stefanie 作文帖 写写写！

Stefan00

    12.14考试。求110+。认真写作文！！ 求修改求讨论。

hellotoeve

你分手了吗？

Stefan00

The reading passage explores the issue that whether the  communal online encyclopedias are better than the traditional printed encyclopedias. The professor deals with the same issue. She thinks that the statement in the reading passage is full of prejudice and biases and online encyclopedias are better than the tradition one. She gives three reasons to support her idea.

First, even though the reading passage states that authors of those online encyclopedias lack academic training and are not so reliable as those authors of traditional encyclopedias. Therefore, online encyclopedias contains much more errors. But the professor in the lecture argues that mistakes exist both on and off the Internet. Even if those authors of traditional printed encyclopedias have been trained for academic credentials, they still make mistakes in the books. Obviously, the professor's argument disprove its' counterpart in the passage.

Moreover, contrary to the statement in the reading passage that the nature of online encyclopedias allows some unscrupulous users and vandals or hackers to forge, change the original information in the encyclopedias, which damages the credit of encyclopedias, the professor contends that the information actually won't be marred. She supports this point by the fact that there are editors working to make sure that the crucial information won't be changed and there are some formation written for the crucial information so that the security of the truth in the encyclopedias is assured.

Finally, the professor asserts that the online encyclopedias can show the great diversity of various groups' needs which are one of the strongest advantages of the online encyclopedias, whereas the reading passage claims that the online encyclopedias will make a false impression of what is important and what is not.  The professor proves her point by pointing out that traditional printed encyclopedias in fact are edited by a small group which consists of mainly scholar, thus it can not reflect the diversity of needs of the whole society.

In conclusion, the professor clearly identifies the weaknesses in the reading passage and convincingly shows that the claim in the reading passage that the traditional printed encyclopedias are better than the online encyclopedias is incorrect.

Stefan00

integrated writing
The reading passage explores the issue that whether the  communal online encyclopedias are better than the traditional printed encyclopedias. The professor deals with the same issue. She thinks that the statement in the reading passage is full of prejudice and biases and online encyclopedias are better than the tradition one. She gives three reasons to support her idea.

First, even though the reading passage states that authors of those online encyclopedias lack academic training and are not so reliable as those authors of traditional encyclopedias. Therefore, online encyclopedias contains much more errors. But the professor in the lecture argues that mistakes exist both on and off the Internet. Even if those authors of traditional printed encyclopedias have been trained for academic credentials, they still make mistakes in the books. Obviously, the professor's argument disprove its' counterpart in the passage.

Moreover, contrary to the statement in the reading passage that the nature of online encyclopedias allows some unscrupulous users and vandals or hackers to forge, change the original information in the encyclopedias, which damages the credit of encyclopedias, the professor contends that the information actually won't be marred. She supports this point by the fact that there are editors working to make sure that the crucial information won't be changed and there are some formation written for the crucial information so that the security of the truth in the encyclopedias is assured.

Finally, the professor asserts that the online encyclopedias can show the great diversity of various groups' needs which are one of the strongest advantages of the online encyclopedias, whereas the reading passage claims that the online encyclopedias will make a false impression of what is important and what is not.  The professor proves her point by pointing out that traditional printed encyclopedias in fact are edited by a small group which consists of mainly scholar, thus it can not reflect the diversity of needs of the whole society.

In conclusion, the professor clearly identifies the weaknesses in the reading passage and convincingly shows that the claim in the reading passage that the traditional printed encyclopedias are better than the online encyclopedias is incorrect.

Stefan00

As a modern civilization, today's society counts a lot on knowledge. Some people might say that mankind has undergone no general improvement in intelligence or morality. But we have to admit that it has made a great progress of the accumulation of knowledge which is the main dynamic of the development of human beings. All those should thank to education and professors in universities who devote their whole life to teaching and doing researches.

It's a huge mistake to underestimate the importance of professors. And the underestimation in its turn deteriorates the quality of education.  One of the evidences is that professors can't get the as equal salary as their contributions.  Therefore, in order to provide a better education to generations, universities should spend more money on the salaries for universities professors.

In a variety of engineering and technology subjects, instead of wholeheartedly focusing on offering better lectures to students, professors might use a portion of their time and energy to do some "part-time"jobs such as opening high-technology companies, developing some cutting-edge devices for companies which pay them decent rewards, and things like that. It's understandable in such a high-cost-for-living  society. Professors have to pay their children's education bills, the house bills, the car bills, and their daily expenditure. Thus, if we want a high quality of education, what we should do is to pay reasonable salaries to professors rather than blame them.

