• weixin_39819393 2020-12-29 06:25:45
  • weixin_39870150 2020-12-26 06:36:00
  • weixin_39605835 2020-12-09 09:32:42
  • "There is no ulterior motive in work other than the product being made and the processes of its creation. The details of daily work are meaningful because they are not detached in the worker's mind ...

    Unit 8 - The Worker as Creator or Machine

    The Worker as Creator or Machine

    Erich Fromm

    Unless man exploits others, he has to work in order to live. However primitive and simple his method of work may be, by the very fact of production, he has risen above the animal kingdom; rightly has he been defined as "the animal that produces." But work is not only an inescapable necessity for man. Work is also his liberator from nature, his creator as a social and independent being. In the process of work, that is, the molding and changing of nature outside of himself, man molds and changes himself. He emerges from nature by mastering her; he develops his powers of co-operation, of reason, his sense of beauty. He separates himself from nature, from the original unity with her, but at the same time unites himself with her again as her master and builder. The more his work develops, the more his individuality develops. In molding nature and re-creating her, he learns to make use of his powers, increasing his skill and creativeness. Whether we think of the beautiful paintings in the caves of Southern France, the ornaments on weapons among primitive people, the statues and temples of Greece, the cathedrals of the Middle Ages, the chairs and tables made by skilled craftsmen, or the cultivation of flowers, trees or corn by peasants-all are expressions of the creative transformation of nature by man's reason and skill.

    In Western history, craftsmanship, especially as it developed in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, constitutes one of the peaks in the evolution of creative work. Work was not only a useful activity, but one which carried with it a profound satisfaction. The main features of craftsmanship have been very lucidly expressed by C. W. Mills. "There is no ulterior motive in work other than the product being made and the processes of its creation. The details of daily work are meaningful because they are not detached in the worker's mind from the product of the work. The worker is free to control his own working action. The craftsman is thus able to learn from his work; and to use and develop his capacities and skills in its prosecution. There is no split of work and play, or work and culture. The craftsman' s way of livelihood determines and infuses his entire mode of living."

    With the collapse of the medieval structure, and the beginning of the modern mode of production, the meaning and function of work changed fundamentally, especially in the Protestant countries. Man, being afraid of his newly won freedom, was obsessed by the need to subdue his doubts and fears by developing a feverish activity. The outcome of this activity, success or failure, decided his salvation, indicating whether he was among the saved or the lost souls.

    Work, instead of being an activity satisfying in itself and pleasurable, became a duty and an obsession. The more it was possible to gain riches by work, the more it became a pure means to the aim of wealth and success.

    Work became, in Max Weber's terms, the chief factor in a system of "inner-worldly asceticism ," an answer to man's sense of aloneness and isolation. However, work in this sense existed only for the upper and middle classes, those who could amass some capital and employ the work of others.

    For the vast majority of those who had only their physical energy to sell, work became nothing but forced labor. The worker in the eighteenth or nineteenth century who had to work sixteen hours if he did not want to starve was not doing it because he served the Lord in this way, nor because his success would show that he was among the "chosen " ones, but because he was forced to sell his energy to those who had the means of exploiting it. The first centuries of the modern era find the meaning of work divided into that of duty among the middle class, and that of forced labor among those without property. The religious attitude toward work as a duty, which was still so prevalent in the nineteenth century, has been changing considerably in the last decades.

    Modern man does not know what to do with himself, how to spend his lifetime meaningfully, and he is driven to work in order to avoid an unbearable boredom.

    But work has ceased to be a moral and religious obligation in the sense of the middle class attitude of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Something new has emerged. Ever-increasing production, the drive to make bigger and better things, have become aims in themselves, new ideals. Work has become alienated from the working person.

