Issue70（该过拼写和语法，恳请指点）

antaUID: 210383

Issue70
In any profession—business, politics, education, and government—those in power should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.

开始向限时，但没写完，超时很多才完成。自己又修改了很久。

The idea that leaders in any profession should be changed after five years is too arbitrary, because improper subrogation will result in serious aftermath to an enterprise and revitalization through new leadership is only a possibility for an enterprise to get success, not the surest way. In some professions where experiences act as an important role, a veteran leader will undoubtedly be more competent in. But the claim is somewhat right in many cases. New leaders will bring new vigor, new management methods, and new ideas to that enterprise, when old leaders stop pursuing higher aims, satisfied with the status quo. Therefore we should make our decisions on a case-by-case basis.

In education, we need those leaders who have plenty of experiences. For example, parents would rather send their children to a teacher who has many experiences in teaching, instead of a new graduate with a lot of knowledge of education theories, who never teaches before. It indicates that experiences are something valued in teaching, which cannot be substituted by theories. Also, a leader scientist with plenty of research experiences is more insightful in leading his group towards their aim, for his experiences have made his eyes more sharp, and as a result, he is able to notice something others will ignore. In this situation, changing the leaders will be a mistake. Lost are the experiences for the future and the insight toward the unknown world.

In business, it is more difficult to say whether a leader should step down after five years. Determination should be made on the leader’s performance. An unefficient leader should be dismissed of course. Although a successful business leader depends not only on his ingenuity, but also on his experiences, yet success sometimes lead him satisfied and he may lack of the motivity to lead the enterprise forward. In addition, when one relies on too much on one's past success, he refuses to analyze new situations carefully. Instead, he may just replicate his past plans, which are in fact not suitable in the new situation. Under such a condition, new leadership is imperative. New leadership will infuse vigor to the enterprise not only by his new ideas, aggressive plans and more advanced management practices, but also his different charisma. Only through this change can an enterprise go along the way toward success again.

When it comes to politics and government, it is obvious that a too long term of leadership will inevitably produce harm to society. This is why many nations have made definite regulations and laws on the term of a political leader. A good example is U.S. government. Any president can't be in his presidency over two terms, for people know clearly that too long presidency is harmful: wrong policies can't get corrected and corruption will increase. As has been verified in the history, a leader having too long a term is easily to become too proud and live a extravagant life, with the inclination to abuse his power. As a result, common people will suffer from his pretension and corruption. So, to limit the leadership's term in politics is indispensable, and by limiting it, new leaders can bring to us their talent and revitalize the government, leading people toward a better tomorrow.

In sum, although in some cases, an experienced leader is better than a new one, the claim that those in power should step down after five years in any profession has some qualified merits, such as in business, politics, and government. But in some other professions like education and science, we need to evaluate the value of each leader case by case and then decide whether he/she should go on their leadership.

polymathUID: 179557

顶起来！大家都来帮助修改啊！发挥集体的力量！:):handshake
谢谢了！

antaUID: 210383

多谢！好感激。

waximaUID: 155066

这篇我来改吧，不过是第一次，没经验，水平也有限，希望与大家多多交流。
总算改完了，原来改文章也那么累，那么写就更加。。。我还一片没写呢。。。
by the way，楼主每天都很晚睡很早起吗？你发贴得时间真是很惊人呢。。。

Issue70
In any profession—business, politics, education, and government—those in power should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.

先把我看到的提纲列一下：
1. Writer's judgement on the statement - too arbitary. Then simple anlysis on both sides and reach the conclusion - case-by-case. #I think this conclusion is also a hint of the whole structrue.
2.Education and science - negetive
3.Business - both, positive > negetive
4.Politics and government - positive
5.Conclusion - case by case
#According to the content, I think the author actually agree with the statement more and disagree less, so my advise on the structure is:
1.Acknowledge that on most occasion the statement is true but somehow arbitary. Then simple anlysis, then conclusion - case-by-case.
2.Politics and government
3.Business
4.Education
I think this order can serve your opinion better.
5.Conclusion



The idea that leaders in many professions should be changed after five years is somewhat right in many cases. New leaders will bring new vigor, new management methods, and new ideas to that enterprise, when old leaders stop pursuing higher aims, satisfied with the status quo.But to claim that it is valid in any profession and the surest way to successis too arbitrary.Improper subrogation will result in serious aftermath to an enterprise and revitalization through new leadership only provides a possibility for an enterprise to get success, not the surest way. In some professions where experiences act as an important role, a veteran leader will undoubtedly be more competent. Therefore we should make our decisions on a case-by-case basis.

