|
9.20北师大一战112，一点感想，希望对有些人有帮助。 成绩：28/28/27/29 （比较平均，但是如果你听我的一定能更好。） 我的背景：以前旧托福考过６４３，生活工作环境都是英语，以为ｉｂｔ一定小菜，结果做了一套ｂａｒｒｏｎ受了打击，老老实实在家看了１０天的书，脱产。 所有材料都是ＣＤ上下载的，包括：ＯＧ，ｂａｒｒｏｎ，delta’s key 和longman，高分120 OG主要看了要求，题也做了2套但是觉得太简单，没有意义。如果是刚入门到还可以找下感觉。 barron的7套都做了，我推荐他的阅读和听力，尤其是听力和实战比较接近。（我估计听力错的几个题都是因为段子太长结果就走神了。所以一定要管住自己，不管监考老师漂不漂亮！我的挺漂亮的） delta的月的和听力感觉不错。时间不多的同志们就不要做了。我也就做了2套。 高分120的阅读可以做，听力我没下。 longman就做了一篇就删了，不好。 还是分科说吧: 阅读： 我觉得大家都有实力考满分，因为他的规律性太强了。我第一次做高分120，错了十几个，后来才知道大家都是一边做题一边看文章，慢慢就把错误降低到5个以内了，后来就很少错了。考试时太紧张，第一篇做的超烂，肯定错了好几个。但是我赶上阅读加试，后面越做越好，有可能对我的总分有点影响。所以我建议大家不要轻视加试，尤其是你前面没考好。也许是个机会。 听力： 这是个硬功夫，我觉得首先还是要提高能力，我在美国欧洲都生活过，看美剧一点问题都没有，但是7-10分钟的自然科学然后考选择题，对native speaker也是个挑战。我建议大家听barron和delta，多听长段子，如果基础不好的就练习听写。多练长段子！我错的题估计都是走神漏听了。切忌！ 口语： 这项我没有发言权，我本人很能说，在美国的时候都被人当做ABC，口语我就是找了几个familiar topic练了下感觉，就上战场了。但是我的familiar topic反而得了一个fair，其他都是good。可能是因为我紧张讲得太快了，最后剩下8-10秒。建议大家掌握好pace，尽量把时间用满。 写作： 一开始我什么都写不出，但是看了李笑来的高分作文找到些启发，大概写了7.8篇issue吧。 我的argument模板也是从CD上找的。我还是给大家一下好了。 一定要早去考场！我是最后一个进考场的，结果做阅读时就听到有人在做听力。郁闷！ By claiming that old houses aren't suitable for living, they look out of the place in the surroundings, and are costly to maintain, the reading passage presents its criticisms regarding the government's law protecting old houses. The lecture poses serious counter-arguments against the criticisms by providing different explanations/evidence.
First, the speaker points out that old houses are functioning. Once they are renovated inside and installed with modern plumbing and electronics, they are perfectly suitable for people to live, therefore completely refuting what is addressed in the passage.
The speaker goes on to raise the issue regarding the appearance of old houses. The professor reminds us that some new developments of neighborhood aren't necessarily good. Usually it is the real estate developers hoping to benefit from getting rid of old houses who think that old houses look awkward in the neighborhood, not the residents living nearby. So the second view made in the reading is proved/found to be invalid.
Finally, the speaker challenges the validity of the assumption that old houses are too expensive to maintain. Old houses are atractive to tourists. The profit made out of tickets to visit old houses could offset the maintainenance cost for the houses. Consequently, the last reason of argument against old houses in the passage doesn’t stand.
In retrospect, the reasons in the reading material, although well-presented, are utterly refuted by the lecture, and are far from convincing.
在贴一篇issue吧，看着玩好了。
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Teachers should be paid according to how much their students learn. Give specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.
A salesperson gets paid in proportion to how much profit he brings to the company; a columnist's pay is based on how many words contained in the article. It seems that some people's salary is quantified in a way to compensate and reward them. However, when it comes to the profession of teaching, does it work? Should teachers be paid according to how much their students learn? I am afraid that I have some personal opinions that do not share this view.
It is true that for some subjects such as mathemetics, physics and even language courses could be tested by grades to know how much students have learned. But imagine that teachers' salaries are closely connected to students' grades. There would be two interesting while unfortunate phenomena. A number of lazy teachers, motivated by more money, would intentionally lowered the quality of the examinations or even give away answers indirectly in class. The students, as a result, would easily gain higher grades in general. But does it mean they have learned as much as they are supposed to? Changed tests make it too easy for the students, who consequently learn less. The other thing, if not worse than the first, doesn't favor the students' side that much either. All of a sudden, some money driven teachers start to increase homework load tremendously and become extremely strict with the students at the same time, which unfortunately, is what is happening in most of the public schools in China. It reached to such an unbelievable point that the Ministry of education has to issue statute that students' homework be limited to certain number of hours after school, varying among different aged of students. Under such physical and mental pressure, I doubt students could learn more from the teachers who blinded by the alternative compensation ways.
Moreover, not all subjects are suitable to be quantified so as to be used to measure students' gains of knowledge. Take art for example, there is no standard way to judge which student has done better and which one has failed. Van Gogh, the most highly acclaimed artist in the present art world, wasn't able to sell even one of his paintings when he was alive. If art could be tested by grades, I bet he must have been one of the worst students in class in his time. Such a vivid lesson is telling us that we should know better than grading students' artwork. Who knows our next Picasso isn't in your art class? But you failed him not because he was bad, but because he was bad by the standard you designed to quantify all students so that you will get paid more.
Admittedly, I must concur that under some circumstances it makes sense to pay teachers by judging how much students learn. In the past, teachers in China who were paid by the length of time they had worked. There was no other rewarding means to motivate teachers to make more effort, which greatly affected the teaching quality. With the development of China and the advance of the education system, teachers seem to be doing better in balancing between maintaining themselves motivated while not being too harsh on the students.
To sum up, an alternative system to quantify teachers' work might sound solid at first glimpse, but there are more than a few complex problems hidden. I personally don't think it's the final solution. On the contrary, teachers' moral issues, in my opinion, should be taken into consideration. | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2009-10-3 18:50:00
楼主