    What happens to the industrial worker? He spends his best energy for seven or eight hours a day in producing "something." He needs his work in order to make a living, but his role is essentially a passive one. He fulfills a small isolated function in a complicated and highly organized process of production, and is never confronted with "his" product as a whole, at least not as a producer, but only as a consumer, provided he has the money to buy "his" product in a store. He is concerned neither with the whole product in its physical aspects nor with its wider economic and social aspects. He is put in a certain place, has to carry out a certain task, but does not participate in the organization or management of the work. He is not interested nor does he know why one produces this, instead of another commodity--what relation it has to the needs of society as a whole. The shoes, the cars, the electric bulbs, are produced by "the enterprise," using the machines. He is a part of the machine, rather than its master as an active agent. The machine, instead of being in his service to do work for him which once had to be performed by sheer physical energy, has become his master. Instead of the machine being the substitute for human energy, man has become a substitute for the machine. His work can be defined as the performance of acts which cannot yet be performed by machines.

    Most investigations in the field of industrial psychology are concerned with the question of how the productivity of the individual worker can be increased, and how he can be made to work with less friction; psychology has lent its services to "human engineering," an attempt to treat the worker and employee like a machine which runs better when it is well oiled. While Taylor was primarily concerned with a better organization of the technical use of the worker's physical powers, most industrial psychologists are mainly concerned with the manipulation of the worker's psyche The underlying idea can be formulated like this: if he works better when he is happy, then let us make him happy, secure, satisfied, or anything else, provided it raises his output and diminishes friction. In the name of "human relations," the worker is treated with all devices which suit values are recommended in the interest of better relations a completely alienated person; even happiness and human with the public. Thus, for instance, according to Time magazine, one of the best-known American psychiatrists said to a group of fifteen hundred Supermarket executives: "It's going to be an increased satisfaction to our customers if we are happy... It is going to pay off in cold dollars and cents to management, if we could put some of these general principles of values, human relationships, really into practice." One speaks of "human relations" and one means the most inhuman relations, those between alienated automatons; one speaks of happiness and means the perfect routinization which has driven out the last doubt and all spontaneity.

    The alienated and profoundly unsatisfactory character of work results in two reactions: one, the ideal of complete laziness; the other a deep-seated, though often unconscious hostility toward work and everything and everybody connected with it.

    It is not difficult to recognize the widespread longing for the state of complete laziness and passivity. Our advertising appeals to it even more than to sex, There are, of course, many useful and labor saving gadgets. But this usefulness often serves only as a rationalization for the appeal to complete passivity and receptivity. A package of breakfast cereal is being advertised as "new--easier to eat." An electric toaster is advertised with these words: "... the most distinctly different toaster in the world! Everything is done for you with this new toaster. You need not even bother to lower the bread. Power-action, through a unique electric motor, gently takes the bread right out of your fingers!" How many courses in languages, or other subjects, are announced with the slogan" effortless learn- ins, no more of the old drudgery." Everybody knows the picture of the elderly couple in the advertisement of a life-insurance company, who have retired at the age of sixty, and spend their life in the complete bliss of having nothing to do except just travel.

    Radio and television exhibit another element of this yearning for laziness: the idea of "push-button power"; by pushing a button, or turning a knob on my machine, I have the power to produce music, speeches, ball games, and on the television set, to command events of the world to appear before my eyes.

    The pleasure of driving cars certainly rests partly upon this same satisfaction of the wish for push-button power.

    By the effortless pushing of a button, a powerful machine is set in motion; little skill and effort are needed to make the driver feel that he is the ruler of space.

    But there is far more serious and deep-seated reaction to the meaninglessness and boredom of work.

    It is a hostility toward work which is much less conscious than our craving for laziness and inactivity.

    Many a businessman feels himself the prisoner of his business and the commodities he sells; he has a feeling of fraudulency about his product and a secret contempt for it.

    He hates his customers, who force him to put up a show in order to sell.

    He hates his competitors because they are a threat; his employees as well as his superiors, because he is in a constant competitive fight with them.

    Most important of all, he hates himself, because he sees his life passing by, without making any sense beyond the momentary intoxication of success.

    Of course, this hate and contempt for others and for oneself, and for the very things one produces, is mainly unconscious, and only occasionally comes up to awareness in a fleeting thought, which is sufficiently disturbing to be set aside as quickly as possible.

