[高中英语演讲稿3分钟]高中英语演讲稿:我的分数观

【wenmi.jxxyjl.com--英语演讲稿】

　　My Attitude towards to Marks 我的分数观

　　For our students, marks is above everything. Teachers will judge us from our marks. With marks we can be enrolled into junior middle schools. With marks, we can be enrolled into senior middle schools. With marks we can be enrolled into college. With marks we can be enrolled into postgraduate and doctrine studies. Still with marks we can be graded and be allowed to go abroad for further studies. Our parents will be strict with us with the marks. Our society judge us from marks. However, sometimes we students compare one another with marks directly. We are completely controlled by marks. We like them and we feel sorry for them. But what attitude towards our marks should we take?

　　Truly, marks functions cannot be underestimated. In terms of test in our study, marks are fair and real. That is the reason why we say "Everyone is equal before marks. "

　　However, I think marks are the sole standard to judge the success or failure of students in exams. Sometimes, marks more than ten or less than one or two in our exams comparing with others mean not everything. The success or failure in exams will be influenced by experience on the spot and the examinee"s health etc. Once in a while one cannot fail in exams. " Success or failure is common sense for military. " I think everyone is familiar with the famous saying. Don"t you think such will be the case with our study? In exams, one cannot be " never-defeated general" . Even though one will be very good in everyday study, he cannot succeed in every exam sometimes. We can get proof from the fact that the very best one we call "Number One Scholar" in the entrance exams for college and ordinary middle school and specialized secondary school over the years is not eminent above all others nor top student in every study.

　　As a matter of fact, "high marks" and "ability" are not unified. Some time ago, a new phrase " high marks but poor competence" came into being. Once I happened to meet such a teacher as this .It is said that the teacher just graduated from a far-famed key university. But his teaching result is much less than that of the one who just graduated from a not-well-renowned college. When lecturing, the teacher only repeated what the text-books says, which was very dull so the his students" interest in learning was not aroused. His teaching was short of unity of teaching and learning. At present there is a fact that we know a few brilliant and top college graduates are not qualified for their posts. The reason for it may be lack of the ability to combine knowledge learnt from books with pragmatics in their work. Students of this kind will be successful in every exam but they will be able to use freely their knowledge in their posts. Don"t you think it waste training such persons for the country?

　　To sum up from the above, I can say marks are not absolutely authoritative for some. If we neglect training and developing the students" ability and competence and if we only seek for the high marks, we will be absolutely wrong. We should take an objective attitude towards the marks. Neither should we neglect them nor should we overvalue them like a God.

　　分数，对于我们学生来说，是至关重要的了。老师要用分数来衡量我们—上初中，要分数;上高中，要分数;上

　　大学要分数，考研究生、博士要分数，出国、评职称还是要分数。家长要用分数来要求我们;社会用分数来衡量我们。

　　而我们自己也常常用分数在相互直接做着攀比。我们完全为分数所左右了，我们为它欢喜，我们为它丧气。那么，我们应该怎样对待分数呢?

　　的确，分数有它不可低估的作用。从检验学习的角度上来说，它具有一定的公平性和真实性，“分数面前人人平

　　等”，讲的就是这个道理。然而，分数并不是估量一个学生成败得失的惟一标准。考试成绩偶尔低了一两分乃至十来

　　分，并不一定说明什么问题。考试的成败有时也会受到诸如临场经验、健康状况等方面的影响。“胜败乃是兵家常事”这句话大概不会有人不知道，而我们在学习上又何尝不如此?在考试上很少有“常胜之师”，即使平时成绩再好的同

　　学，也难免会有偶尔的失误。历届中考、高考“状元”并非就是平时出类拔萃的优等生的事实，便是明证。

　　事实上，“高分”与“能力”往往是不统一的。前段时间，社会上出现了一个新词:“高分低能”。笔者就曾经碰见这样一位教师，据说他毕业于某赫赫有名的重点大学，但从教学效果上讲，却远远逊色于一些非高等学府毕业的老师。其授课只是照本宣读而已，枯燥乏味，缺乏一种教与学之间的协调功能。根本不能引起听课同学的兴趣，目前不少大中专院校的高材生毕业后不能胜任他们的工作，原因就在于缺少将书本中的知识运用到实际工作中去的能力。这种人，尽管在学校中每每能考出高分，可无法在工作岗位上灵活白如地运用自己所学到的知识。国家培养出这样的“人材”，不也是一种浪费吗?

　　由此可见，分数并不如有些人想象得那么绝对和权威，忽视了对各方面才能的培养，只一味追求高分，是不行的。因此，我们应该客观地去看待分数，既不应过分轻视它，也没有必要把它看得过于神圣。

本文来源：https://wenmi.jxxyjl.com/yingyuyanjianggao/176713.html