| 查看: 407 | 回复: 2 | ||
| 【奖励】 本帖被评价2次，作者jerry79增加金币 1.5 个 | ||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | ||
[资源]
GRE issue 范文资料
|
||
|
这是我找的几篇issue范文，有的还不错，希望对大家有用。 TOPIC: ISSUE9 - "Academic disciplines have become so specialized in recent years that scholars' ideas reach only a narrow audience. Until scholars can reach a wider audience, their ideas will have little use." It has been debated for a long time whether scholars’ ideas would be useful if they can not reach a wider audience. In my perspective, their ideas undoubtedly influence our life, no matter how specialized academic disciplines have become. My points of view involve the fundamental nature and effect of their ideas, as discussed below. First of all, specialized disciplines are desirable. After all, with the increasing expansion of knowledge and deep exploration of disciplines, people can not satisfy our insatiable appetite for current knowledge and information. Thus, to meet the needs of our infinite desire for uncharted world, it is essentially important for us to initiate a whole original field to explore. As a result, biology and chemistry merged and formed a new discipline called biochemistry. Quantum applied to physics lead to quantum chemistry aimed to explore the micro world around us such as molecular structure and the principle of molecular motion as well as Watson and Crick noticing double helix structure of DNAs initiate an unprecedented field of genetic disease. These three examples reveal a grand future for us. However, the speaker unfairly points out that scholars should make their ideas to reach a wider audience. First, in this very notion about scholars' ideas lies my first point of this claim. The speaker unfairly argues that scholars should extend their ideas to enable more audience to comprehend irrespective of whether they are objective interpretation of true nature of science. If they can be changed or expanded so easily, then the rightness of scholars’ ideas is disputable. After all, the scholars’ ideas are used to objectively interpret phenomena of our world, not to make more people understand. Although their ideas’ may be far beyond our ability to understand, scholars can clearly reveal scientific facts through visualized images or models to make audience more likely understand their ideas. For example, the photo of the magnified model of DNA’s structure can be seen in certain discipline journal and a complicated formulas regarding molecular motion are used to describe the track of it. Accordingly, so many scholars’ efforts serve to meet the need of larger audience. Last but not the least, we are actually enjoying results of scientific researchers generated by their rationales. Admittedly, their ideas are profound to some degree, and it is unnecessary for us to comprehend their theories. Yet, we are actually using their outcomes to perfect our living standard. When we are talking about cloning sheep, are we realizing its success is attributable to the development of genetics? Another proper illustration of this point involves the recombinant human insulin (RHI). This achievement is based on the foundation of biochemistry. Although we have no idea of any knowledge about biochemistry, in fact, we enjoy the convenience brought by scholars' ideas and solutions to permanent diseases such as diabetes. Accordingly, the effectiveness of scholars' ideas depends on their practicality rather than on people’s acknowledgement of them. In sum, while academic disciplines have become so specialized that scholars' ideas reach only a narrow audience, it does not mean that their ideas are of no use at all. Furthermore, scholars are also trying their best to present their ideas more clearly and concrete. In fact, the outcomes are applied to every aspect of our life. 48. The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten. I fundamentally agree with the assertion that the most significant events and trends in history were made possible by groups of people rather than individuals. However, the speaker unnecessarily extends this broad assertion to embrace all of the situations, while ignoring the crucial effect made by famous few. My viewpoint of the contention with the speaker involves the fundamental nature and effect of history, as discussed below. I concede that the speaker is on the right philosophical position in several aspects. First, it is not the few celebrities that determine the glorious human development .It is just all of the people--including our ancestors and our offspring--do that. After all, it is a true fact that one's power and capability to change or to advance the society ahead are limited. Moreover, groups of people involved in those significant events tend to contributed to the final outcome more or less. The example of ancient Greek poet Homer comes to my mind. Without folk songs accumulated and modified by ancestors, he would not complete the time-consuming works such as the Iliad and the Odyssey. In retrospect, had the ancestors not accumulated the folk songs, there might not be the masterpiece and renowned person Homer whose identity has long been remembered. As a result, it is unjustifiable for us to overlook or put less emphasis on groups of people. Second argument is an appeal to the social environment, which provides individuals with a variety of successful factors. Although the most significant events and trends were led by great persons, the objective environment facilitates the growth of events. Consider one of the greatest abolitionists Martin Luther King, who led the African Americans to be exempt from the control of others, and whose whole life is devoted to the freedom of slavers. As it turns out, while King assumed an active or maybe an overriding role in emancipating slaves, we can not deny or even forgot those slaves who was struggling for there own freedom, and in the meantime, we are supposed to remember or even respect a myriad of unknown people devoting their lives to this sacred carrier like King, for the reason that it is a chain of those events that results in the ultimate success. In other words, the great breakthrough that African Americans are equal to others and have rights to vote and veto can be achieved not only by few