Issue 例子收集与分析 #1

jorgeUID：108878

此帖系列是希望给广大网友提供最广泛的例子素材，希望广大网友积极参与。
此贴严禁灌水, 违者封ID,谢谢合作。

39 "The intellectual benefits of attending a university or college are vastly overrated: most people could learn more by studying and reading on their own for four years than by pursuing a university or college degree."

请广大网友把你们能想到的关于这个题目的例子素材，都发上来，大家可以互相参考与提高。

:p

11yaoyaoUID：177037

Any serious educational theory must consist of two parts: a conception of the ends of life, and a science of psychological dynamics, i.e. of the laws of mental change. Two men who differ as to the ends of life cannot hope to agree about education. The educational machine, throughout Western civilization, is dominated by two ethical theories: that of Christianity, and that of nationalism. These two, when taken seriously, are incompatible, as is becoming evident in Germany. For my part, I hold that, where they differ, Christianity is preferable, but where they agree, both are mistaken. The conception which I should substitute as the purpose of education is civilization, a term which, as I mean it, has a definition which is partly individual, partly social. It consists, in the individual, of both intellectual and moral qualities: intellectually, a certain minimum of general knowledge, technical skill in one's own profession, and a habit of forming opinions on evidence; morally, of impartiality, kindliness, and a modicum of self-control. I should add a quality which is neither moral nor intellectual, but perhaps physiological: zest and joy of life. In communities, civilization demands respect for law, justice as between man and man, purposes not involving permanent injury to any section of the human race, and intelligent adaptation of means to ends. If these are to be the purpose of education, it is a question for the science of psychology to consider what can be done towards realizing them, and, in particular, what degree of freedom is likely to prove most effective.

On the question of freedom in education there are at present three main schools of thought, deriving partly from differences as to ends and partly from differences in psychological theory. There are those who say that children should be completely free, however bad they may be; there are those who say they should be completely subject to authority, however good they may be; and there are those who say they should be free, but in spite of freedom they should be always good. This last party is larger than it has any logical right to be; children, like adults, will not all be virtuous if they are all free. The belief that liberty will ensure moral perfection is a relic of Rousseauism, and would not survive a study of animals and babies. Those who hold this belief think that education should have no positive purpose, but should merely offer an environment suitable for spontaneous development. I cannot agree with this school, which seems to me too individualistic, and unduly indifferent to the importance of knowledge. We live in communities which require co-operation, and it would be utopian to expect all the necessary co-operation to result from spontaneous impulse. The existence of a large population on a limited area is only possible owing to science and technique; education must, therefore, hand on the necessary minimum of these. The educators who allow most freedom are men whose success depends upon a degree of benevolence, self-control, and trained intelligence which can hardly be generated where every impulse is left unchecked; their merits, therefore, are not likely to be perpetuated if their methods are undiluted. Education, viewed from a social standpoint, must be something more positive than a mere opportunity for growth. It must, of course, provide this, but it must also provide a mental and moral equipment which children cannot acquire entirely for themselves.

The arguments in favour of a great degree of freedom in education are derived not from man's natural goodness, but from the effects of authority, both on those who suffer it and on those who exercise it. Those who are subject to authority become either submissive or rebellious, and each attitude has its drawbacks.

The submissive lose initiative, both in thought and action; moreover, the anger generated by the feeling of being thwarted tends to find an outlet in bullying those who are weaker. That is why tyrannical institutions are self-perpetuating: what a man has suffered from his father he inflicts upon his son, and the humiliations which he remembers having endured at his public school he passes on to Ònatives" when he becomes an empire-builder. Thus an unduly authoritative education turns the pupils into timid tyrants, incapable of either claiming or tolerating originality in word or deed. The effect upon the educators is even worse: they tend to become sadistic disciplinarians, glad to inspire terror, and content to inspire nothing else. As these men represent knowledge, the pupils acquire a horror of knowledge, which, among the English upper-class, is supposed to be part of human nature, but is really part of the well-grounded hatred of the authoritarian pedagogue.

Rebels, on the other hand,, though they may be necessary, can hardly be just to what exists. Moreover, there are many ways of rebelling, and only a small minority of these are wise. Galileo was a rebel and was wise; believers in the flat-earth theory are equally rebels, but are foolish. (这个例子也可以用来论述新手老手的那道题) There is a great danger in the tendency to suppose that opposition to authority is essentially meritorious and that unconventional opinions are bound to be correct: no useful purpose is served by smashing lamp-posts or maintaining Shakespeare to be no poet. Yet this excessive rebelliousness is often the effect that too much authority has on spirited pupils. And when rebels become educators, they sometimes encourage defiance in their pupils, for whom at the same time they are trying to produce a perfect environment, although these two aims are scarcely compatible.