    (from A Rhetorical Reader, Invention and Design, by Forrest D. Burt and E. Cleve Want)
































    Key Words:

    molding n. 铸造;装饰用的嵌线;模塑

    spontaneity    [.spɔntə'ni:iti] 

    n. 自然性,自生,自发

    longing   ['lɔŋiŋ]   

    n. 渴望,憧憬 adj. 渴望的

    conscious      ['kɔnʃəs] 

    adj. 神志清醒的,意识到的,自觉的,有意的


    1. 高级英语第二册(MP3+中英字幕) 第8课:工人是创造者还是机器(1)_品牌英语听力 - 可可英语
    2. 高级英语第二册(MP3+中英字幕) 第8课:工人是创造者还是机器(2)_品牌英语听力 - 可可英语
    3. 高级英语第二册(MP3+中英字幕) 第8课:工人是创造者还是机器(3)_品牌英语听力 - 可可英语
    4. 高级英语第二册(MP3+中英字幕) 第8课:工人是创造者还是机器(4)_品牌英语听力 - 可可英语
    5. http://www.kekenet.com/Article/201510/40367shtml
    6. 高级英语第二册(MP3+中英字幕) 第8课:工人是创造者还是机器(7)_品牌英语听力 - 可可英语
    7. 高级英语第二册(MP3+中英字幕) 第8课:工人是创造者还是机器(8)_品牌英语听力 - 可可英语
    hpdlzu80100 2021-12-06 11:55:12
  • Ulterior motive confirmations(别有用心的确认——汗,翻译成这样好像不太好吧)    四、二次确认页的替代方案:  如果不喜欢二次确认页,那么有别的方法可以取代吗?  1. 防止出错——设置...


      二次确认页其实就是Confirmation Alert,属于Alert家族中重要的一员。


      英文定义:A confirmation is a modal dialog box that asks if the user wants to proceed with an action.


















      1. 保存确认(Save Confirmation)



      2. 删除确认(delete confirmation)



      3. 其他重要且后果不可逆的操作




      4. 重要且不推荐的操作









      1. 若不存在两个以上的动作选择——不要使用确认页,可以是成功提示,或者错误提醒,设计成不需要用户操作的样子。

      2. 若存在两个以上的选择,但是90%的用户都会选择默认的选项——二次确认也是可以考虑去除的。可以加注一些提示来避免那5%的用户出现损失,但是不要用一个确认页去干扰这90%的用户。

      3. 考虑重要性和恢复成本:






      1. 系统弹出框


      2. lightbox(浮出层)



      3. 邮箱验证及手机验证码等替代形式



      从内容和功能角度划分 (这段资料来自于《windows vista UX guide》,为避免偶英文翻译有误,保留原文名称)


      1.Routine confirmations(常规确认)

      Confirm that the user wants to proceed with a routine, low risk action.




      2.Risky action confirmations(风险操作确认)

      Confirm that the user wants to proceed with an action that has some risk and can’t be easily undone.




      3.Unintended consequence confirmations(未预期的确认)

      Confirm that the user wants to proceed with an action that has unexpected or unintended



      很多时候,确认页是建立在用户有明确的操作意向的时候,这种情况下,也许用户对后果是有预期判断的:删除就意味着后果就是删除。而若删除命令同时会导致别的意料之外的结果产生,那就是unintended consequence confirmation。





      Clarify how the user wants to proceed with an action that has potentially ambiguous or unexpected




      UX guide建议除非确实认为这个行为可能会出现的多种结果中,不然就不需要这种澄清式的确认。

      5. Security confirmations(安全确认)

      Confirm that the user wants to proceed with an action with security consequences.




