2. 职称英语
  3. Nearly every country in the developed world, and more and more in the develo

Nearly every country in the developed world, and more and more in the develo

游客2023-11-30  23
问题     Nearly every country in the developed world, and more and more in the developing world, provide free primary and secondary education. In the case of university education, however, there is a great deal of disparity between countries’ education policies. The following are excerpts of opinions. Read them carefully and write your response in about 300 words, in which you should:
    1. summarize briefly the opinions;
    2. give your comment.
        Adam Swift, author of "How to Reap the Benefits of College"
    It is a fundamental right of individuals to experience university and to have access to the knowledge it affords. University serves as an extremely valuable forum for different views, which everyone has a right to experience should they wish.
    The state has a duty to facilitate this development. A state can only truly be considered legitimate when an educated electorate approves it. Without a proper education, individuals cannot be effective citizens. A university education in the modern world is essential to the development of such informed citizens. For this reason, free university is a great benefit to a citizen as an exploration for his own development on a personal level, and with his relation to society as a whole.
    Thomas Kane, author of "The Price of Admission: Rethinking How Americans Pay for College"
    There is no right to the university experience. University life is a mess-up. Students rarely take their time in university as seriously as some would suggest. Self-knowledge and genuine wisdom come from study and reflection. This can be done anywhere, not just in a university. There is no fundamental right of individuals to be allowed to take four years free of charge to learn new skills that will benefit them or teach them how to be better citizens. The state’s duty is to provide a baseline of care, which in the case of education secondary school more than provides. If individuals want more they should pay for it themselves.
    Christine Hill, author of "Still Paying off that Student Loan"
    A university-educated populace is of great value to any state, and provides two main benefits. The first benefit is that it provides extensive economic boons to society. By facilitating higher education, through state funding of university study, countries increase the likelihood and quantity of investment in their economies by both domestic and foreign firms, as a highly educated and skilled workforce is a country trait many businesses consider highly desirable when making investment decisions. The second benefit is the development of leaders in society. States function best when the best and brightest have the opportunity to rise to the top. The barrier to entry created by fees and other costs of university will prevent some potentially high-worth individuals from ever reaching levels of success. Free university education allows all individuals to attend university, guaranteeing that the leaders of tomorrow have the chance to show their worth.
    Walter Allen, author of "College in Black and White"
    A highly educated populace does not provide the great economic bounties the supporters of free university education propound. Countries need educated people, including a certain amount of university graduates, but the idea that everyone having a degree would benefit society economically is unfounded. There is no economic benefit when people with degrees are doing jobs that do not require university education, and represents a substantial misallocation of resources on the part of the state. As to developing future leaders, those who are gifted or particularly driven can still rise to the top, even if university is not free, as scholarships tend to be mostly aimed at such individuals. Surely, society does not benefit at all from university being free.
选项
答案             College Doesn’t Need to Be Free
    At the base or the debate about the right to college education is the question whether college is a private or public benefit. Advocators argue that university education serves two fundamental interests of a modern democracy—an educated citizenry and a professional workforce. In this regard, free university is beneficial to both individuals and the society. However, some scholars counter that free college is not all it is cracked up to be. The fact that people with degrees are doing jobs that do not require university education represents a misallocation of resources. We agree that education should be considered as inalienable, but the high expenses of it cannot be ignored. In my opinion, it is necessary to bring college within financial reach, but not necessary to make it free for all.
    Why? Making college completely free creates a moral hazard problem. Students who have free access to colleges may take higher education for granted, and the likelihood that they will graduate on time will decrease even further. In the end, students become more frivolous and less choosy about the university they go.
    In fact, as the real problem is that the rising tuition is scaring some best but impoverished students away from enrolling in college, what we need to do is to keep college affordable. That is the crux of the matter. Basically, there are two approaches to affordability: increasing government’s subsidy or cutting down college’s cost. The focus of government policy has been on the former and we need more of the latter. Actually higher education organization is a bloated enterprise. Too many professors do too little teaching to too many ill-prepared students. Besides, although the size of the administration and staff increases substantially, the benefits are suspect.
    To conclude, the efficacy of making college free deserves closer scrutiny. Instead, targeted government subsidies and cost-cutting measures are more feasible ways to ensure quality higher education and make it available to driven students irrespective of their family’s income.
解析     材料围绕“大学是否该免费”的话题给出了四个人的观点，其中第一和第三个人表示支持，其他两个人则持反对意见。这两组人的观点针锋相对。前两人争论点在于大学教育是否是个人的基本权利(fundamental right of individuals)。Adam Swift认为，接受大学教育是个体的基本权利，适当的教育才能造就高素质公民(Without a proper education，individuals cannot be effective citizens)，因而国家有责任提供免费的大学教育。Thomas Kane的观点与他相反，否认大学教育是公民的基本权利，在任何地方都可以获得知识和技能(can be done anywhere)，不必拘泥于大学，国家只是提供最基本的关怀，个人应自己承担大学费用。
    后两人的争论点则在于全民接受大学教育是否对经济有利，以及是否能造就未来的国家领导人。Christine Hill认为全民上大学是必须的，可以培养高素质和有技能的劳动力(a highly educated and skilled workforce)，而且能给国家的未来领导者(leaders of tomorrow)实现价值的机会。Walter Allen则认为国家只需要部分大学毕业生，若大学生从事的工作不需要其知识，则是一种资源错置(substantial misallocation of resources)；此外，他认为即使需支付大学学费，那些未来的国家领导者也能通过奖学金进入大学学习，也能脱颖而出。
    开篇：从正反两方面概括专家对免费大学教育的褒贬看法，并提出个人见解——大学教育不需要完全免费。但要让人负担得起。
    主体：阐述不必完全免费的原因以及使贫困生也能上得起大学的方式。
    结尾：总结全文，重申解决办法。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3233101.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)