New Page 1

Unit 4

"What's wrong with the students of today? Back when I was a student we had a better attitude!" Criticisms like this are often heard from parents and teachers, in the newspapers and other media ?and it's been that way ever since education began. No matter what society or era you consider, there are always plenty of wise authorities pointing out that "The students of today" are somehow failing to grasp the true meaning of university education. Or maybe it's the other way around: Are universities failing to grasp the true meaning of students? The texts in this unit examine different aspects of this question. Text A discusses the many pressures that modern students face, while Texts B and C take a harder look at some basic misunderstandings about education and what a university is for.

Text C

What Is College for?

Careers, say students; learning, argues a major new study.

1. The above line tells us different answers to the question "What is college for?" one from the students, the other from a major new study. Now we have good reason to expect that what may immediately follow is something that describes a) the students'answer, b) the study's answer, or c) the differences between the answers.

    "I want to go to college to become a doctor," one high school pupil told researchers. Why? "So I can make some money and take it easy." A college student described her priority as "Having a job when I get out."As for the idea of studying to expand one's vision or values, another student declared: "I'm not interested in hearing about the professor's Ph.D. dissertation (论文)."

    According to a major new study, conducted by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and published this week, such career-oriented replies reflect the views of 90% of U.S. high school students and 88% of parents asked to describe the main purpose of a college education. Only 28% of parents and 27% of high school students see college as a place to become a more thoughtful citizen.

2. Having stated that the replies of the vast majority of high school students and their parents are "career-oriented"and that only a few are learning-concerned, the author is now ready to probe into a) the differences between the answers, or b) the essence of this career orientation.

   The study draws on surveys（调查）of 5,000 college faculty, 4,500 undergraduates, 1,300 administrators and 1,200 high school students. The author, Carnegie president Ernest L. Boyer, points to the realities beneath this career orientation: "The University of Illinois reports that only 19% of its humanities students have guaranteed jobs upon graduation versus 90% for business majors." Small wonder that according to U.S. government statistics（统计资料）, bachelor's degrees in business have doubled from 114,865 in 1971 to 230,031 in 1984, while BAs in English and literature have plunged from 57,026 to 26,419. In the competition for enrollments, some schools have dropped such subjects as geology and music education to emphasize business specialties like restaurant management. Says one college president:"It's all right to talk about educational values, but we have to face up to what students want today."

3. Since the author indicates that career orientation is the result of social and economic pressure upon students and colleges, what follows may be a) negative effects, or b) positive effects of career orientation.

    Since it yields（屈服）in these ways to social and economic pressures, the report argues, "Undergraduate education is in trouble. Driven by careerism and professional education, the nation's colleges are more successful in providing credentials（提供证书） [for future jobs] than in providing a quality education." The document singles out several "Deep divisions" in the typical undergraduate experience in the U.S. Among them are:

a mismatch between faculty expectations and the academic preparation of entering students. Said a math professor: "The biggest problem I have with my students is getting them to read and write."

a "chaotic（混乱的)"curriculum whose "Subjects have fragmented into smaller and smaller pieces, unrelated to an educational whole."

a cleft（裂缝）between undergraduates who expect to be taught and faculty for whom "Promotion depends on their meeting research and publication requirements."

a divorce（分离）between the requirements of an undergraduate's major field of study and those of general education. Many schools permit students to focus so narrowly on their major that "the broad vision of learning" is lost.

disagreements and confusion over goals. The student-body president at one university told Carnegie interviewers: "If there are any goals around here, they haven't been expressed to me."

The Carnegie report is far from the only alarm being raised about undergraduate education. During the past two years, similar criticisms of undergraduate curricula and values have come from such authoritative sources as the National Institute of Education and the Association of American Colleges.

4. Out of the worry about the quality of higher education, the author will now a) make some suggestions for the promotion of it, b) advocate a thorough reform of it, or c) point out some strong points of learning orientation.

As for what can be done, Boyer argues that colleges should raise their standards of language proficiency by, first, requiring a written essay of incoming freshmen. Freshmen ought then to take a year-long English course with an emphasis on writing that should extend to other courses through all four years. The heart of those four years, he declares, should be a required core curriculum that embraces language, the arts, history, social and governmental institutions and the natural sciences. Thus everyone, regardless of individual goals, would get a base of essential common knowledge. Moreover, the major subject should be enriched with related requirements on the history of the field, its socioeconomic implications and the ethical issues it raises. If, writes Boyer, a major cannot be discussed in these terms, "it belongs in a trade school."

