ISSUE51 决战830拍砖组™"8月14日作业 同主题高频狂练,请兄弟们狂拍

melodyli9361UID: 2121345

我8.29考，今天不限时写的（想看看能写成什么样），结果字数超多，555
827words

51"Education will be truly effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student."

So attractive the claim seems that education will be truly effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student, that people tend to simply overlook its impracticality in both the determination of the curriculum and the way to apply specifically designed classes to each individual.

Admittedly, individual-oriented education does benefit students in all levels, from diversed backgrounds and with different interests. Understandably, the aptitude to comprehend new knowledge varies from one student to another, thus a universal speed of teaching, which is usually designed to meet the need of the majorities, will inevitably dissatisfy some learners: some may feel it too demanding while some may find it too simple. Additionally, students from different culture or belief backgrounds sometimes have specific demands: students from certain culture may have difficulty in learning in English, or just hope to be taught in other languages; when it comes to religions, taboos, such as beliefs against working in special days, or coeducation, may matter a lot to some individuals. In the third place, a single curriculum could hardly fit each student's interests-- compulsory classes on Shakespeare may delight students with an interest in literature as well as become a big headache, if not an offence, for those who believe in Plato's "literature is twice distorted from the reality". With individual-oriented education, these problems can all be solved.

Nevertheless, to determine what to teach each individual is an arduous, if not impossible, task.

In the first place, it should be recognized that individual needs and interests are two related, but somehow separated concepts, which contradict each other under certain circumstances. For example, to be a reasonably informed adult, one has to have some basic knowledge about chemistry, such as H2O, or in another word, hydrogen monoxide, represents water, but for those who have no interest in chemistry at all, should we compel them to learn some chemistry, which is not to meet one's interests, or should we simply dismiss the chemistry courses which is not to meet one's need? Since needs and interests have such a contradictory side, "to meet the individual needs AND interests" sometimes becomes a vain promise.

Secondly, even assume that one's needs and interests could both be satisfied by an ideal curriculum, whether this curriculum could last for an adequate period of time for it to do good to the student is still a question. According to my observation, juvenile career dreams are quite mutable. For example, a teenager may change his or her career anticipation from an astronomer to a film star after watching a film. However, in this case, the needs and the interests are of no doubt changed, thus the ideal curriculum for the juvenile will also change greatly: classes such as mathematics, physics, astronomy and electronics should be reduced, while performing trainings and art trainings should be added. A quite possible result of this change is that the aborted lessons are still too superficial to leave the student much positive effect, while the newly opened classes might be discarded and replaced by some others within a short period of time.

Moreover, even if we already have a neat list of curriculum for each individual at hand, to apply it in the real world would require so great resources that we can hardly afford.

We can see this problem most explicitly in the education of astronomers. The cultivation of a cosmonaut may take millions of dollars: for example, recently the Russian cosmonautic administrations charged the South Korea approximately 20 million dollars for the education of two cosmonauts. In an era that young multimillionaires start their outer space travels one after another after they paid Russian or American government millions of dollars, it is hard to believe that there are only two citizens in South Korea who are willing as well as qualified to travel to the outer space. But should the tax payers in Korea pay for the education of all the competent youngsters? If not, isn't it against our "to meet the individual needs and interests of each student" policy? If yes, can South Koreans afford such expense? Even assume that they are rich enough, is it fair to concentrate so much resources on a small group of people, even when there is no such great need for so many of them to go to the outer space in the society?

Even if our education policies do not include such extremes, more common needs and interests of individuals can as well deplete our society. It is quite a reasonable hope for the top 5 students in senior high schools to want to enroll in the top 5 universities, whereas in fact these universities are rejecting such very qualified students every year. To meet such needs and interests, I am afraid we have to enlarge our top 20 universities by tens of times. But can we afford to multiply the financial support and faculty members as well to maintain the level of education these universities now offer? Suppose that we can get adequate financial support, whether it is from the government or from private endowments, to hire enough qualified teachers is still a task that could deplete our resource of brains in other fields.

In sum, the claim is as attractive as impractical that education will be truly effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-14 at 23:50 ]

yxepochUID: 2124411

Hey, generally speaking, it should be a good essay due to your strong logical thinking and wonderful vocabulary, but it's too long compared with GRE requirements. Therefore, I suggest you to do the curtail job to make it a standard one at first, and then I will do the revise as soon as possible, is that ok?

