Requiring Class Attendance Shows Low Teaching Level,Requirin

Requiring Class Attendance Shows Low Teaching Level
During my two-year-long college life, most of my teachers don't require class attendance. Some of them even said, "There is no need to attend my class if you find anything more attractire." But there are still many who insist on making class attendance a rigid policy. Here are their arguments:
Teachers spend lots of time preparing and teaching a course which contains the cream of their knowledge. Missing the class wastes your chance to absorb the cream and by doing it, you show no respect for your teacher.
Some students lose the motivation to study when there is no one beside to force him to study. Class attendance requirement is directed against those lazy ones. It can compel them to attend the
class.
Sounds reasonable. But does this regulation really work? I find that the courses that require class attendance contain the following ones, such as "Max's Philosophy", and one of my specialized courses called "Analysis Chemistry". They share the same feature:dull.
Every one has to attend the class because of the regulation and because of the grade point. The classroom is full of students and the teacher seems contended. It seems that only by attending the class can we show our respect for the teacher. But it is not the truth, for almost half of the students have a good sleep or do their homework during the class while the others take notes apathetically. Respect doesn't come from the rate of attendance but from the teacher's splendid teaching.
Because of the attendance requirement, those who are busy sleeping, playing PC games or having dates have no choice but to come to the classroom. The regulation can tie up their bodies but not their souls. How can you imagine that brains full of comfortable beds, exciting game screens and beautiful girls will learn anything from the teachers, especially those who teach the course only by reading books? 大学排名
It comes to my point that requiring class attendance can not effectively attract students to learn more. And the only solution is to improve the quality and fascination of classroom instruction. One of my classmates has great interest in playing PC games and goes to class scarcely, even those which require class attendance. But every Friday morning, he is never absent from the course Meticulous Organic Chemistry. Why? He told me that he learnt lots of things that could never be found in the books and the teachers' humorous speech always sobered him up.
So when you take a course that requires class attendance,you should be prepared to endure a really dull one.

简 评
本文旨在抨击现在的上课点名制。作者直陈亲身见闻，揭示教育制度的弊端。语言犀利，观点虽不免偏激，但对教育工作者也有一定的启示作用。文章有以下两点写作特色：
一、立论巧妙。写议论文要题目范围小，中心明确，才能讲得清，讲得透，才能使人接受。本文作者没有笼统地说上课点名制度是“好”还是“不好”，而是一针见血地指明“上课点名制”和“教学水平”的关系，主题十分具体。文章的所有议论都紧紧围绕这一中心展开，引言、主体部分以及结尾都提到了两者的相关性。
二、驳论有力。本文是典型的驳论文，作者首先列出两点反面论点：考勤是对教师的尊重和对学生的督促；然后以此为靶，通过描述教室里的真实现状进行批驳，指出形式上的出勤并不能代表实质上的用心。最后以身边实例进一步强调了只有提高教学水平，才能真正吸引学生的学习兴趣。有破有立，又有学生的心声，真是给教师的一剂苦口良药!
作者语言平实易懂，但有些表达欠准确，个别用词和搭配不够恰当。
(点评教师：辛红叶)