Concerning politics and government, it is obvious that a too long term of leadership will inevitably harm the society. An extreme case of it is autocracy. As has been verified in the history, a leader having too long a term easily becomes too proud and lives a extravagant life, with the inclination to abuse his power. As a result, common people will suffer from his pretension and corruption. This is why many nations have made definite regulations and laws on the term of a political leader. A good example is U.S. government that any president can't be in his presidency over two terms. (These are all original sentences. I only adjust the order they are arranged. The following is some complement about the advantage of changing the leader. Maybe not good enough, but I think it's better to add something to prove that changing will do good.) On the other hand, the campaign of a new leader stimulates the candidates to come out with better ideas and policies. Whatever their motivation, the society benifits from this kind of competition. So, to limit the leadership's term in politics is indispensable, and by limiting it, new leaders can bring to us their talent and revitalize the government, leading people towards a better tomorrow.
(In addition, I have something negative. Think of Franklin Roosevelt, who served 3 or 4? full terms as President. Surly his continous election is required by the situation of the time and also proves to be beneficial. This example is not useful here, but it remind us that it's not only the profession that counts, but the time and finally the specific leader's personality and ability together that make the final decision.)

(As to the 3rd paragraph, I'm sorry that I almost rewrtie it. I made some modification, but because of the structure and content, it makes no big difference. To make it more convicing, the problem is that the reason you gave and argument you made look very similar to the previous paragragh. I think it would be better if you focus on something different from politics, which better represent the case of business. I attached my paragraph after yours. It's not very good paragraph, but I hope it can give you some new idea and perspective.)
In business, it is difficult to tell whether a leader should step down after five years. Determination should be made on the leader’s performance. An ineffective leader should be dismissed of course. But the situation becomes complicated when it coms to a successful business leader. (I think you need a sentence for transition here.) Although a successful business leader depends not only on his ingenuity, but also on his experiences, yet success sometimes makes him satisfied and he may lack the motivity to lead the enterprise forward. In addition, when one relies  too much on the past success, he tends to refuse to analyze new situations carefully. Resorting to the experience, he may just replicate his past plans, which are in fact not suitable in the new situation. To prevent such a condition, new leadership is imperative. New leadership will infuse vigor to the enterprise not only by his new ideas, aggressive plans and more advanced management practices, but also his different charisma(I'm not sure with the word charisma, it looks like a huge word, maybe you mean the leadership style?). Only through this change can an enterprise go along the way towards continual success.

#In business, it is difficult to tell whether a leader should step down after five years. Determination should be made on the leader’s performance. An ineffective leader should be dismissed of course. But the situation becomes complicated when it coms to a successful business leader. Admittely, it's an advanture for the enterprise to substitue the current sucessful leader with a comparatively less realiabe new one. When Steve Ballmer took over the position of CEO from Bill Gates, who is the icon for Microsoft, it aroused much doubt among people whether Microsoft will continue its legend. But such doubt is easily dispelled by the time and the fact. This good example makes us think about the advantage and feasiblity of changing a sucessful business leader. The leader earn his/her success by the perspicacity of the market, the resolution of action and the talent of management, which mostly display his/her personal wisdom and capacity. It usually leads to a trust or faith in the leader as a single individual, and people tend to believe that he/she can lead the enterprise to a long lasting success and prosperity. It might be true, but meanwhile, such trust blinds the people of other importatnt facts. First, the potential leaders. Someone else in the enterprice may have even better capacity in business than the current successful leader. If the leader remains the same for too long a time, these potential candidates won't have the chance to display their talent, to carry out their aggressive plans or to lead the enterprise to ever greater success. It may damp their passion or eventually leads to their leaving the enterprise, which costs the company a big loss. Second, truly great companies build themselves as entites beyond any single individual. It is the talented stuffs, the companies' culture and the business processes that provide the ultimate power for running the companies. In such an enterprise, change of the leader will not shake the foundation of the enterprise but bring fresh vitality to it. However, it doesn't mean that business leaders must be changed after a certain period of time. The chance only comes at a proper time with the proper person, which varies a lot with different companies in different situations. To give a fixed period of time such as 5 years is neither well-founded nor feasible.


