GRE寫作部分將重點(diǎn)考察考生有針對(duì)性地對(duì)具體考題做出反應(yīng)的能力，而非要求考生堆砌泛泛的文字。具體說來，這些重點(diǎn)關(guān)注的能力包括：1、 清楚有效地闡明復(fù)雜觀點(diǎn)；2、 用貼切的事理和事例支撐觀點(diǎn)；3、考察/驗(yàn)證他人論點(diǎn)及其相關(guān)論證；4、支撐一個(gè)有針對(duì)性的連貫的討論；5、控制標(biāo)準(zhǔn)書面英語的各個(gè)要素。寫作部分將聯(lián)合考察邏輯推理和分析寫作兩種技能，并且將加大力度引進(jìn)那些需要考生做出有針對(duì)性的回應(yīng)的考題，降低考生依賴事前準(zhǔn)備（如背誦）的材料的可能性。
which might outweigh the benefits, noted above. First of all, on what basis would certain
course work be included or excluded, and who would be the final decision- maker? In all
likelihood these decisions would be in the hands of federal legislators and regulators, who are
likely to have their own quirky notions of what should and should not be taught to
children--notions that may or may not reflect those of most communities, schools, or parents.
Besides, government officials are notoriously susceptible to influence-peddling by lobbyists
who do not have the best interests of society's children in mind.
Secondly, an official, federally sanctioned curriculum would facilitate the dissemination of
propaganda and other dogma which because of its biased and one-sided nature undermines
the very purpose of true education: to enlighten. I can easily foresee the banning of certain text
books, programs, and websites which provide information and perspectives that the
government might wish to suppress--as some sort of threat to its authority and power.
Although this scenario might seem far-fetched, these sorts of concerns are being raised
already at the state level.
Thirdly, the inflexible nature of a uniform national curriculum would preclude the inclusion of
programs, courses, and materials that are primarily of regional or local significance. For
example, California requires children at certain grade levels to learn about the history of
particular ethnic groups who make up the state's diverse population. A national curriculum
might not allow for this feature, and California's youngsters would be worse off as a result of
their ignorance about the traditions, values, and cultural contributions of all the people whose
citizenship they share.
5
Finally, it seems to me that imposing a uniform national curriculum would serve to
undermine the authority of parents over their own children, to even a greater extent than
uniform state laws currently do. Admittedly, laws requiring parents to ensure that their children
receive an education that meets certain minimum standards are well-justified, for the reasons
mentioned earlier. However, when such standards are imposed by the state rather than at the
community level parents are left with far less power to participate meaningfully in the
decision-making process. This problem would only be exacerbated were these decisions left
exclusively to federal regulators.
In the final analysis, homogenization of elementary and secondary education would amount
to a double-edged sword. While it would serve as an insurance policy against a future
populated with illiterates and ignoramuses, at the same time it might serve to obliterate cultural 感謝您閱讀《GRE作文范文大全（4） 》一文，出國留學(xué)網(wǎng)(liuxue86.com)編輯部希望本文能幫助到您。
which might outweigh the benefits, noted above. First of all, on what basis would certain
course work be included or excluded, and who would be the final decision- maker? In all
likelihood these decisions would be in the hands of federal legislators and regulators, who are
likely to have their own quirky notions of what should and should not be taught to
children--notions that may or may not reflect those of most communities, schools, or parents.
Besides, government officials are notoriously susceptible to influence-peddling by lobbyists
who do not have the best interests of society's children in mind.
Secondly, an official, federally sanctioned curriculum would facilitate the dissemination of
propaganda and other dogma which because of its biased and one-sided nature undermines
the very purpose of true education: to enlighten. I can easily foresee the banning of certain text
books, programs, and websites which provide information and perspectives that the
government might wish to suppress--as some sort of threat to its authority and power.
Although this scenario might seem far-fetched, these sorts of concerns are being raised
already at the state level.
Thirdly, the inflexible nature of a uniform national curriculum would preclude the inclusion of
programs, courses, and materials that are primarily of regional or local significance. For
example, California requires children at certain grade levels to learn about the history of
particular ethnic groups who make up the state's diverse population. A national curriculum
might not allow for this feature, and California's youngsters would be worse off as a result of
their ignorance about the traditions, values, and cultural contributions of all the people whose
citizenship they share.
5
Finally, it seems to me that imposing a uniform national curriculum would serve to
undermine the authority of parents over their own children, to even a greater extent than
uniform state laws currently do. Admittedly, laws requiring parents to ensure that their children
receive an education that meets certain minimum standards are well-justified, for the reasons
mentioned earlier. However, when such standards are imposed by the state rather than at the
community level parents are left with far less power to participate meaningfully in the
decision-making process. This problem would only be exacerbated were these decisions left
exclusively to federal regulators.
In the final analysis, homogenization of elementary and secondary education would amount
to a double-edged sword. While it would serve as an insurance policy against a future
populated with illiterates and ignoramuses, at the same time it might serve to obliterate cultural 感謝您閱讀《GRE作文范文大全（4） 》一文，出國留學(xué)網(wǎng)(liuxue86.com)編輯部希望本文能幫助到您。