What is wanted is neither submissiveness nor rebellion, but good nature, and general friendliness both to people and to new ideas. These qualities are due in part to physical causes, to which old-fashioned educators paid too little attention; but they are due still more to freedom from the feeling of baffled impotence which arises when vital impulses are thwarted. If the young are to grow into friendly adults, it is necessary, in most cases, that they should feel their environment friendly. This requires that there should be a certain sympathy with the child's important desires, and not merely an attempt to use him for some abstract end such as the glory of God or the greatness of one's country. And, in teaching, every attempt should be made to cause the pupil to feel that it is worth his while to know what is being taught-at least when this is true. When the pupil co-operates willingly, he learns twice as fast and with half the fatigue. All these are valid reasons for a very great degree of freedom.

It is easy, however, to carry the argument too far. It is not desirable that children, in avoiding the vices of the slave, should acquire those of the aristocrat. Consideration for others, not only in great matters, but also in little everyday things, is an essential element in civilization, without which social life would be intolerable. I am not thinking of mere forms of politeness, such as saying "please" and "thank you": formal manners are most fully developed among barbarians, and diminish with every advance in culture. I am thinking rather of willingness to take a fair share of necessary work, to be obliging in small ways that save trouble on the balance. Sanity itself is a form of politeness and it is not desirable to give a child a sense of omnipotence, or a belief that adults exist only to minister to the pleasures of the young. And those who disapprove of the existence of the idle rich are hardly consistent if they bring up their children without any sense that work is necessary, and without the habits that make continuous application possible.

There is another consideration to which some advocates of freedom attach too little importance. In a community of children which is left without adult interference there is a tyranny of the stronger, which is likely to be far more brutal than most adult tyranny. If two children of two or three years old are left to play together, they will, after a few fights, discover which is bound to be the victor, and the other will then become a slave. Where the number of children is larger, one or two acquire complete mastery, and the others have far less liberty than they would have if the adults interfered to protect the weaker and less pugnacious. Consideration for others does not, with most children, arise spontaneously, but has to be taught, and can hardly be taught except by the exercise of authority. This is perhaps the most important argument against the abdication of the adults.

I do not think that educators have yet solved the problem of combining the desirable forms of freedom with the necessary minimum of moral training. (从MORAL的角度来论述教育工作者工作的缺陷)The right solution, it must be admitted, is often made impossible by parents before the child is brought to an enlightened school. just as psychoanalysts, from their clinical experience, conclude that we are all mad, so the authorities in modern schools, from their contact with pupils whose parents have made them unmanageable, are disposed to conclude that all children are "difficult" and all parents utterly foolish. Children who have been driven wild by parental tyranny (which often takes the form of solicitous affection) may require a longer or shorter period of complete liberty before they can view any adult without suspicion. But children who have been sensibly handled at home can bear to be checked in minor ways, so long as they feel that they are being helped in the ways that they themselves regard as important. Adults who like children, and are not reduced to a condition of nervous exhaustion by their company, can achieve a great deal in the way of discipline without ceasing to be regarded with friendly feelings by their pupils.

I think modern educational theorists are inclined to attach too much importance to the negative virtue of not interfering with children, and too little to the positive merit of enjoying their company. If you have the sort of liking for children that many people have for horses or dogs, they will be apt to respond to your suggestions, and to accept prohibitions, perhaps with some good-humoured grumbling, but without resentment. It is no use to have the sort of liking that consists in regarding them as a field for valuable social endeavour, or what amounts to the same thingÑas an outlet for power-impulses. No child will be grateful for an interest in him that springs from the thought that he will have a vote to be secured for your party or a body to be sacrificed to king and country. The desirable sort of interest is that which consists in spontaneous pleasure in the presence of children, without any ulterior purpose. Teachers who have this quality will seldom need to interfere with children's freedom, but will be able to do so, when necessary, without causing psychological damage.

Unfortunately, it is utterly impossible for over-worked teachers to preserve an instinctive liking for children; they are bound to come to feel towards them as the proverbial confectioner's apprentice does towards macaroons. I do not think that education ought to be anyone's whole profession: it should be undertaken for at most two hours a day by people whose remaining hours are spent away from children. The society of the young is fatiguing, especially when strict discipline is avoided. Fatigue, in the end, produces irritation, which is likely to express itself somehow, whatever theories the harassed teacher may have taught himself or herself to believe. The necessary friendliness cannot be preserved by self-control alone. But where it exists, it should be unnecessary to have rules in advance as to how "naughty" children are to be treated, since impulse is likely to lead to the right decision, and almost any decision will be right if the child feels that you like him. No rules, however wise, are a substitute for affection and tact.


总的来说,这篇文章的观点是what freedom to children should be included in education, 但是具体引用，可以把这个观点推广,就是说明大学教育的缺陷问题

[ Last edited by 11yaoyao on 2005-12-5 at 13:14 ]

11yaoyaoUID：177037

观点
Americans have always stubbornly clung to the myth of egalitarianism, of the supremacy of the individual average man. ------BOOK REVIEW BY TIMES (a review about the book " In Defense of Elitism" by William A. Henry)
(从全民教育的角度论述大学教育的缺陷.)