      6. Ulterior motive confirmations(别有用心的确认——汗,翻译成这样好像不太好吧)



      1. 防止出错——设置任务,用户在进行破坏性的操作前有前置任务需要完成。


      2. 提供撤销操作(Undo)——gmail的undo



      3. 提供反馈,让不期望的结果显著化。

      图:在支付宝的直接付款页面,点击radio button后已经使用提示告知了后果,因此点击下一步就不需要再次确认了。


      4. 消除选择——往往需要被确认的是因为有两个或多个response(后续动作),可以认真想一下,是否一定有多个选择,如果仅仅剩下唯一一个了,那么就不需要询问了。



      自从有了浮出层,越来越多的web 2.0的网站抛弃了系统弹出框。开始使用lightbox(浮出层),当然,他们各有优劣,不能一概而论。







      做了一张浮出层与二次确认页 两者的优劣点表,供参考:









      1. button的文案——需要让用户思考。



      大家看得明白下面三个二次确认页的区别吗?——资料来自《windows vista UX guide》



      第一个二次确认页面:windows认为是不合理的二次确认页,因为它起不到该起的作用,因为用户本身就是通过点击“uninstall”操作看到这个页面,当他看到button上的文案还是“uninstall”的时候,他几乎不会去阅读二次确认的问题和描述,直接就会点击“uninstall”。而windows认为二次确认页至少是需要用户思考一下再做操作的(不然还真的没必要)。——Do make me think。






      2. 页面的文案——足够的信息讲明白后果。






    gufanyue 2014-11-21 16:27:49
  • placed on symlinks limited their usefulness, there *was* a reasoned engineering analysis --- it wasn't one guy with an ulterior motive trying to avoid a bad review score. In fact, that practically ...


    "I Contribute to the Windows Kernel. We Are Slower Than Other Operating Systems. Here Is Why."

    I was explaining on Hacker News why Windows fell behind Linux in terms of operating system kernel performance and innovation. And out of nowhere an anonymous Microsoft developer who contributes to the Windows NT kernel wrote a fantastic and honest response acknowledging this problem and explaining its cause. His post has been deleted! Why the censorship? I am reposting it here. This is too insightful to be lost. [Edit: The anonymous poster himself deleted his post as he thought it was too cruel and did not help make his point, which is about the social dynamics of spontaneous contribution. However he let me know he does not mind the repost at the condition I redact the SHA1 hash info, which I did.][Edit: A second statement, apologetic, has been made by the anonymous person. See update at the bottom.]


    I'm a developer in Windows and contribute to the NT kernel. (Proof: the SHA1 hash of revision #102 of [Edit: filename redacted] is [Edit: hash redacted].) I'm posting through Tor for obvious reasons.

    Windows is indeed slower than other operating systems in many scenarios, and the gap is worsening. The cause of the problem is social. There's almost none of the improvement for its own sake, for the sake of glory, that you see in the Linux world.

    Granted, occasionally one sees naive people try to make things better. These people almost always fail. We can and do improve performance for specific scenarios that people with the ability to allocate resources believe impact business goals, but this work is Sisyphean. There's no formal or informal program of systemic performance improvement. We started caring about security because pre-SP3 Windows XP was an existential threat to the business. Our low performance is not an existential threat to the business.

    See, component owners are generally openly hostile to outside patches: if you're a dev, accepting an outside patch makes your lead angry (due to the need to maintain this patch and to justify in in shiproom the unplanned design change), makes test angry (because test is on the hook for making sure the change doesn't break anything, and you just made work for them), and PM is angry (due to the schedule implications of code churn). There's just no incentive to accept changes from outside your own team. You can always find a reason to say "no", and you have very little incentive to say "yes".

    There's also little incentive to create changes in the first place. On linux-kernel, if you improve the performance of directory traversal by a consistent 5%, you're praised and thanked. Here, if you do that and you're not on the object manager team, then even if you do get your code past the Ob owners and into the tree, your own management doesn't care. Yes, making a massive improvement will get you noticed by senior people and could be a boon for your career, but the improvement has to be very large to attract that kind of attention. Incremental improvements just annoy people and are, at best, neutral for your career. If you're unlucky and you tell your lead about how you improved performance of some other component on the system, he'll just ask you whether you can accelerate your bug glide.

    Is it any wonder that people stop trying to do unplanned work after a little while?

