Farewell to Taking Attendance

There was a headline that grabbed me in the newspaper on Monday. It said，"Taking Attendance for the Sake of Your Mon

　　"Wow，" I thought，"that must be an interesting encounter." Then I read the fine print. Mr Zheng， a professor in Shanghai， was trying to justify his attendance policy， that thee king to see if everyone is present at the start of a class ensures the best use of tuition he has paid. Great. Customers can get a refund of 200 Yuan if they feel discontent with the quality of their newly bought jackets， while we students， after covering a tuition of 5500 Yuan， have to accept the poor performance of teachers simply because they will require our attendance. China is pushing education into business， but our own teachers won't treat the students as clients or some people to serve.

　　Out of fairness， the newspaper ran this story. But I would like to say to that professor， If you really want to keep your students engaged in class， try every means except for requiring attendance.

　　To begin with， requiring attendance may actually have the students frame an ill vision of teachers and rationale for taking classes. The most important criterion for a good student now is whether he takes attendance or how often he does so. We have stopped selecting courses according to our real interest or the teachers' real talent but only to class attendance， so we lose chances to learn more.

　　Yes， everyone wants to score well in the exam， and attending classes， taking notes and keeping them in mind are all necessary steps to fancy grades. But what counts most is our ability to solve problems and develop critical thinking， and nurturing them requires independent and active participation from both teachers and students. Once the attendance is taken， students become subordinate to the teacher， their passion faded， innovation lost.

　　As long as students find nothing interesting in class， they will conceive various tricks to embarrass the lecturer. If the teacher checks the name list at the first period of class， students will quit before the second period. And if the attendance is required at the second period， students will skip the first period and come at the interim.

　　Taking attendance is also a sign of teachers' incapability，and it is amazing how stark contrast lies in the popularity of lecturers. When Wu Danru， a Taiwan anchor known for witty remarks， came to Fudan to make a speech， 200 people flocked into the Room 3108. Some had to stand out in the hallway. Yet for some teachers， who simply cram the students with ideas without giving vivid examples， even half attendance seems fanciful.

　　But what if the teacher has tried his best？ Shouldn't we attend his class as ways of respect？ The truth is， The teacher fails to convey his idea to the students， while going to the classroom actually means a recognition of his terrible performance. Since a salesman receives pink slip if he doesn't finish due share， why can a teacher of poor ability command his students' attendance？

　　Thankfully， in the New Oriental School， the biggest English training institution in China， teachers have chosen not to become obsessed with the students' attendance， not to concentrate exclusively on their self-dignity， but to just keep on building a better environment for the students.

　　Too bad Mr Zheng has other priorities.

　　簡 評

　　這篇議論文的結搆非常嚴謹：以一條報道開頭，"爲錢上課"，讓人感覺很是不解從而産生閲讀懸唸。接下來以一位老師的上課考勤的做法引出對這種現象的討論。主躰論証部分用了兩種方法：類比法、因果法和反駁法。將學生交錢聽課和市場經濟中的商家與顧客的關系進行類比，既然顧客不滿意某種商品或服務可以退款，爲什麽學生付費聽課遇到同樣情況就衹能忍受老師的"折磨"？在分析了考勤制的弊耑之後，指出其不郃理性，竝進而指出真正的出路所在。最後以對鄭老師的評價結束，給人非常完整的感覺。