问题考虑的角度:

1.In defense, Henry says he agrees democracy should demand that all citizens have equal opportunity, but feels egalitarians have gone too far by insisting all should finish equally. In your experience, do you find people are being rewarded on the basis of gender and ethnicity, or merit?

2.Henry concedes that in our diverse culture, people do not begin on a level playing field. However, he contends that politically correct "dumbed down" curriculums that play to "irate minorities"--"a brand of anti-intellectual populism running amok"-- actually harm or cheat those that this "revisionist" education is intended to help.

3.Henry's opposition contends that people cannot learn until they think they can; therefore the starting point for education should be building self-esteem.(如果是坚持大学教育完整而有意义,采用这个观点)

4.Henry starts with the assumption that the collective culture of traditional Western Civilization includes the wisdom of humankind. (His opposition calls this established curriculum "the dead white European male" syndrome.) What skills, knowledge, or edge does Henry feel students lose when multicultural offerings are substituted?

5.Test scores support the author's position that American educational standards have declined. He asserts that parents and teachers no longer teach reverence for authority and learning, that schools have become rehabilitation centers making up for social and psychological deficiencies, and that schools focus on bringing slower students up to speed rather than challenging the gifted to move forward.

6.Many people agree that in some cases political correctness has been carried to extremes. Do you agree or disagree ?( 如果同意,那么就是说教育使学生的思想更加的极端和固执.比如日本,学生都不知道到底有没有中国所一直痛诉的那些事情,当然,这个不能写，要写也只能写写别的不要紧的国家......如果不同意，那可以说，教育使人明智,让人明白对错......ANYWAY,我的意思就这样.)

[ Last edited by 11yaoyao on 2005-12-5 at 13:35 ]

11yaoyaoUID：177037

● 苏明文

原文地址:http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/1191759.html

主要是论述中国大学教育缺陷的文章，部分观点可以引用，摘录如下:
  

1. 杨振宁教授有关“中国大学办得很成功”的发言经新闻报道后在国内立刻招致了一片批驳和网友的叫骂之声。不过我想以杨振宁教授所处的高位以及年龄的关系，对当今中国大学里面存在的种种弊端可能不是非常清楚、至少没有切身体会。

  另外，杨教授的上述发言和表态也要从当时的特定环境和氛围下去理解。我们不可随意妄加指责。但与此同时，我们也不得不承认当今的中国大学的形象可以说是江河日下。市场化、功利化、庸俗化、浮躁之风日盛一日。[例证]

  2.当前大学教育中的种种不良现象众人早已耳熟能详，一些有识之士也纷纷站出来公开进行批判或以实际行动加以抵制。如此前不久清华大学教授、著名画家陈丹青，因为不满艺术类研究生招生中把功课考核重点都放在英语和政治上而忽视了专业能力，一怒之下辞职。

  3.由于科研经费和个人的经济收入、社会地位直接挂钩，大家拼命申请经费，由此而来高校科研人员所面对的竞争压力非常大。近年来，不断有高校教师英年早逝，而分析得出的最大原因就是“过劳死”。

  为何要那么拼命呢？因为不拼命申请经费和拼命完成任务，个人收入就马上掉下来， 而且考核也不一定能过关。 其实现在中国政府在大学教育和科研经费的投入上逐年增加，但如何提高这些经费的使用效率和减少其中的腐败现象，可以说直接关系到中国大学教育和科研的成败。[体制上的缺陷论述大学教育的失败]


  4.学术腐败到了非整治不可的地步，如果中国高校的不良学术风气再不整治，中国科技的发展将至少退后20年。 [不良学风阐述上大学的坏处]

  


  ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★  
虽然中国的大学教育还存在很多问题，但他毕竟是大多数年青人就业和创业的一种途径。当然这不是唯一的途径，许许多多的成功人士并没有经历大学教育，但是他们的知识本领来自他们现实社会的各种经验，他们好学上进，勤于思考，社会也是一所大学，生活也是一种课堂，所以同样样能够开拓成功的人生。★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★

[ Last edited by 11yaoyao on 2005-12-6 at 12:42 ]

11yaoyaoUID：177037

1.John Carmack，ID Software的founder和Lead Programmer
高中肆业，可以说是自学成才

2.Leonardo Da Vinci
自学成才

3.BILL GATES
这个......我就不说了

很多艺术家都是自学成才,NOD
高尔基也是个很好的例子,没上过大学,写的东西照样顶呱呱

找到一个国外的关于成长教育的网站http://www.home-school.com/
从家长对孩子的教育选择考虑的,不过有些观点是不错的
这个是个中国的讨论版http://www.cedu.cn/bbs/printpage.asp?BoardID=9&ID=8091

[ Last edited by 11yaoyao on 2005-12-6 at 13:09 ]

jorgeUID：108878

谢谢2位斑竹.

万事开头难..辛苦2位斑竹了.

我会抽空把这个作文给学校的ESL分析下. 然后总结上来. 有空号召其他网友一起参与.