Do educational institutions have a responsibility to discourage students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed? I think that there is no need to do so. What the educational institution needs to do is that informing the condition of every subject. Students make choices by their own judgments. Our schools have been operated on the theories of John Dewey over the past fifty years. He believes that the purpose of the education was to improve the natural development of the young, rather than to pour information into the growing child. In his system, children become the dynamic agent in their own education, rather than a passive receiver for facts. As a result, American schools are passionate about teaching “life skills”----creative problem solving, analysis, logical thinking. The actual content is less important than the process, which is to train the children to cope with whatever life may present, including the changeable future. Pure memorization is regarded as uncreative and somewhat vulgar. I concede that professors in educational institutions are more knowledgeable than students and understand the particular field very well. They can give directions to students making them achieve success by spending fewer efforts. For example students studying in chemistry must rigorously follow right lab procedures or risk damaging equipment, wasting the time of their lab partners. Students studying in language must follow the lead of their teachers or risking unable to master the linguistic foundation of the language. And students who disregard homework find themselves unable to follow the meaningful class debate let alone participate in them. However, educational institution can’t assume that every decisions made are correct. While some kinds of studies are superficially unlikely to achieve success, breakthroughs can be made virtually. For example, as the establishment of molecular biology, only some scientists like Warren Weaver believed that biology was going to undergo an important change. Nowadays molecular biology has become an essential way to explore the living things. Moreover, unlikely to success doesn’t mean impossible. Educational institutions’ action of dissuading students from pursuing certain fields of study makes the possibility of success improbable. And if students are not free in choosing fields of study that most attracting them, they are unlikely to be motivated in their study. These students will not have learned to undertake the obligations for the consequences of their own determination. Thus the decisions made from a broad array of choices provide students an optional to do what they want. In sum, my intuition is that most people prefer free in making choices and reach their full potential only if they control their own direction. When educational institution take away too much of autonomy by the name of quality assurance, they breed legions of students unable to handle their autonomy responsibly. In the final analysis, while educational institutions guidelines will be reasonable provided in the interest of ensuring a breadth of educational experience, on balance a policy of student choice is to be preferred.
整体来说挺好的，语言功底很好，但还是要拍几点。 1. 第二段，“He believes that the purpose of the education was to improve the natural development of the young”. 其实到这里，就可以阐述你在第四段的观点了，学生应该根据兴趣发展。后面讲的美国的教育制度，素质教育和应试教育的区别，这些感觉跟主题关系不大。 2. 你的第四段其实有两个论点，都很重要，一个是刚才提过的学生应根据兴趣发展。第二个是，学校怎么可能准确判断一个学生到最后是否能成功呢？ 爱因斯坦小的时候并不出色。这两个论点应该分别单独阐述。 3. 你的第三段，可以再扩充一下，就是说学生能否在课业上成功，除了先天因素以外，还有别的，教师的教导于鼓励，后天的努力等等。
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-1-17 22:40:06
收藏
收藏
楼主