Otherwise, thank you so much for your advice on my essay, it's greatly helpful.

Cheers!

melodyli9361UID: 2121345

Seemingly so attractive the claim is that education will be truly effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student, that people tend to simply ignore the impracticality of this announcement.

Admittedly, the individual-oriented education can benefit students from diversed backgrounds and with different interests. Different backgrounds call for specifically assigned curriculum. For example, some students may have trouble in understanding courses taught in English, or some may just hope to be taught in their mother languages; individuals hold some religious beliefs may need to attend some rituals in some school days under which condition it is quite likely that they have to learn the courses taught in that day by themselves. Also, the interests of students are so diverse that uniformly designed courses may leave many of them unsatisfied. For instance, a compulsory course on Shakespeare may delight those who interest in literature as well as be a big headache, if not an offence, for those who believe in Plato's "literature is twice distorted from the reality".

According to the conditions discussed above, it seems that we should fully embrace the education specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests. Nevertheless, the practical problems halt our dreams.

First, to determine a neat curriculum for each student is an arduous, if not impossible task.

In the first place, it should be recognized that individual needs and interests are two separated, though somehow interrelated, concepts. It is quite possible that one's needs are contradictory with one's interests. For example, to be a well-informed adult one has to know some basics of chemistry, such as hydrogen monoxide stands for water. But what if some students have no interest in chemistry at all? Should we compel them to learn it, which is against their interest, or should we just discard the chemistry lessons for them, which is against their need?

Even assume that we can combine the needs and interests into a single curriculum for each student, whether this arrangement of courses could last a period of time long enough for it to do good to the student is still under doubt. As far as I observe, juvenile interests are so changeable, that one's dream career may jump from astronomer to film star just because of a film. Under such circumstances, the needs and interests for the student change greatly, then it seems that we should cut the mathematics, physics and astronomy classes that are designed to cultivate an astronomer, while add art and drama lessons into the individual's curriculum. But it might be the case that the maths, physics and astronomy classes are so short-life that they left no valuable impact on the student, while the art and drama lessons would follow their way later because of another change.

Moreover, given that needs and interests could be combined into a curriculum that could also last for a period of time that is long enough for it to work, the application of the individual curriculum in the real world would require so enormous resources that it might deplete all our resources.

To meet some needs and interests in some highly esteemed and desirable professions may require so much money and other kinds of resources that we can hardly afford. The education of astronomers is a perfect example for this point. The cultivation of an astronomer may take millions of dollars,--at least, Russia charged the South Korea for about 20 million bucks for the training of two cosmonauts. Yet in an era that young multimillionaires start their travels to the outer space one after another after paying the US or Russia government millions of dollars, it is hard to believe that only two youngsters in South Korea are qualified as well as willing to become an astronomer. But should the taxpayers in South Korea pay for all these juveniles' education? If not, isn't it against our "to meet the individual needs and interests" policy? If yes, can they afford the cost? Even suppose the Koreans are rich enough, is it fair to concentrate so much resource on comparably small group of people?

Even if our education policy does not include such extremes, some more common needs and interests could deplete our society as well. It is quite a reasonable hope for the top 5 students in senior high schools to want to enroll in the top 10 universities, yet in fact these universities refuse such very qualified students every year. Nevertheless, to meet such needs and interests for all qualified individuals may force us to enlarge our top universities tens of times. And to maintain the high level education in those institutions, we may have to enlarge our financial support as well as faculty members tens of times. Even assume that we can afford the financial expense, hiring enlarged faculty could as well deplete our brain resource in other fields.

In sum, the claim "to meet the individual needs and interests of each student" is as impractical as it is attractive.