Things become very different when it comes to education. We need those who have plenty of experience to play leaders in education. For example, parents would rather send their children to a teacher who has much experience in teaching, instead of a new graduate, who, with a lot of knowledge of education theoriy, actually never teaches before. It indicates that experience is something valued in teaching, which cannot be substituted by theories. Also, a leading scientist with plenty of research experiences is more insightful in leading his group towards their aim, for his experiences have made his eyes more sharp, and as a result, he is able to notice something others will ignore. In this situation, changing the leaders will be a mistake. Lost are the experiences for the future and the insight toward the unknown world. (I cannot understand this sentence and why you put it here. If you want some comromise, I add some.) Admittedly, new leaders in education will bring fresh ideas that may vitalize people's mind by change the way of teaching and learning, but it also increases the possibility of chaos in culture, especially among young people. When people are taught differently, they tend to think differently. If the difference is too big, it leads to conflict and lower the social identity, which harms the society and is hard to eliminate in a short time. As education has a long lasting impact on the generation and the whole society, people have to think it very carefully whether or not to change the leader.

In sum, although in some cases like education and science, an experienced leader is better than a new one, the claim that those in power should step down after five years in any profession has many qualified merits, such as in business, politics, and government. Whatever the profession, we need to evaluate each leader case by case and then decide whether he/she should go on their leadership.

[ Last edited by waxima on 2005-8-6 at 06:33 ]

antaUID: 210383

多谢！我正在研究你的意见。我会在后面写出来。

zurichxslUID: 2105314

70. In any profession-business, politics, education, government-those in power should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.

I concede that in any professions including business, politics, education, government, the commander should make self-improvement in accordance with the development of his or her professional realm. The speaker’s recommendation that “those in power should step down after five years” is to some extent identical with mine, however in my view “five years” is not the exact yardstick for the time limit for every leader. Moreover, the speaker also hastily assumes that the process of leadership revitalization guarantees the success for any enterprise.
Admittedly, today’s rapidly changing business environment and increasing globalization call for a higher adaptable ability of business leaders. Modern commercialism, new groups of consumers, and contemporary marketing structure all serve to impose on leaders obligations of promoting the economic growth under circumstances that they are completely unfamiliar with. In this sense, leaders should continuously keep pace with the technology advancement and nurture themselves with modern knowledge and information in order to be astute enough to take steps to change accordingly. However, under such a high pressure any leader would be exhausted especially after a long period of commander, besides it is inevitable that in some cases or in certain aspects, the leader simply cannot adapt to the requirements, thus revitalization of business leadership is necessarily required.
Apart from the realm of business where effective leaders are the ones who remain consistently adaptable to the external environment, professions in politics, education and government where competition is less severe also require its leaders maintain an excellent adaptability. For instance, with the widespread of Internet, internet commerce is still largely unregulated because our lawmakers are slow to react to the changing environment. Therefore, the government leader should be conscious about this social-commerce shift and take steps to regulate the e-commerce activities. Otherwise, crimes on Internet might diminish its citizens’ quality of life, thereby impeding the effectiveness of the government. As to the area of education, it is a critical responsibility for educators and especially the education leaders to afford students the newest knowledge and information. With the emergence of new theories and knowledge as well as the reemergence of those authorized theories that later proved to be wrong, teaching materials and ways of teaching are required to change accordingly.
Although leadership vitalization is of vital importance to contribute to the success of any enterprises, many factors including the individual diligence and capability, the external environment which either can promote or prohibit the development of this enterprise, provide an integral contribution to the general success of the enterprise. In my view, notwithstanding the importance of revitalization of leadership, the aggregate, individual devotion is unquestionably serve to promote an enterprise’s success. Moreover, I find it rather doubtful to assume “five year” as the time limit of leadership, for the time-limit should be designed on a case-by-case basis.
In sum, I generally don’t agree with the speaker’s statement. Though I concede the importance of leadership revitalization, yet it is groundless to state that a “five year” is the time for the turn. Moreover, there are much more considerations than merely leadership revitalization that contribute to the success of enterprises.

zurichxslUID: 2105314

The idea that leaders in any profession should be changed after five years is too arbitrary, because improper subrogation will result in serious aftermath harmful consequences to an enterprise and revitalization through new leadership is only a possibility a proper path for an enterprise to get success, not the surest way. Moreover In some professions where experiences act as an important role experiences are valued significantly, a veteran leader will undoubtedly be more competent in is undoubtedly more qualified. But the claim is somewhat right in many some cases. New leaders will bring new fresh vigor, new management methods, and new ideas to that enterprise, when old leaders stop pursuing higher aims, satisfied with the status quo. while old ones are more likely to be satisfied about the status quo, thus cease pursuing to make progress. Therefore we should make our decisions on a case-by-case basis.

