1. University and university education are different concepts and should be strictly distinguished. University is the place of university education, which is static. On the other hand, university education is a process and dynamic. If we confuse the two, it will introduce market rules into all aspects of the university field, lead to the industrialization of education, and then produce various disadvantages, which is not our view.
2. What is a market? The concept of market is very broad, including narrow tangible market and broad intangible market. There are both material markets, spiritual markets and ideological markets. Another debater has repeatedly held a magnifying glass to observe the disadvantages of the market. Admittedly, we don't deny that the market has its own insurmountable defects, but we should also see its advantages: equality, fairness, legality and openness. This is its mainstream! The defects of the market can't be overcome by itself, but people can. The market we are talking about includes state intervention, and we can't ignore the macro-control of the government. With the development of the market and the improvement of relevant laws and regulations, the disadvantages of the market can be overcome. The other party may say that marketization will lead to moral deficiency, then I don't understand. Doesn't the market need honesty? Honesty is not morality? Moreover, market competition leads to the survival of the fittest, and only talents with all-round development in morality, intelligence and physique will have a bright future!
3. direction. Guidance is not a flag, it plays a guiding role rather than leading, and it does not have to rise to a certain height. Isn't the lesson from the past a guiding role?
Having made the above three points clear, let's look at this topic again. Assuming that university education is not market-oriented, first of all, graduates will find it difficult to find jobs, waste their youth and financial resources, and even delay their lives because their knowledge does not meet the market demand. Secondly, for schools, it is difficult for graduates to find jobs, which naturally leads to difficulties in recruiting students. Such a vicious circle will eventually shrink the whole university education, which is accompanied by a large waste of educational resources! Thirdly, from the perspective of the whole society, the difficulty of students' employment not only causes a lot of waste of resources, but also breeds social contradictions, which is incompatible with our construction of a harmonious society! How does the opposing debater solve this problem? In today's society, market economy has become the dominant mode of the world economy. As an organic part of social economy, university education is of course regulated by the market. Marxist philosophy holds that to solve problems and do things, we must proceed from reality, that is, everything depends on time, place and conditions. What is the reality now? Now we are in a market environment. Starting from this reality, the marketization of university education is an irresistible historical trend! It is the requirement of the times!
Finally, I want to clarify that orientation is not exclusive. How can I put it? We have repeatedly emphasized market orientation, but we have not said that the market is the only orientation of university education, just as our struggle against communism does not hinder us from building a harmonious society! Moreover, it should be noted that market orientation and other orientations of university education are mutually reinforcing. Since the market is beneficial to all aspects, why not take it as the orientation of university education? Hello, everyone. How nice!
To sum up, we analyze that university education should be market-oriented from three aspects: concept, feasibility and positive significance. We further demonstrate our views from the perspective of the times and the relationship between market orientation and other orientations of university education. So we insist that university education should be market-oriented! There is no best, only better. University education is market-oriented. How nice!
Today, we are here to discuss the orientation of university education. We are all college students with the same starting point. We all hope that our university education will have a better tomorrow.
However, the difference between us and the other debater is that we think that university education should be marketized, while the other debater thinks that university education should not be marketized. Here, we can't help asking, the other debater thinks that university education should not be marketized, so how does the other debater think that university education should be marketized?
The following are some preparations for the guidance put forward by the other party.
[Power =0]
* * * If the other party says it is oriented to social needs,
The other debater told us to be market-oriented, but we know that the market reflects social needs. Does the other debater also think that university education should be market-oriented? For example, first explain two facts: 1, and our classmate XXX's student number is xxxxxx；; 2. My grades are not good. When I went to college yesterday, I found that the number one student in my grade was xxxxxx, and then I wondered why I couldn't do what others could do, so I decided to try my best to catch up. In the future, I will rely on xxxxxx to guide my study, but the other debater is very enthusiastic. They came up to me and told me that I should not be guided by xxxxxx, but by xx, the first grade student. I don't understand these two statements. Xxxxxx stands for xx. Similarly, in today's market economy era, the market also reflects social needs ... so the other debater is not talking about marketization?
* * * If the other party says they don't want a tour guide.
Another debater told us that university education should not have a direction. We know that the so-called direction is the direction that guides action or development. Does the other debater think that university education should not have a direction? So where does another debater want our university education to go? Or should we stop?
* * * If the other party is oriented to improving quality or something,
Another debater told us that we should be guided by the improvement of our own quality, but we know that improving students' quality is a part of university education, and what we call guidance is the direction of guiding action or development. How do some of us guide ourselves? Let's just say that our male compatriots today are guided by our vast number of female compatriots, not the male compatriots themselves. Quality should be improved, but how to improve quality and what kind of quality are the guiding issues we are discussing today!
* * * and then went on to say
We said that all talents trained by universities should be market-oriented, but the other debater told us that they yearned for the seclusion of Nanshan under the hedge of picking chrysanthemums ... Don't the other debater know how much money your parents and teachers have invested in the nine-year compulsory education and three-year high school education that you are sitting here today? Even if the other debater Ken, your parents, your teacher and our motherland don't agree, even if everyone agrees, the other debater should pay attention to an objective fact. In Tao Yuanming's time, the forest area in China was still very large, but now the forest area in China is getting smaller and smaller ... Our wildlife friends live in fewer and fewer places ... At this time, another debater, as a contemporary college student, actually told us that they would not invest in the market for social development after graduation. ?
When we say marketization, we don't mean drooling. It is doubtful that money will make us pay attention to everything. Instead, we take the talent demand structure of the market as the principle of our allocation of educational resources. Another debater told us how utilitarian and smelly the market is, but we should know that the utilitarian is not the market, but people. There is nothing wrong with money itself. What is wrong is human greed! China is carrying out market-oriented economic system reform. Do you want our country to become a utilitarian country, a country with a bad smell of copper?
Of course, like other debaters in childhood, we are eager to be innocent and carefree, eager to pick up shells of hope on the beach of hope, and don't bear the heavy burden of this reality. However, reality is reality. When we leave the university, we will face the challenge of the market ... The talents cultivated by the university must adapt to the market, and the main purpose of university education is to cultivate talents needed by the market ... So we say that the resource allocation of university education must be based on the talent demand of the market.
[/Power]
The last lyric is mainly used to adjust the time. Don't say it if there is not enough time.
Indeed, the romance of the campus, the echo of youth and the passionate song of triumph have deeply touched us. When you write down your memories on this bright film, you will feel the affection of life; However, when you climb the peak of market orientation and look outside the campus, I believe you will see a more magnificent and broader life landscape!