Besides, high salaries would definitely attract large number of well-educated talents to apply for the professor positions. Good reputation, decent salary, easy and simple ambience, and academic vacations---- how could people not want a job like that? Fierce competence brings out the best winners to the education commission, of course, improving the quality of education. What's more, good salaries make sure that professors can fully devote their energy and time to understand their students, have inspiring discussions with counterparts and students, seize the core of education, then perform perfectly the education procedure.  

Moreover, high salaries paid by universities are good for universities to build their prestige, and therefore enhance their education system and foundation. Because by paying enough money, universities show their honesty, care, and respect to knowledge and truth, which are the original goals to build a university and what will truly touch those scholars who really care about the good of knowledge and education. Once truth and knowledge come to the university, the quality of education will undoubtedly improve.

In conclusion, for the sake of education, professors in universities should be paid more than they are now.

Stefan00

Every Monday people usually don't recover from the crazy parties during weekend. Every Friday people can't wait to start another fascinated party. Even every Thursday, people just wonder one thing: "How can it be that Friday hasn't arrived?". A lot of time actually is wasted because the standard schedule of work that five days a week isn't suitable for everyone.  If I have the chance to decide my schedule on my own, I would rather choose to work three days a week for long hours than five days a week for short hours.
Granted, for those people who like to work for five days a week, they have more breaks which they will argue that breaks ensure their efficiency. And when they encounter some tough problems, they can take the advantage of breaks to calm down, relax, rethink, and get a new view of problems, ultimately solve the problems by thinking outside the box.
Despite of that advantage, working three days a week for long hours till overweigh working five days a week for short hours. Because in that way, people can be more concentrated on the things they are handling. They wouldn't be distracted by trifle, and thus save time and energy which otherwise would be wasted by recalling the work they have done. Take the designers for example, their precious inspirations might flee away the moment they are disturbed. And usually at that time, the butterfly of muse went away and will never be back. The same situations happen to writers, painters, musicians, engineers and so on.
Similarly, it's also better for the business men to work for less days and longer hours. In the rapidly changed business wold, emergencies happen a lot in surprising ways. As time is limited, employers have not choice but to work for several days without rest. Examples abound in various sections. If a bank want to update its system, bankers have to finish the task in a short time in order to provide a better service to their customers as soon as possible. If a factory want to make profits from some urgent orders, workers have to produce enough goods within several days. If a law firm get a big client who is facing a coming trail, attorneys have to collect numerous information, make flexible and considerate strategies in a short time. All those situations ask for the same work time table.
As a matter of fact, many things can be done in a short period. So why do we necessarily waste extra time? With those days as a reward for people who work smartly and efficiently, they can enrich their life by learning new stuff, traveling foreign countries, reading some exciting novels or just having a good sleep. It would be a wonderful chance for them to recharge themselves.
With so many advantages, instead of complaining how tired we are because of parties at the weekends or doing nothing but craving the coming of weekend, why don't we choose to work three days a week to finish our jobs professionally while can have high quality of fun?

Stefan00

Those days some people complain that it's the quick changes happening everyday that make people less happy and satisfied and more insecure. I agree on the part that everything is changing fast, but I disagree with the idea that the reason why people are less satisfied about their lives is the high speed of today's society development. Actually, I would like to say that it is all those changes that defy the modern life and offer the opportunities to us to live a more efficient and more interesting life.
It is true that modern citizens are not so close and have deep understandings of each other as before. And it's because all of us are forced to change our jobs, our neighborhoods, our kids' school, our dentists, even our dreams by the irresistible tide of changes. All of us have the moment feeling lost and don't know what to find or where to find. In that feeling, we just feel overwhelmed and frustrated. But fast changes are not the factor to be blamed. We still can keep in touch via E-mails, telephones, videos, trains, cars, planes and etc. There are myriad ways for us to enhance our relationships only if we want to.
In fact, all those technologies which are of great help for us to see our loved ones for remote places, share happiness with our friends, burden sorrow for our friends, have fun with our family who are thousand miles ways from us make all those methods possible which even were regarded as jokes in the past. And without changes, those amazing technologies wouldn't have been invented. Examples abound in electricity industry. From the first computer , invented in 1960s and only used to calculate huge mathematics problems,  to the newest MacBook Air, which can be used to work, learn, watch movies, listen to music, chat with our friends and families, it just took not more than 50 years.  Short intervals between generations of electricity instruments makes our life highly efficient and colorful.  We have more accesses and possibilities to live a happier and satisfier life than ever before.
Even though we always make fun of those "recent" researches which ironically refuted the conclusions made by the same researchers a few years or even just few weeks ago. We have to admit that all those updating information and results of studies act as alarms to remind us to think all the events and problems critically. That kind of enlightens are unique products of changes and give people a high quality of life.
We should make full use of the benefits and advantages made by fast changes instead of be scared by them. Once we truly understand the meaning of modern society and lifestyle, we will find ourselves happier and more satisfied because of changes happening everyday.

