ISSUE50 美国有米第六次作业 求拍

cckantUID: 2247822

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: 507          TIME: 0:51:17          DATE: 2006-12-22

The speaker asserts that all faculty should be required to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach to improve the quality of instruction at post-secondary level. Despite that professional experience outside the campus is instructive to many discipline and hence helpful to the instruction quality, an close scrutiny suggests that it is not advisable to make it compulsory for faculty to participate in out-of-campus work, due to its overlook at the purely theoretical subjects and the sacrifice of freedom and hence attraction in the academic profession.

To begin with, I concede that experience outside the campus has significant promotion to a large number of fields. As a faculty works outside the campus, the practical issues come up with daily work. A faculty is then able to capture the difficulty, defect and merit of a subject when it is applied, and what attributes are desired in the job relate to the discipline. As objective and practical profile of a subject is cleaner to the instructor, the quality of instruction should be improved by proper concentration and means, such as adjusting means of assessment help raising analytical skills. For example, for a professor instructing high school education, his/her experience in high school teaching seems so substantial that without such experience, he/her is not qualified for this practical social science.

Nevertheless, it is not for all disciplines that the practical profession experience is necessary. For many basic and purely theoretical subjects, for instance introductory differential calculus and theoretical physics, on one hand, there is not direct helpful effect of practical experience that a faculty can gain without forgoing his job primacy in instruction. And on the other hand, the positions available for a profession outside the campus may be so limited that it is impossible for the majority of all faculty to spend time working one it. To illustrate, for the nuclear physics with explosive concentration, due to its military natural and danger associated with, limited government resource is input during the peaceful time, and therefore opportunities far less than demanded by faculties in the profession are available.

Moreover, the policy that all faculty are required to work outside the campus serious harms the liberty of the academic profession and hence its attraction. Rather than the monetary welfare which usually much higher is provided by industries , essentially, it is the liberty allowed in a academic position that attracts the most intelligent and talented people to work in a college and university, pursuing originality. The direct effect of such policy is that many highly talented and innovative people are reluctant to work in the academic profession at the currently given wage level. Either many of them shift out from the campus or educational institutes have to dramatically increase their benefits provided. In either case, the quality of instruction decline likely.

In sum, on the ground that the asserted policy overlooked the diversity in the natural of subjects in the college and university level, and the crucial implication to the whole faculty cohort, I believe no constraint should be applied to faculty in working outside the academic world.  


[ 本帖最后由 cckant 于 2006-12-22 14:21 编辑 ]

森林116UID: 2272614

The speaker asserts that all faculty should be required to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach to improve the quality of instruction at post-secondary level. Despite that professional experience outside the campus is instructive to many discipline and hence helpful to the instruction quality, an close scrutiny suggests that it is not advisable to make it compulsory for faculty to participate in out-of-campus work, due to its overlook at the purely theoretical subjects and the sacrifice of freedom and hence attraction in the academic profession.(论点提出得很清晰,不过感觉有argu的风格啊,呵呵)

To begin with, I concede that experience outside the campus has significant promotion to a large number of fields. As a faculty works outside the campus, the practical issues come up with daily work. A faculty is then able to capture the difficulty, defect and merit of a subject when it is applied, and what attributes are desired in the job relate to the discipline. As objective and practical profile of a subject is cleaner to the instructor, the quality of instruction should be improved by proper concentration and means, such as adjusting means of assessment help raising analytical skills. For example, for a professor instructing high school education, his/her experience in high school teaching seems so substantial ( not sunstantial 吧?)that without such experience, he/her is not qualified for this practical social science.(论证的第一部分都在让步承认原观点,个人觉得放在最后一段是8是好些?)

Nevertheless, it is not for all disciplines that the practical profession experience is necessary. For many basic and purely theoretical subjects, for instance introductory differential calculus and theoretical physics, on one hand, there is not direct helpful effect of practical experience that a faculty can gain without forgoing his job primacy in instruction. And on the other hand, the positions available for a profession outside the campus may be so limited that it is impossible for the majority of all faculty to spend time working one it. To illustrate, for the nuclear physics with explosive concentration, due to its military natural and danger associated with, limited government resource is input during the peaceful time, and therefore opportunities far less than demanded by faculties in the profession are available. (呵呵,有点强词夺理的味道,不过条例很清晰~)

Moreover, the policy that all faculty are required to work outside the campus serious harms the liberty of the academic profession and hence its attraction. Rather than the monetary welfare which usually much higher is provided by industries , essentially, it is the liberty allowed in a academic position that attracts the most intelligent and talented people to work in a college and university, pursuing originality. The direct effect of such policy is that many highly talented and innovative people are reluctant to work in the academic profession at the currently (current)given wage level. Either many of them shift out from the campus or educational institutes have to dramatically increase their benefits provided. In either case, the quality of instruction decline likely.(高薪诱人,这个理由很厉害哦)

In sum, on the ground that the asserted policy overlooked the diversity in the natural of subjects in the college and university level, and the crucial implication to the whole faculty cohort, I believe no constraint should be applied to faculty in working outside the academic world.  

内容论证和语言都不错,但很有argu之嫌~~尤其是每段开头的关联词,除了做argu标志以外似乎用处不大,而相反的,LZ可以在正文中尝试着用些~~

[ 本帖最后由 森林116 于 2007-2-21 15:22 编辑 ]

cckantUID: 2247822

谢谢意见