people like King. On the other hand are two compelling arguments against the speakers' position. The first one has to with pandering to public desire on the basis that public needs idols to respect. Furthermore, government tends to shape an example to enable citizens to follow its ideas according government's will. We can not imagine that what the world would be like if there had not any heroes or heroines? Otherwise, in such society, we would be left with violence, district conflicts and a large group of illiterates without any social moral restrictions. Although policemen are able to restrict and limit citizens behaviors to some extent by using strong force, but can not eradicate the unmoral and negative ideas of people from their brains. Additionally, although we can not ignore that in most areas groups of unknown people contribute to the great events and trends, it is not true in other fields like scientific researches, because only a small number of people called precursors are familiar with them. Even if the masses are willing to and try their best to help scientists to resolve problems, it is far beyond their capability. For example, Einstein's contribution to the humanity-- the principle of relativity--is entirely made by him, which is supposed to be remembered forever. After all, never a person dabbles in this field before him. As a result, we should place much emphasis on such precursors. In sum, we should fully recognize and further underscore the influence of the massed who have been washed away by the river of history, but this is not equivalent to say that the famous few does not deserve their present emphasis. Additionally, in my perspective, government should place more emphasis on elites for the purpose of shaping examples to emulate. 51. Education will be truly effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student. Will education be surely effective only when it is applied to meet the needs and interests of each student? Although this argument seems ostensibly to be justifiable---one which all of us are looking forward to--it is unpractical based on the current system of education. My points of the contention with the speaker are discussed below. As I see it, it might be tempting to agree with the speaker on the basis that interest plays a pivotal role in one's success. As we all know, interests will incite more learning ardor when teachers are educating students in accordance with their interests and personal tastes, thereby enabling their potential capability and imagination to soar without any academic and mental limits. One apt illustration of this point involves one of the most famous physicists Faraday, who founded the law of electromagnetism. Without insatiable appetite for exploring the phenomenon that unstable electric flow cause magnetism, we might still live in a world without electric appliances such as computers, incandescent lamps, and so forth. On balance, accordingly, convinced of the importance of individual interests for inventions and production of new theory, modern governments should render student-centered education accessible to each individual to get back interests in the form of a large number of enlightened young men and women who are potential scientists and artists. On the other hand are three compelling argument against speaker's assertion when it comes to the needs of individuals. The first reason is that who are determined to judge the students' interests. It is up to parents or teachers or maybe students themselves to attempt to take up whatever subject or areas they like. Admittedly, students are inclined to be more familiar with themselves than others and have right to select which course to be majored in. Yet, it seems ill-conceived to relegate decisions about courses to a handful of students, who are likely to decide to major in those courses easier to learn, and whose decisions might be susceptible to influence of economic rather than where their true interests lie, thereby leading to surplus of certain jobs in the labor market in the future. In short, negative effects of determination made by students are indisputable purely for their own sake--not for benefits for their future. The second point has to do with teaching resource. In fact, students with different personal penchant would need a vast of resource--including classroom space, schoolbooks and teachers. However, the argument flies in the face of hundreds of thousands of hungry and homeless people and of finite federal financial budget. After all, government is obliged to spend their financial budget on the most necessary public utility. It is unjustifiable for educators to invest more money in the students-centered education when some poor students have no chance to go to school. In addition, the teachers' knowledge is supposed to be lifted in order to accord with the need of the students. Or government should employ more teachers to teach students with distinct interests. The third point has to do with evaluation of students' grades. Given their various inclination, the students are bound to major in different courses, which raises another crucial problem about how to unbiased evaluate them using grades? After all, it is unjustifiable to estimate the students with different inclinations using the same standard. In sum, the speaker's assertion that education will be truly effective only when it is designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student beg the question, because we can not actually know which the students' interests lie. As for the speaker's broad assertion, I agree that education should satisfy the students’ needs--because it is an incentive that propels them to explore the uncharted domain. Nevertheless, when we satisfy their interests, we risk squandering resources which could have gone a long way towards addressing social problems such as unemployment, poverty and endemic. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
全日制（定向）博士
已经有5人回复
-
假如你的研究生提出不合理要求
已经有10人回复
-
萌生出自己或许不适合搞科研的想法，现在跑or等等看？
已经有4人回复
-
Materials Today Chemistry审稿周期
已经有4人回复
-
参与限项
已经有3人回复
-
实验室接单子
已经有4人回复
-
对氯苯硼酸纯化
已经有3人回复
-
求助:我三月中下旬出站，青基依托单位怎么办？
已经有12人回复
-
所感
已经有4人回复
-
要不要辞职读博？
已经有7人回复
简单回复
2006-11-18 19:09
回复
meizhou3楼
2006-12-04 12:01
回复