    Another reason for the quality gap is that that we've been having trouble keeping talented people. Google and other large Seattle-area companies keep poaching our best, most experienced developers, and we hire youths straight from college to replace them. You find SDEs and SDE IIs maintaining hugely import systems. These developers mean well and are usually adequately intelligent, but they don't understand why certain decisions were made, don't have a thorough understanding of the intricate details of how their systems work, and most importantly, don't want to change anything that already works.

    These junior developers also have a tendency to make improvements to the system by implementing brand-new features instead of improving old ones. Look at recent Microsoft releases: we don't fix old features, but accrete new ones. New features help much more at review time than improvements to old ones.

    (That's literally the explanation for PowerShell. Many of us wanted to improve cmd.exe, but couldn't.)

    More examples:

    • We can't touch named pipes. Let's add %INTERNAL_NOTIFICATION_SYSTEM%! And let's make it inconsistent with virtually every other named NT primitive.
    • We can't expose %INTERNAL_NOTIFICATION_SYSTEM% to the rest of the world because we don't want to fill out paperwork and we're not losing sales because we only have 1990s-era Win32 APIs available publicly.
    • We can't touch DCOM. So we create another %C#_REMOTING_FLAVOR_OF_THE_WEEK%!
    • XNA. Need I say more?
    • Why would anyone need an archive format that supports files larger than 2GB?
    • Let's support symbolic links, but make sure that nobody can use them so we don't get blamed for security vulnerabilities (Great! Now we get to look sage and responsible!)
    • We can't touch Source Depot, so let's hack together SDX!
    • We can't touch SDX, so let's pretend for four releases that we're moving to TFS while not actually changing anything!
    • Oh god, the NTFS code is a purple opium-fueled Victorian horror novel that uses global recursive locks and SEH for flow control. Let's write ReFs instead. (And hey, let's start by copying and pasting the NTFS source code and removing half the features! Then let's add checksums, because checksums are cool, right, and now with checksums we're just as good as ZFS? Right? And who needs quotas anyway?)
    • We just can't be fucked to implement C11 support, and variadic templates were just too hard to implement in a year. (But ohmygosh we turned "^" into a reference-counted pointer operator. Oh, and what's a reference cycle?)

    Look: Microsoft still has some old-fashioned hardcore talented developers who can code circles around brogrammers down in the valley. These people have a keen appreciation of the complexities of operating system development and an eye for good, clean design. The NT kernel is still much better than Linux in some ways --- you guys be trippin' with your overcommit-by-default MM nonsense --- but our good people keep retiring or moving to other large technology companies, and there are few new people achieving the level of technical virtuosity needed to replace the people who leave. We fill headcount with nine-to-five-with-kids types, desperate-to-please H1Bs, and Google rejects. We occasionally get good people anyway, as if by mistake, but not enough. Is it any wonder we're falling behind? The rot has already set in.


    Edit: This anonymous poster contacted me, still anonymously, to make a second statement, worried by the attention his words are getting:


    All this has gotten out of control. I was much too harsh, and I didn't intend this as some kind of massive exposé. This is just grumbling. I didn't appreciate the appetite people outside Microsoft have for Kremlinology. I should have thought through my post much more thoroughly. I want to apologize for presenting a misleading impression of what it's like on the inside.

    First, I want to clarify that much of what I wrote is tongue-in-cheek and over the top --- NTFS does use SEH internally, but the filesystem is very solid and well tested. The people who maintain it are some of the most talented and experienced I know. (Granted, I think they maintain ugly code, but ugly code can back good, reliable components, and ugliness is inherently subjective.) The same goes for our other core components. Yes, there are some components that I feel could benefit from more experienced maintenance, but we're not talking about letting monkeys run the place. (Besides: you guys have systemd, which if I'm going to treat it the same way I treated NTFS, is an all-devouring octopus monster about crawl out of the sea and eat Tokyo and spit it out as a giant binary logfile.)

    In particular, I don't have special insider numbers on poaching, and what I wrote is a subjective assessment written from a very limited point of view --- I watched some very dear friends leave and I haven't been impressed with new hires, but I am *not* HR. I don't have global facts and figures. I may very well be wrong on overall personnel flow rates, and I shouldn't have made the comment I did: I stated it with far more authority than my information merits.

