Thank you very much!!

谢谢，很受益！

simon,一直和你广埠屯的兄弟打算找你玩～～从十一计划到元旦了，现在开始复习托福，彻底没时间了，郁闷～～
' \* c; v' h$ R! x: c' J/ \支持simon的教学和GRE研究工作～～～

一个人牛不牛不是看他职位的高低，而是看他的作品的质量。纵观GRE观点题库244道题，可以说每一道都是可圈可点、博大精深。因此我认为命题者很牛。至于第二点，我的意思是GRE考察整个大学期间对思维能力的训练，这个训练当然是建立在中学甚至小学的基础上的。我们并没有矛盾。5 w+ S7 I5 n2 w4 K( p8 d1 P

8 I0 ^' L; Y6 r+ }. x% f: R感谢批评。敢于质疑正是写好GRE作文的关键。

To Tesolchina:
" ]* p  W' O; E5 n+ B2 I- j: Y$ z+ O* b" }8 u5 Z
Your rationale on AW's status is both strong and thoughtful, which makes it quite a fun to reflect.( J5 B8 R% }3 P$ Z

( g2 Y" E6 @2 ^: M& ]( M" I, Q# J6 @What I feel AW inadequate to be numbered among the profound works produced by some genius or master are twofold: first, I differentiated those test-designers and raters by their ranks, intending not for pegging AW's value solely to their practitioners' positions on institutional ladder, but because a senior faculty member, say a full professor, is more likely involved in "original" research--endeavors which aim to expand and transcend the boundary of human knowledge. That is where, in my view, the ultimate mission of AW test lies. AW per se may provide some budding chance for that purpose, but a severely timed, high-pressured writing context is hardly conducive to bringing out that achievement, except for at most a few flashes of wit and insight.
( G! R  m" f0 \+ q' G- K! C
2 ?& \- |7 u- k7 HSecond, I can't agree with you more when you say that  a writer's value should be based on the quality of his/her work, instead of social or institutional pecking order. Regrettably, the societies and conventions worldwide have long lapsed into such superficial malpractices. Yet my benchmark here is that AW's samples, even the best pieces from its test-takers, fail to reach a decent, if not publishable, standard with regard to Western literary tastes. Anyone can make a comparison with those in Time, Newsweek, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Wall Stree Journal. After all, AW, from test topics to students' samples, are meant to assess students' analytic abilities and research potential. The topics in themselves are indeed expansive and philosophical, but wouldn't you agree it is precisely because of such exacting demand that makes it impossible for test-takers to deliver, within 45-minute and 30-minute constraints, two truly comprehensive and adequately philosophical essays on those broad issues; of course neither can those American test-designers and raters fulfil such a feat. If we can settle on that, then shall we conclude that AW, in a fundamental sense, can hardly reveal anything except primary logical reasoning and argumentative competence in students.
" p& m9 d$ ^1 V0 c1 v: y
; u4 M$ ^" A" _; L9 J2 Q, C, OThird, I stand with you when you defend that AW assesses critical thinking accumulated through the whole educational process, and a university education is a capstone outcome of such progression. That said, my emphasis is on a test-taker's recollection of his/her whole schooling experiences, for AW measures not only thinking abilities, but also the depth and width of his/her general knowledge (or commen senses). For example, a science student need recall his/her exposures to history, language, geography, and education during the earlier stages, in order to handle topics like weight of history, the division between natural sciences, social sciences and humanities. The same is true for a liberal major to review his/her experiences with chemistry, physics or mathematics, so as to tackle such topics as technology and progress in stride. Therefore, a student, when sitting for AW, is advised to ready him/herself as a whole human being, capable of examining a complex from an arsenal of perspectives, reasoning as well as knowledge. Thinking is a powerful weapon, but it must be escorted by content to release its full force.. [$ q  v5 W4 X- ^
5 S, A  ]1 W  I/ u) ~  a
Again, these are purely personal, prompt thoughts. As always, I feel it a pleasure to chew your sparkling posts.
5 g4 K  {/ x- E- E4 V
. ^' _) W1 |% ?9 J# P2 {/ Y" \, O[ 本帖最后由 HaoHao2007 于 2008-2-14 11:54 编辑 ]