Stefan00

In most cases, how we learn is much more important than how much time we spend. Some people would like work alone while others prefer working as a team. There are reasons why teachers would like to require students work projects together. In that way, students  have as many discussions as they can, share ideas which will inspire teammates, have fun for relaxation when they are tired, finish the task more effectively as well as have a more impressive understanding of the stuff they work on.
We need discussions to clarify the logic of what we are learning, even to figure out what confuse us actually. It's when we need teammates to talk with. By questions and answers, we absorb the ideologies of those dim theories, make the sequence of the idea clear. Take philosophy for example, a dim and rhetoric principle with numerous questions and ideas which often make us lost, when you read alone about a topic, you are so confused that even don't know where to start. At that time, if a friend asks you to bring up a question, then the whole thing will be a lot easier by you already have a clue, the question!
Working as a team will enrich your ideas and enlighten you by sharing. Because it's impossible all teammates have totally the same understandings and answers to one question. By sharing your ideas, you will scan your thoughts to see if them really make sense. By listening to others' ideas, you will find there are others solutions to the project you are working on it. Examples abound in a wild range of subjects projects such as  mathematics, physics, chemistry, even literature, art, poetry, history and etc. And next time you encounter such a problem, you will handle it with confidence since you have a whole team as your backup.
Moreover, collaborating with others will  help you finish the project effectively. Doing a research exemplifies that point. When you are asked to gather information for a marketing course. How could you finish it in a most efficient way? Work as a team, apportion your work, finish it respectively, combine all the results as a report: that should be your priority. Because projects like doing researchers are common in various course such as marketing, statistics, media, insurance, phycology, even medicine, and those tasks are absolutely unnecessary cost you bunch of time. All you need is just cooperation.
It can not be denied that there are some special cases in which we definitely need to solve the problem all alone, either because of personal learning habits, or because of the feature of some certain projects. There are students who are more comfortable with studying alone, regarding working alone as a better choice. And there are some projects are designed for testing a student' ability, which means the projects need to be done by one student alone.
To sum up, it's true, in general, that working out a project as a team benefits students a lot. But that rule doesn't apply to all cases and all students. It depends. Only we learn things in a most flexible way, which works best for us, can we grasp knowledge most efficiently.

Stefan00

所以是没有人吗
有小伙伴吗？？？我们可以相互改！～

Stefan00

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

Teachers should not make their social or political views known to students in the classroom.

Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.


Teachers play influential roles in students daily lives. For teachers only only provide  students academic knowledge which is regarded as truth, but also guide students to  explore the world they are living in, help them form their standards, values of the world. Teachers make a influence on students to which we cannot blind. Among all the influences, the views of society and politic are definitely included. Therefore, teachers should make their social or political views known to students in the classroom rather than avoid discussing such topics.
First of all, it's also a obligation of teachers to provide views about society and politic  to students. Sometimes students who usually are still naive freshmen to the bizarre society are pretty likely to be confused by all kinds of information and comments. Then it's the time that teachers should take the responsibility to help students distinguish truth from rumors. In that case, providing teachers' own opinion is inevitable, and it also acts as references for those students looking for advice and inspiration. For example, when a controversial figure comes into public, there are always positive and negative comments about he. Without enough life and social experience, students might just casually follow other people's opinions. Teachers should give students reasons and analysis from opposite ways to help students have a more object and fair understanding of the figure, not just some emotional shouting without recruiting.
Secondly, social and political views are just necessary parts for the process of learning. They are parts of knowledge essentially. Without exchange of opinions, many subjects such as politic philosophy, social media, economic, history,will just be nothing. For example, for a politic philosophy class, it's almost impossible to finish the course without talking about their own opinion and understanding of current and past political events. So is the same with social media class. Since teacher in the media class mainly discuss the way and content they will adopt to cover the new events, in what stand a reporter will write the news would be one of the most important problems. So teachers have to provide their views as example to analyze the effects of different reports.
Last but no the least, what really matters is the attitude towards those teachers' social and political views. If teachers can provide their views in a object  way, all those ideas will enrich students understanding of society and politic. And if teachers could intentionally guide students to perceive those ideas in a critical way,  it will greatly be helpful for students to deal with different kinds of opinions in the future.
Apparently, instead of avoiding talking all the personal opinions, we should be open to have discussions about social and political ideas. Only in that way, will students learn more and learn better about critical thinking and have a better understanding of social and politics.