    Windows and Microsoft still have plenty of technical talent. We do not ship code that someone doesn't maintain and understand, even if it takes a little while for new people to ramp up sometimes. While I have read and write access to the Windows source and commit to it once in a while, so do tens and tens of thousands of other people all over the world. I am nobody special. I am not Deep Throat. I'm not even Steve Yegge. I'm not the Windows equivalent of Ingo Molnar. While I personally think the default restrictions placed on symlinks limited their usefulness, there *was* a reasoned engineering analysis --- it wasn't one guy with an ulterior motive trying to avoid a bad review score. In fact, that practically never happens, at least consciously. We almost never make decisions individually, and while I maintain that social dynamics discourage risk-taking and spontaneous individual collaboration, I want to stress that we are not insane and we are not dysfunctional. The social forces I mentioned act as a drag on innovation, and I think we should do something about the aspects of our culture that I highlighted, but we're far from crippled. The negative effects are more like those incurred by mounting an unnecessary spoiler on a car than tearing out the engine block. What's indisputable fact is that our engineering division regularly runs and releases dependable, useful software that runs all over the world. No matter what you think of the Windows 8 UI, the system underneath is rock-solid, as was Windows 7, and I'm proud of having been a small part of this entire process.

    I also want to apologize for what I said about devdiv. Look: I might disagree with the priorities of our compiler team, and I might be mystified by why certain C++ features took longer to implement for us than for the competition, but seriously good people work on the compiler. Of course they know what reference cycles are. We're one of the only organizations on earth that's built an impressive optimizing compiler from scratch, for crap's sake.

    Last, I'm here because I've met good people and feel like I'm part of something special. I wouldn't be here if I thought Windows was an engineering nightmare. Everyone has problems, but people outside the company seem to infuse ours with special significance. I don't get that. In any case, I feel like my first post does wrong by people who are very dedicated and who work quite hard. They don't deserve the broad and ugly brush I used to paint them.

    P.S. I have no problem with family people, and want to retract the offhand comment I made about them. I work with many awesome colleagues who happen to have children at home. What I really meant to say is that I don't like people who see what we do as more of a job than a passion, and it feels like we have a lot of these people these days. Maybe everyone does, though, or maybe I'm just completely wrong.


    mrbFriday 10 May 2013 at 9:14 pm | | Default
    hnhbdss 2013-05-13 18:51:32
  • It is really patheticto see that students undertake graduate studies with an ulterior motive—not forthe sake of loving what they study, but for the sake of merely landing a job,which in many cases...






    Several months ago, a good news swept onChina that Mo Yan won the 2012 Nobel Prize for literature. After this bigevent, Mo Yan, the first Chinese resident to win the prize, has been the crispyfried chicken among China. Gaomi County in Shandong Province becomes atourist attraction because of his popularity. For his award, Chinese mediaoverwhelming report this exciting news. People are rushing to the bookstores tobuy his famous book and some are even out of stock.

    Generally speaking, his award means a lot to China,especially Chinese literature. The Nobel Prize for literature is a dream ofChinese literary field and all Chinese people. However, as a large culturalcountry that owns countless classic works, China had no winner of the NobelPrize for literature which had become a great pity. Therefore, this prizefinishesa pile wish of Chinese people. In addition, although we have agreat number of great works, very few people can read a book carefully andtranquilly in the impetuous society. I think this exciting news will inspirepeople’s enthusiasmtowards literature, which is a great motivation to thedevelopment of literature. This is what we are happy to see.




        1. 现在许多大学生放弃学业去参加“选秀”节目;

        2. 有人认为“选秀”节目为这些大学生提供了展示自我的平台,他们应该抓住机会“秀出自己”;但也有人认为这种选秀节目会养成大学生 “急功近利”的心态;

        3. 那么作为一个大学生,你是怎么看待这件事情的?