[ Last edited by melodyli9361 on 2005-8-15 at 11:00 ]

yxepochUID: 2124411

Seemingly so attractive the claim is that education will be truly effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student, that people tend to simply ignore the impracticality of this announcement.(这里的that不要会更通顺一点,开头很简明,不过根据我自己整理的一些issue的开头,这里适当再加入自己的一些理解会更好,否则ets会认为你的开头大都是抄了题目的话)

Admittedly, the individual-oriented education can benefit students from diversed backgrounds and with different interests. Different backgrounds call for specifically assigned curriculum. For example, some students may have troubles in understanding courses taught in English, or some may just hope to be taught in their mother languages; individuals hold some religious beliefs may need to attend some rituals in some school days under which condition it is quite likely that they have to learn the courses taught in that day by themselves.(我明白你要表达的意思,但语句复杂却缺乏通顺,尤其是从under开始的句子和前面的部分不知是用什么样的语法结构连接起来的) Also, the interests of students are so diverse that uniformly designed courses may leave many of them unsatisfied. For instance, a compulsory course on Shakespeare may delight those who interest in literature as well as be a big headache, (不知道用as well as是不是可以?因为这个词组应该是连接两个意思差不多的词吧)if not an offence, for those who believe in Plato's "literature is twice distorted from the reality".

According to the conditions discussed above, it seems that we should fully embrace the education specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests. Nevertheless, the practical problems halt our dreams.
这段很不错,尤其是最后那个halt our dreams, 妙!

First, to determine a neat curriculum for each student is an arduous, if not impossible task.

In the first place,(在两个临近的地方用first不是很好) it should be recognized that individual needs and interests are two separated, though somehow interrelated, concepts(去掉前面的逗号). It is quite possible that one's needs are contradictory with one's interests. For example, to be a well-informed adult one has to know some basics of chemistry, such as hydrogen monoxide stands for water. But what if some students have no interest in chemistry at all? Should we compel them to learn it, which is against their interest, or should we just discard the chemistry lessons for them, which is against their need?
我觉得最后的问句组织地不好，让人看不明白,是本段的一大失误!

Even assume that we can combine the needs and interests into a single curriculum for each student, whether this arrangement of courses could last a period of time long enough for it to do good to the student is still under doubt. As far as I observe, juvenile interests are so changeable, that one's dream career may jump from astronomer to film star just because of a film. Under such circumstances, the needs and interests for the student change greatly, then it seems that we should cut the mathematics, physics and astronomy classes that are designed to cultivate an astronomer, while add art and drama lessons into the individual's curriculum. But it might be the case that the maths, physics and astronomy classes are so short-life that they left no valuable impact on the student, while the art and drama lessons would follow their way later because of another change.
看出来你很喜欢写长句,但可能是我理解水平有限吧,我觉得长句有些晦涩和罗嗦,这段感觉有点反反复复,或者根本是我没有看懂!

Moreover, given that needs and interests could be combined into a curriculum that could also last for a period of time that is long enough for it to work, (一般一个句子中用两个that最多了)the application of the individual curriculum in the real world would require so enormous resources that it might deplete all our resources.

To meet some needs and interests in some highly esteemed and desirable professions may require so much money and other kinds of resources that we can hardly afford. The education of astronomers is a perfect example for this point. The cultivation of an astronomer may take millions of dollars,--at least, Russia charged the South Korea for about 20 million bucks for the training of two cosmonauts. Yet in an era that young multimillionaires start their travels to the outer space one after another after paying the US or Russia government millions of dollars, it is hard to believe that only two youngsters in South Korea are qualified as well as willing to become an astronomer. But should the taxpayers in South Korea pay for all these juveniles' education? If not, isn't it against our "to meet the individual needs and interests" policy? If yes, can they afford the cost? Even suppose the Koreans are rich enough, is it fair to concentrate so much resource on comparably small group of people?
这段相比上两段论证就要好地多,句子清晰,排列句表达地十分到位,最主要例子举地十分好!

Even if our education policy does not include such extremes, some more common needs and interests could deplete our society as well. It is quite a reasonable hope for the top 5 students in senior high schools to want to enroll in the top 10 universities(the top 5 senior school students to be enrolled....), yet in fact these universities refuse such very(去掉very) qualified students every year. Nevertheless, to meet such needs and interests for all qualified individuals may force us to enlarge our top universities tens of times. And to maintain the high level education in those institutions, we may have to enlarge our financial support as well as faculty members tens of times. Even assume that we can afford the financial expense, hiring enlarged faculty could as well deplete our brain resource in other fields.

In sum, the claim "to meet the individual needs and interests of each student" is as impractical as it is attractive.

这篇文章面面具到,但还是太…………………………长了，word file里显示有837字，我实在觉得没有必要，即使是不限时，也没必要那么长！