thanks for your thoughtful response.  Your English is very fluent, probably more fluent than mine.  I am curious where and how you learned your craft.  $ m' H5 Y/ e3 S7 P
I am not sure who are responsible for writing the issues. you suggested that they were written by low-ranking faculty members, a claim that needs to be verified.  It is entirely possible that ETS hired some professionals to write the test questions for them.  If it pays enough money, I am sure more skilled writers or teachers will show up to do the job.. y+ y+ y# b2 z& _- J$ k/ i' [
# K# A2 t6 W$ v7 W  H/ h6 a
With regard to the time limit, the drawback is inevitable.  45 minutes are not enough to produce a fine essay.  Writing is revising, as we know.  But during the test, revision is out of the question.  But we need to compromise because standardized testing do more good than harm for the admission system.  It helps the schools to make informed decisions and allocate scarce educational resources.  to some extent, we may argue that examination is a necessary evil.% H8 Z, T3 W! B9 E6 \  G1 |
! @, J% G: M# v' f
that being said, I still believe that AW is pushing the Chinese students to think about issues they would not otherwise think about.  In that sense, AW is good for us.   and this seems to be our consensus, anyway.

To Tesolchina,
) o/ j, L3 R1 a8 S; O+ A3 T9 O
1 Q1 t$ H5 `0 A1 H: |+ F' rFirst, allow me to request your excuse for my liberty in switching our discussion from Chinese into English. I just wondered why, since this is an exploration into the nature of AW, shouldn’t we exemplify the process of how to weave a cogent and progressive argument for all test-takers, who are either struggling, snorkeling or lurking around this waters (forum)?
" @( L1 q2 g3 o. x# S7 Z8 [! a) J2 O  J" p: F% |! @
So far I've been quite enjoying our intense discussion, not least because your pensive feedback always renders our exchange more tempting.
0 y% [' Z# m6 k4 N( T/ x% L2 k7 _
$ e0 ~) v% C/ M- {% ^In fact, I came to find what we share proves more meaningful than what we differ. For instance, we both agree that the issue topics are in themselves philosophical and exploratory--a new type of open-ended questions which unprecedentedly challenges Chinese students' independent thinking and conceptual sophistication. Then we concur that a 45-minute constraint regrettably (if not inhumanistically) imposes severe limitations on students' analytic and literary output, though for which, I assume we both agree, should not in the least proffer a convenient excuse to trivialize AW's significance for test-takers. One of the steadiest convictions I gleaned from the campus days is that one's perspective on a particular test eventually dictates how much s/he will derive or lose in preparation for the test. Third, I firmly stand behind you when you root for the necessity of subjective tests in helping admission personnel pick out the most competent candidates for postgraduate studies. Further than that, my stance might be more radical in that I think that AW should be overhauled to contain only the issue part, and extend its time length from 45 minutes to around one hour, for the issue section can adequately elicit the test-takers' argumentative competence which the present argument part supposedly assess yet fail to deliver. In such case, test-takers have to demonstrate their critical thinking, analytic depth and writing proficiency, with less illusions of hiding behind some "shining or golden sentences," ready-made templates or ghost-written outlines.4 V' W' m' a8 A) a9 O7 C

! i3 A, o$ l& y6 y/ `With such loose thoughts, I appreciate that your substantive reply deepens my thinking on AW and other collateral issues, just as AW, in your neat summary, "pushes the Chinese students to think about issues they would not otherwise think about."/ f" L! o8 E+ N0 }6 \2 k' h- v3 J
5 I9 H" D0 j* W* }
Thanks for your nice words about my writing. For your curiosity, I would say if one always think critically and analyzes rigorously, his writing, if systematically disciplined and literarily enriched all along, will come into shape sooner or later. In that sense, how to learn the craft is less mysterious but probably more relevant than where to learn it.0 G( U' p; W# A
" U5 Y$ P7 E/ Q% ?" D- y
It's lot of fun to read your posts, from their standpoint, reasoning, to expression. Yet when I can tell that you're over-modest in the self-assessment of your writing abilities, I feel that may turn out the biggest discord we still have some trouble with.
, M- K! U8 i0 h; u8 s0 z& R
( ~9 D+ j$ s4 d+ ]8 x1 g% ?- w[ 本帖最后由 HaoHao2007 于 2008-4-19 15:35 编辑 ]

顶一下！

哇！崇拜HaoHao2007的文。。。

顶！！HaoHao2007的文章太有功力了！

--b/ K5 }- P; t8 s6 p

9 }# {' f4 J. ]& h! Q* J顶一个
  d9 y+ ?- z( n/ ~& z4 R+ o但是老师说的写那么多篇文章有点让我没信心啊啊…… ==

开始准备冲锋陷阵了！！！

那么多大牛
% n! F3 g, g$ z% V4 t$ p4 J  O8 @, P自己只好尽力而为喽

Thank you!I think the most important thing for me is to overcome my fear for GRE