1、  Most universities prefer to have their students finish certain project by team work, and then give the same score to every one in the team. Do you think this is good? Why?

Many hands make light work. As is known to all, teamwork was chosen as a high-effect way to accomplish the assignments. To adapt the society inseparable, universities, where are the places considered to provide knowledge and skills to their students related to future career, often have their students cooperate with their homework. They believe that to work together will benefit students to know how to organize a team and to make available communication, and trust their partners to take an excellent concerted action. It is positive to foster a sense of unity; however, they usually treat the effort of teamwork inequitable as they give the same score to the member of the team without caring their personal merits.

Group works, not collectivism, also accentuate the individual achievement, which depends on both capability and go-aheadism. "No pains, no gains", every one believes that. How will you feel when you got a same score at the presentation that you spent seven days with only 3 hours for rest per day while your partner played computer games all days and some day told you that "sweet, I bought some books and coffee for you"? One of my friends, Jenney, was once trapped in that problem. She was asked to do a research in two weeks on the marketing of a female attire brand called "ESPRIT" in Beijing with five other people. The research will be estimated every 4 days. Jenney was chosen as the leader because of her well known assiduity and sufficient experience. She first divided the six people into three teams, and each team needs to go to different shopping malls to make their own surveys for four days and the next eight days they need to find out which they missed and need to know more then complete them. In the last 4 days, they put the information they got together so that finish their task. Every thing seems to be going well at the beginning, but 4 days later, when they need to see all what they have gained. They found that the two teams did it really well that they have charted the passenger flow, calculated the exchange quantity, transaction rate in average, and marked the position of each brand in the center, but the third one, what they get were just some pictures they took and some brief introduction of the brand that you can find from internet easily. To make the research entirely and coherently, all the members had to go to the mall again. Jenney said that it was like a 4-members team rather than 6-member. What was worse, they all got a "B" at the first evaluation. In the following days, the other two of the members thought there was no difference between hardworking and lazy, so they chose the easy way to work. So, at last, they failed their research.

To work as a team, the most important thing is to divide the work reasonable and perform their respective duties. But if the universities give the scores without considering individual effort, how they can mobilize the activities of the teamwork, and how they can make their students feel fair to do the teamwork, and how they can make sure the teamwork achieve the goals as they wanted?

Many hands make light work. As is known to all, teamwork was chosen asa high-effect(efficiency??) way to accomplish the assignments.

It is positive tofoster a sense of unity; however, they usually treat the effort ofteamwork inequitable(in an inequitable/unfair way??) as they give the same score to the member of theteam without caring their personal merits.

Group works, not collectivism, also accentuate the individualachievement, which depends on both capability and go-aheadism. "Nopains, no gains", every one(everyone) believes that. How will you feel when yougot a(the?) same score at the presentation that you spent seven days withonly 3 hours for rest per day while your partner played computer gamesall days and some day told you that "sweet, I bought some books andcoffee for you"? One of my friends, Jenney, was once trapped in thatproblem. She was asked to do a research in two weeks on the marketingof a female attire brand called "ESPRIT" in Beijing with five otherpeople. The research will(时态?) be estimated every 4 days. Jenney was chosenas the leader because of her well known assiduity and sufficientexperience. She first divided the six people into three teams, and eachteam needs(时态) to go to different shopping malls to make their own surveysfor four days and the next eight days they need to find out which theymissed and need to know more then(than) complete them. In the last 4 days,they put the information they got together so that finished their task.Every thing seems(seemed)
to be going well at the beginning, but 4 days later,when they need to see all what they have(had) gained. They found that the(去掉)two teams did it really well that they have(had) charted the passenger flow,calculated the exchange quantity, transaction rate in average, andmarked the position of each brand in the center, but the third one,what they get(got)
were just some pictures they took and some briefintroduction of the brand that you can find from internet easily. Tomake the research entirely and coherently, all the members had to go tothe mall again. Jenney said that it was like a 4-members team ratherthan 6-member. What was worse, they all got a "B" at the firstevaluation. In the following days, the other two of the(去掉of the) members thoughtthere was no difference between hardworking and lazy, so they chose theeasy way to work. So, at last, they failed their research.

To work as a team, the most important thing is to divide the workreasonable and perform their respective duties. But if the universitiesgive the scores without considering individual effort, how they canmobilize the activities of the teamwork, and how they can make theirstudents feel fair to do the teamwork, and how they can make sure theteamwork achieve the goals as they wanted?