The status of teachers, he continues, must be raised through higher salaries and greater involvement in university policy-making. There should be cash prizes for top instructors and grants to develop improved teaching methods. "If I were to open a college tomorrow," Boyer sums up, "I'd tell the students, 'You're not going to leave this place without experiencing the core of the learning experience.' That way, they'd have a set of values to support their knowledge."

(733 words)

为什么要上大学？

埃兹拉· 鲍恩

学生们说，为了谋生；一次大规模的新研究表明，为了学习

“我想上大学，以后当医生，”一名高中生告诉研究者。为什么？“那样我就能赚点钱，日子过得轻松点。”一名大学生把她优先考虑的事描述为“毕业后有一份工作”。至于为了拓宽视野或价值观而学习的想法，另一名学生则宣称：“我对听教授的博士论文不感兴趣。”

据本周发表的一项由卡内基教学促进基金会进行的大范围的新研究报告，在被要求描述大学教育的主要目的时，这种以谋生为目的的回答反映了美国90%的高中生和88%的家长的观点。只有28%的家长和27%的高中生把大学视为一个培养更富思想的市民的地方。

这份研究报告依据的是对5，000名大学教师，4，500名本科生，1，300名管理人员和1，200名高中生的调查。该项研究的负责人，卡内基基金会会长欧内斯特· L· 博伊埃指明了这种以谋生为目的的倾向所掩盖的现实：“伊利诺斯大学报告说，该校人文学科的学生中只有19%在毕业时保证有工作，而主修商科的学生为90%。”难怪根据美国政府的统计资料，商科学士学位已从1971年的114，865增加一倍，达到了1984年的230，031，而英语和文学专业的文学士却从57，026猛跌至26，419。在招生竞争中，一些学校为了发展如饭店管理类的商科专业，已经放弃了诸如地质学和音乐教育之类的课程。一位学院的院长说：“谈论教育的价值没错，但是我们必须面对今天学生所需要的。”

这份报告论述道，由于在这些方面屈服于社会和经济压力，“本科教育已陷入困境。在谋生至上和职业教育的驱使下，全国的大学在[为将来的工作]提供证书方面比在提供优质教育方面做得更加成功。”报告突出了典型的美国本科学历中的几种“严重的分裂”。其中包括：

· 　教师的期望和入学学生的学业准备之间的不协调。一位数学教授说：“我跟学生之间最大的问题就是让他们读和写。”

· 　“混乱”的课程，其中的“科目已分裂为越来越小的与教育整体无关的碎片”。

· 　期待着被教的本科生同“提升取决于是否达到研究和出版要求”的教师间的隔阂。

· 　本科生的专业学习要求和普通教育要求之间的分离。许多学校允许学生把注意力仅仅局限于他们的专业，以至于丧失了“宽阔的学习视野”。

· 　对目标的意见不一与混乱。一所大学的学生会主席告诉卡内基的调查人员：“如果这儿真有什么目标的话，那么他们也还没有向我讲清楚。”

卡内基的报告远非针对本科教育发出的唯一警报。在过去两年里，一些权威机构如全国教育研究所和美国大学联合会已经对本科的课程和价值观提出了类似的批评。

至于该怎么办，博伊埃认为大学应该首先要求入学新生写一篇文章，以此来提高它们的语言水平标准。其次，一年级学生应该上一年以写作为重点的英语课，而强调写作应该在整个四年中延伸到其它课程之中。他宣称，这四年的中心应该是一个包括语言、艺术、历史、社会和政府机构和自然科学在内的必修核心课程。这样，每个人，无论其个人的目标是什么，都将在基本常识方面打下基础。此外，主要科目的内容应通过相关要求加以丰富，如该领域的历史，其社会经济含义和其引发的道德问题。博伊埃写道，如果一门专业课程不能从这些方面去论述，“那它就是属于中等职业学校的课程” 。

教师的地位，他继续写道，必须通过更高的薪金和更多的参与大学决策来提高。对于一流的教师应该有现金奖，对于改进教学方法应该给予经费资助。“如果明天我开办一所大学，”博伊埃总结道，“我会告诉学生们，‘你们决不会在离开这个地方时，还没有体验到学习经历的核心。’这样，他们将会拥有一套支撑其知识结构的价值观。”