviously impossible. So the speakers can not extend the board assertion to those specific subjects.

In sum it is very likely that the speaker’s standpoint, faculties should working outside the academic world in order to improve quality of instruction, is convincible. However, he or she should pay more attention on the complexity of this topic. That means some specific subjects with special characteristics are exception.


相当不错的一篇文章，仔细看了几遍，都没发现什么错误。 文笔不错，加油！
提一个意见，开头那一段，最好是ets所给论点的改写，而不是整体的引用，那样文章会更出彩。
：）