我今天细看了两遍较难的6分范文，点评这篇如下:

　　"It is unfortunate that today's educators place so much emphasis on finding out what students want to include in the curriculum and then giving it to them. It is the educators' duty to determine the curriculum and the students' duty to study what is presented to them."

　　题目的意思是，当今教育部门过于重视学生在课程设置中的决定作用，正确的做法是教育部门决定课程，学生的任务就是好好学习。

　　The statement above conceals intesting connotations far above curriculum development. Issues of classroom control and development of scholarly talents are at stake, not simply a debate over which books are acceptable or over revisionist histories.

　　开题表明课程设置是次要的，重要的是适当的课堂秩序以及培养学生的学术才能。这是一个典型的另起炉灶型的作文，提出issue题目中并不包含的观点。

　　The statement itself is a bit misleading in that in my experience, student control over curriculum hardly existed. Each year, there were certain course offerings made available, and students were to choose from those offerings, of course bearing in mind requirements for graduation set forth by the administration. On a classroom level, the immediate, initial material may have been somewhat directed by the students, but this was a part of the process allowed by the teacher/professor in order to gain the interest and attention of the students.

　　(以上是对issue题目中“学生对课程设置具有决定作用”presumption的否定,指出这不符合事实。)

　　However, too much of any one thing becomes problematic;

　　(这句话是否是指“过犹不及”的意思？我不大确定。However用于转折，但从下文的意思看，好像并不是对however以前内容的转折呀！这里可能有点问题！)letting students set the curriculum, as with letting students choose and design their own major in college, serves ultimately to dilute the quality of the educational experience unless a single advisor can devote significant amounts of time to the individual student. This amount of time, or even the expense to the student of this individual attention, seem to indicate that resources would be better allocated elsewhere.

　　后半截虽长，但意思只有一个，让学生决定课程内容会造成教育质量的下降。

　　Of course, any school in which the students decide "what goes" is bound to have problems controlling students. Once the educators, be they administrators or teachers, are under the control of students, even a democratic situation would be like holding royalty acountable to the mob(这句话我一直不明白是啥意思，请牛人指点！). Presently, students hear for hours that they should not forget to use a condom in the heat of the moment, and educators think the message gets through, while half the kids can't even remember to bring a pencil to class. Students go to school not to simply learn the Pythagorean theorem, but to learn direction and receive guidance. This cannot occur when students are in charge, and standards, already hard to find in America's contemporary public schools, will become unenforceable. If students dictate and administrators do, students will never learn academic responsibility, and if they can't be held accountable for homework, what other responsibilities will they avoid when they get older?

　　这一段相对比较简洁，通过举例等方式，说明学生缺乏自主决定课程设置的能力，让他们决定课程设置将使他们得不到direction and guidance.

　　But in another sense, teachers and students do exist in a partnership of sorts. Teachers are there to satisfy the needs of the student, and the student, while perhaps not being the most experienced/ knowledgeable person on what his/her needs actually are (versus wants), at least should be afforded some say. In addition, we must remember what the purpose of education is, and that there are different levels of education.

　　这里才进入了作者准备论述的主要内容，即学生和老师应当是伙伴关系，而不该是谁强迫谁做什么。不过，后面加了个in addition,又强调了一下教育目的和不同层次教育的差别。扯进来的东西太多了！

　　In high school, the focus is not so much on learning actual material. The focus is on developing study habits, and on social interaction. The best secondary schools promote an environment in which individual creativity and pacing can be developed, where students are taught to think on their own, and learn to debate and argue in a scholarly way, through writing and other formal methods of discourse. Group collaboration and interpersonal skills are developed and honed. The actual details of what is studied and tested is of less importance. Whether a student reads Maya Angelou, or Yeats, or Euripides essentially is beside the point as long as a student's mind is cultivated, not just their ability to record and recite.

　　(这里谈得好象都是secondary school教育的目的，非常精彩，但有些扯远了！) What is important is that secondary students develop and grow in the hands of the professionals. (最后一句才点了一下学生和老师的关系)

　　The secondary educational experience is designed to prepare a student for college. It is in college where the individual learns to examine the world and how it works, and the individual's place in it.

　　(这句话我觉得对于全文没有太大意义，完全可以去掉！)

　　As for duty, it is the educators' duty not simply to determine the curriculum, but to present it effectively. They cannot half-heartedly paint it on the blackboard, they must enliven it and actually teach. Hard work must be lauded, while freeloaders are punished. (教师的责任) These are the duties of teachers, and the duty of the students is not just to learn or study, but to grow. An independent mind is what students need, and that mind has to be in a position to want and be able to question beyond the material presented, not simply to question its legitimacy。

　　(学生的责任，不仅仅要质疑教学内容的合理性，更重要的是要敢于探索教学内容以外的新东西) That distinction,(是指质疑教学内容与探索新东西之间的区别吗？)

　　though subtle, is the difference between letting the students follow a self-destructive course of premature self-determination on the one hand , and permitting on the other hand the fostering of great talents through a cooperative, mentoring relationship最后一句话非常费解，作者的意思可能是说，学生对校方提供的课程内容的质疑(学生决定课程)其实是一种盲目的早熟，会毁了学生的前途，而鼓励学生的探索精神，独立精神则只能由老师、学生的通力合作才能达到，呼应了本文的开头，总结全文。

　　总体评价：

　　1，这篇文章的布局结构比较随意，有几处稍加改进，文章就好读多了，而内容不会损害。这点不值得我们学习。

　　2，前半部分谈“学生决定课程”的弊端，实际是同意了提干的说法(It is the educators' duty to determine the curriculum and the students' duty to study what is presented to them)。虽然论证有力，文笔精彩。但我个人觉得这一部分作用不大。因为作者本身就不同意“学生决定课程”现象的存在，说明在作者眼里，这个问题并不重要，那为什么还要花这么大篇幅论述该现象的弊端？难道作者担心字数不够？

　　3，精彩部分是第四段以后对教师与学生关系的论述。这里涉及到了很多作者对教育本质和目的的深刻见解。不少句子简直就像格言一样精粹、深刻。作者的思想源源不断的涌出，感觉好像是文章的形式和字数限制束缚了思想的自由表达。刚开始读时，以为作者跑题，但仔细研读，会发现作者思维逻辑是严谨的，只不过由于形式的束缚，没有明明白白的说出来，给读者留下了思考的空间。文章最后一句非常有深度，不仔细体会，根本理解不了。作者肯定对哲学有着浓厚的兴趣，要不然他怎么能在短时间内写出这么深的句子？

　　4，关于语言，用词非常精炼老到，句式变换随心所欲。但是，我觉得个别句子有故意卖弄文采和假装深沉之嫌，毕竟这篇文章的大部分内容还是比较平淡的，没必要写得像哲学著作。

　　结论：1，这篇文章值得细读至少3遍.

　　2，该文不值得我们模仿。一我们大多数人不具备这么强的语言把握能力(大牛除外)，强行模仿它的风格可能会弄巧成拙。二是我们大多人还没有这么深刻的观察思考能力(大牛除外，学不了）。

　　3，一些精彩句子、闪光词汇可以背下来，这因人而异。