伟伟的学习心得 » 日志 » something about Newman
something about Newman
vivi 发表于 2008-11-13 20:48:26
What do you think of Newman’s claim that the university’s task lies in the diffusion of the knowledge rather than in its advancement (Para.13)?
actually, i think university is a perfect place to explore new things. Of course this includes to explore advance knowledge. Because from my understanding, university is the place where most elites locus. And of course, the diffusion of the knowledge is also very important. We'd better balance two parts well.
Faced with a choice between a university that did no more than award degrees after an examination (dispensing with residence and tutorial supervision), and a university that had no examination at all, but simply brought young men together, Newman would – if judging simply on academic grounds – choose the latter. What would be your choice? Justify your answer.
Actually i am the person who advocate proper examination is good for student's learning. Because if we have examination, students will force themselves to learn something and keep something in mind. Without examination, students who lack of self-controllness will easily to waste their time. But gather students together is also a good way to gather group's idea. This is, i will not deny, an excellent way to motivate your thinking ability, and share each others' thinking. So at last, my conclusion is : both of those ways are important, we can not just focus on way to guide our students' learning. It will better if we can combine these two together.
Newman said a university was “a seat of wisdom, a light of the world, a minister of the faith, an Alma Mater of the rising generation”. Can this be said about today’s universities? Are they still “a seat of wisdom, a light of the world”, or are they more or less than this?
Yes, i believe so. Compared with others groups, such as company who are busy with seeking money, government whose main duty is to develop their track record, school still remain their duty---- develop elites, convey wisdom ---- like before. But also, today's university mix something not so good into it, i.e. some teachers are not profession enough, or some teachers are really in a bad Moral Education. So, we have a long way to go if we really want to achieve the university like Newman described.
The number of people winning a place at university has massively expanded, but has more meant worse? Is there any agreement, even now, about what a university is for? And have we reached the end of the process of change, or has it barely begun?
And i support the idea that too many students will hurt the school's teaching quality. the more students enter university, but there are not adequent good teahcers to meet the need of students. What is more, more students will add the job hunting pressure when they graduate. The socielty have no corresponding increase jobs for them. So there is one saying goes" graduation means unemployment. That is really a sad but true thing.
actually, i think university is a perfect place to explore new things. Of course this includes to explore advance knowledge. Because from my understanding, university is the place where most elites locus. And of course, the diffusion of the knowledge is also very important. We'd better balance two parts well.
Faced with a choice between a university that did no more than award degrees after an examination (dispensing with residence and tutorial supervision), and a university that had no examination at all, but simply brought young men together, Newman would – if judging simply on academic grounds – choose the latter. What would be your choice? Justify your answer.
Actually i am the person who advocate proper examination is good for student's learning. Because if we have examination, students will force themselves to learn something and keep something in mind. Without examination, students who lack of self-controllness will easily to waste their time. But gather students together is also a good way to gather group's idea. This is, i will not deny, an excellent way to motivate your thinking ability, and share each others' thinking. So at last, my conclusion is : both of those ways are important, we can not just focus on way to guide our students' learning. It will better if we can combine these two together.
Newman said a university was “a seat of wisdom, a light of the world, a minister of the faith, an Alma Mater of the rising generation”. Can this be said about today’s universities? Are they still “a seat of wisdom, a light of the world”, or are they more or less than this?
Yes, i believe so. Compared with others groups, such as company who are busy with seeking money, government whose main duty is to develop their track record, school still remain their duty---- develop elites, convey wisdom ---- like before. But also, today's university mix something not so good into it, i.e. some teachers are not profession enough, or some teachers are really in a bad Moral Education. So, we have a long way to go if we really want to achieve the university like Newman described.
The number of people winning a place at university has massively expanded, but has more meant worse? Is there any agreement, even now, about what a university is for? And have we reached the end of the process of change, or has it barely begun?
And i support the idea that too many students will hurt the school's teaching quality. the more students enter university, but there are not adequent good teahcers to meet the need of students. What is more, more students will add the job hunting pressure when they graduate. The socielty have no corresponding increase jobs for them. So there is one saying goes" graduation means unemployment. That is really a sad but true thing.
收藏:
QQ书签
del.icio.us
订阅:
Google
抓虾