大概看了一下,中间那段时态问题有点多,如果对时态掌握不好,还是不推荐在考试时用这个.此外,论证过于单薄,仅仅那一个故事并不足以说明你想说的观点,你要说的是"给分一样"这样一个现象好还是不好,那么你的论证要围绕这个东西转,读了你的例子,只能说他有点那个意思,但没有打中要害,或者说你例子给了出来,却没有点出你想表达什么,你既然在结尾说"会损伤积极性","每个人工作量不一样","论功行赏",这些观点都可以详细展开,用些例子,那样会比这么一个单纯的例子,更有说服力.

是不是说我在中间论述的时候应该把论点也就是理由写出来，然后在论点后面写例子～～

我记得我在开头写给分一样不好了，可能后来不小心删掉了～～

非常感谢～～～

对,是这个意思,那样的话你就可以用例子支持分论点,用分论点支持总论点,结构好了,分数也高了. 我也就你这个题目写了一篇,练了练笔,我和你一样,也是新手,写了我好久好久.

恳请各位达人猛拍,小弟感激涕零.

Nowadays people in companies usually do project by group sothat they can share their ideas and strenthen their power to achieve a higherwork efficiency. In universities, students are also required to accomplish certain project by team work so as to form their cooperation spirits. Most universities evalutate the final work and give a uniform score for everyone inthe group. This scoring rule seem to be quite reasonable that it can oblige each member to strive for the team success. However, as far as I am concerned, I believe that such scoring rule is unfair and it can probably lead to a project failure and my reasons are presented as follows.

For one thing, the job in a project for a team of 4 peopleis not as easy to equally assign as is 100 dollors which can be simply dividedinto 4 parts with 25 dollars each. The job every one takes differs in suchaspects as nature, quantity and difficulty. A case in point is that in ascientific research group, people often assume different roles: theoretical calculation, experiment observation, data processing, document writing and so forth.Though it is true that a successful project is the fruit of everyone’s effort,hardly can I agree that each one should receive the identical reward orevaluation, because in the previous example the theory work and experiments are apparently more crucial to the team accomplishment than the other tasks. If people who work harder and better are not repayed as they expect, they will loose their enthusiasm to the work. Likewise, students who do project in teams should not be noted unformly, otherwise, positivity of certain students will beimpaired and the project may end frustrated.

For another thing, the uniform scoring rule often limits the performance of a team. A teammate may think himself that it does not make a difference whether he works or not for the reason that the final score will be the same for everyone in his team. Thereby he stops his endeavor expecting toreceive a good mark without paying anything. Nontheless, it is a common notion that the quantity of water that a barrel can contain is determined by its shortest starve, no matter how long the other starves are. The above mentioned teammate is the ‘shortest starve’ of his team owing to his laze, and will definitely limit the team achievement. What is worse, if everyone in the team thinks alike, the result will turn out to be nothing more than a failure. In brief, the uniform scoring method can give rise to people’s indolence and will eventually exert negative impact on the team.

From what has been discussed above, we may safely draw the conclusion that giving the same score to every one in a project team is inappropriate.




[ 本帖最后由 meseasky 于 2008-6-30 19:11 编辑 ]

我真的很想给你一些建议，但是能力所限……
the job in a project for a team of 4 peopleis not as easy to equally assign as is 100 dollors which can be simply dividedinto 4 parts with 25 dollars each.
job, 貌似不能这么用，我觉得你想表达的是工作量，job，主要表达的是职位的意思
the fruit of everyone’s effort 好像不能这么说吧~~~我查了一下，劳动成果是：product of one's labour ； 这个我不大确定……
A teammate may think himself that it does not make a difference whether he works or not for the reason that the final score will be the same for everyone in his team.   the same for~~应该是the same to 吧~~不能用everyone，everyone中含有你自己的，可以说the other; 还有就是我觉得不应该用will， 应该用would吧~~~我觉得应该是虚拟~~
Thereby he stops his endeavor expecting to receive a good mark without paying anything 读着觉得有点不舒服~~without paying anything和stop his endeavor表达是不是重复？？
其他的我也说不出来了~~
主要是自身能力就很差~~~我觉得你写的比我好
加油吧~~
共勉

你说的那个job问题,的确我用的不好,我再去查一查更好的表达方式.

fruit的话,是正确的,有点比喻的意思,字典里也有这个用法.

the same to, 你的改法是对的,我这里逻辑混乱鸟.

最后一个我的确意思重复了,你一说我才发现,呵呵,自己读不出来.

谢谢你帮我改啊,大家一起努力!