考博作文

2009年清華大學考博英語作文題目及范文》關鍵詞：考博英語寫作  |K_B{v .  
題目： F:@Ixk?E  
近些年學術界出現了，學者們盲目追求發表文章的數量，而忽視文章質量的現象，請以“quantity and quality of works”為題目闡明個人觀點，書寫工整、字數不少于300字。考博.中國 YiCDV(prT  
S }n;..{  
參考范文： g7P1]CZ}  
The past years witnessed considerable improvement in scientific research in this country. One typical sign is the mounting number of papers published in SCI and SSCI periodicals. However, the quality of many such papers and works is doubtable. One proof is that the average citation frequency of these papers has remained unchanged for years. This phenomenon has given rise to heated debate. Personally, I believe that this phenomenon should be viewed from more than one perspective. ( 7?%Hg  
On the one hand, it must be admitted that there has appeared an undesirable trend in Chinese academic circle in the past years, that is, too much emphasis has been put on the number of papers published rather than the quality of these papers, or substantial efforts and contribution in scientific research. Taking a look around, one can find examples too many to enumerate. The number of papers, especially the number of papers published in SCI or SSCI periodicals has been regarded as the most important or the single criteria in uating a scientific researcher. It is even directly related to his salary and opportunity for promotion. This trend has led Chinese academy to an unhealthy road of development. As we can see, many scholars have become more of writers than researchers. Some even plagiarize in order to publish more papers. |i`@!NrFL  
On the other hand, however, we should not hastily say no to the quantitative uation of scientific researchers. In fact, the number of papers is a critical index in measuring the achievement of a scholar or an academic institution. As we can see, nations with developed sciences rank among the top in SCI and SSCI publications. Quantitative uation is especially necessary in some disciplines in China where there are not sufficient experts to give an objective assessment. hjG1fgEj  
To sum up, we should not go to extremes in this matter. While we should continue to adopt the quantity of works as an index in uating scientific researchers, we should not lay as much emphasis on it as we did. Instead, more freedom and a looser environment should be provided for researchers so that they can give full play to their talent. Only in this way can we expect a boom of science in this country. =e;wEf%`  
kUUq9me&o  
LbR-uc?x