In education, we need those leaders who have plenty of experiences. Education, as a continuous and systematic enterprise, requires more experienced leaders. For example, In most cases, parents would rather send their children to a teacher who has many experiences in teaching, instead of a new graduate with a lot of knowledge of education theories, who never teaches before. The newly graduated one who is well-equipped with theories without any teaching experience. It indicates that experiences are something valued in teaching, which cannot be substituted by theories. Experiences are highly valued in teaching which unempirical teaching theories cannot be a substitute for. Also, Besides, a leader scientist with plenty of research experiences is more insightful in leading his group towards their aim, for his experiences have made his eyes more sharp, and as a result, he is able to notice something others will ignore. Experienced scientists are justifiable to be the leading member of the team, because they have the advantage of being quite familiar with the area that they devote to, and certainly they have more researching experience, moreover with the sophisticated background knowledge of this scientific area, they develop a sense of insightfulness that any freshman could not gain immediately. In this situation, changing the leaders will be a mistake. Lost are the experiences for the future and the insight toward the unknown world. Therefore, it is probably a mistake to change leaders so frequently especially in education.

In business, it is more difficult to say whether a leader should step down after five years. Determination should be made on the leader’s performance. An unefficient inefficient leader should be dismissed of course. Although a successful business leader depends not only on his ingenuity, but also on his experiences, yet success sometimes lead him satisfied and he may lack of the motivity to lead the enterprise forward.  Although we cannot say experiences gained from past success are surely helpful to any situation at present, leaders with glorious past tend to be more likely in a state of self-satisfaction, thereby being less motivated to make improvement. In addition, when one relies on too much on one's past success, he refuses tends to neglect the importance to analyze new situations carefully. Instead, he may just replicate his past plans, which are in fact not suitable in the new situation. Under such a condition situation, new leadership is imperative. New leadership will infuse vigor to the enterprise not only by his new ideas, aggressive plans and more advanced management practices, but also his(omit) different charisma. Only through this change can an enterprise go along the way toward success again continuously.

When it comes to politics and government, it is obvious that a too long term of leadership will inevitably produce harm to society. This is why many nations have made definite regulations and laws on the term of a political leader. A good example is U.S. government. Any president can't be in his presidency over two terms, for people know clearly that too long presidency is harmful: wrong policies can't get corrected and corruption will increase. As has been verified in the history, a leader having too long a term keeping the control of the leadership too long is easily to become too proud and live a extravagant life, with the inclination to abuse his power. As a result, common people will suffer from his pretension and corruption. So, to limit the leadership's term in politics is indispensable, and by limiting it restraining the power of the leader through the time limit of term, new leaders can bring to us their talent and revitalize the government, leading people toward a better tomorrow the society will benefit and develop fast due to the incessant vigor from the new leader.

In sum, although in some cases, an experienced leader is better than a new one, the claim that those in power should step down after five years in any profession has some qualified merits, such as in business, politics, and government. But in some other professions like education and science, we need to evaluate the value of each leader case by case and then decide whether he/she should go on their leadership.

[ Last edited by zurichxsl on 2005-8-5 at 10:01 ]

zurichxslUID: 2105314

不用看6楼的

zurichxslUID: 2105314

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D2

antaUID: 210383

waxima, zurichxsl,多谢你们两位，你们提的意见对我很宝贵，我正在仔细修改，非常感谢你们！我也会尽快选择你们的来修改。

[ Last edited by anta on 2005-8-5 at 15:08 ]

zurichxslUID: 2105314

顶

antaUID: 210383

多谢你关于结构的建议，我觉得很中肯。实际上我在写这篇文章的时候自己确实没有理清楚顺序，因为一开始是定义在case-by-case上的，所以整个结构自己感觉确实有些松散，你的建议让我感到思路清晰了一些，想不到自己竟然在结构上犯下这个失误，诚恳希望你能进一步把握的文章看完，多提宝贵意见。

antaUID: 210383

多谢你的辛勤劳动，好感激！正在仔细研究！