           Nowadays, TV PKShows (or we can call it Talent Shows) are great hit in China and haveattracted many young people. As for me, TV PK Shows, as all other things, haveboth positive and negative effects. Therefore, the most crucial thing is how wesee them.

    Some people think Talent Shows provide grass-rootpeople with a stage to display their talents, so they should seize everyopportunity to show off their talents. Some College students even give up theirstudies to attend these TV PK Shows in the hope of becoming famous overnight.They even regard TV PK shows as a shortcut to the success. While other peoplereckon that TV PK Shows will develop the undergraduates’ attitude of anxiousofachieving quicksuccess. And once they were failed in these shows, they wouldsuffer a great psychological unbalance. This is really bad to their physical andpsychological health.

    To sum up, everything has its limit. As long as theright attitude is employed, then it is OK.











    Nowadays,the employment of college students is becoming more and more of a problem.About a decade ago, university students could find satisfactory and enviablejobs after graduation, while at current situation, about 30% of graduatestudents can’t find a job but stay at home after graduation.

    Employmentdifficulty of college students is due to the following reasons. Among these,the increasing recruitment of colleges and universities plays a vital role. Inaddition, many colleges and universities fail to adapt their courses to thedevelopment of economy.

    Consideringsuch a rough job market, I think it is high time that we took effectivemeasures to solve the problem. Above all, college students should realize theirown defects and further improve themselves to keep their competitive edge insociety. Moreover, colleges or universities should provide more trainings andinternship opportunities before the students enter the society. Besides,college students should hold a right attitude towards jobs and set their jobexpectations at a suitable level. Only through these ways can the collegestudents find a satisfactory job and have a brighter future.





      The Craze of Pursuing GraduateStudies


      The Craze of Pursuing GraduateStudies

      Each year, millions of Chinesecollege students sit for qualifying examinations for graduate studies,primarily in Master’s programs. Students prepare for those examinations eitherthrough years of arduous self-education or by spending large sums of moneyattending local training schools. The publishing of examinations-related studymaterials and the training programs offered, both online and offline, havecombined to form a sizable industry.

      An alarming fact about thiscraze is that most students pursue graduate studies not out of their voluntarywill. Faced with the harsh reality in the employment market, which is foreverlooking for graduates with higher degrees, many college graduates find going tograduate schools is a good way to avoid unemployment and to enhance one’scompetitiveness in future job hunting.

      However, without thatvoluntary initiative, most students who do enter graduate schools are notmotivated. For them, the only thing that ultimately counts is the degree or thediploma which they expect could give them an upper hand against other jobhunters. As to the actual substance of their graduate studies, it’s not a big dealfor them, as long as it leads to that degree or diploma. It is really patheticto see that students undertake graduate studies with an ulterior motive—not forthe sake of loving what they study, but for the sake of merely landing a job,which in many cases might be unrelated to what they have studied.

      The chill truth is thatstudents soon find their anticipations are a mere dream. As so manyundergraduates proceed onto graduate studies, the employment situation remainsas severe as ever. Instead of bringing about apparent competitive edges, two orthree years of additional academic training is simply a waste of time andenergy. They need to reflect on this craze and would have been better offdistinguishing themselves with outstanding knowledge and skills when they wereundergraduates.


    qizhichao110 2012-12-21 10:04:03
  • roskopbuf 2015-01-13 02:33:29
  • weixin_26644651 2020-09-01 05:46:55
  • kuanghong 2009-09-29 13:26:00
  • my_Armada 2015-03-11 21:28:10
  • weixin_33961829 2009-10-25 15:27:07
  • weixin_34060741 2018-10-17 09:55:00
  • weixin_30414305 2013-03-03 22:20:00
  • furturerock 2010-07-19 21:10:00
  • weixin_33916256 2014-03-31 11:31:00
  • linbaoguo1314520 2012-02-05 15:24:51
  • dangerous_fire 2017-02-06 11:32:55
  • longronglin 2006-11-26 16:11:00
  • dearbaba_1666 2018-06-27 14:56:23



1 2
收藏数 24
精华内容 9