I am honored to discuss this issue with you today. Universities should be guided by improving their own quality and all-round development. However, we know that improving one's own quality is a part of university education. And what we call orientation is to guide the direction of action or development. How does a part of yourself guide yourself? This in itself is a logical error. Quality should be improved, but how to improve quality and what kind of quality are the guiding issues we are discussing today.

We say that all talents trained by universities should be market-oriented, but other debaters tell us that they yearn for Nanshan seclusion under the hedge of picking chrysanthemums. Don't other debaters know how much money the country has invested in the nine-year compulsory education and the three-year high school education that you are sitting here today? How much energy did your parents and teachers put into it? Even if the other debater is willing, your parents, your teacher and our motherland will not agree! Another debater should also 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, and there are fewer and fewer places for our wild animals to live. At this time, another debater, as a contemporary college student, told us that they would not invest in the market to contribute to social development after graduation, but would enter the forest to compete with wild animals for a place. How can the opposing debater stand it?

When we say marketization, we don't mean drooling, but we suspect that silver has fallen. They want us to focus on money. 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 must know that utilitarianism is not marketization, and 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, we are eager for a pure and carefree childhood, eager to pick up the shells of hope on the beach of hope, and don't bear heavy realistic burdens. However, reality is reality. Without university, we will face the challenge of the market. Talents educated by universities must adapt to the allocation of market resources and must be carried out in accordance with the talent demand structure of the market, which means that university education should be market-oriented.

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 in this beautiful movie, you will feel the profound feelings 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!

(Defending by the opposing side) Hello, judges and friends of the opposing side.

Hitt said that university education is to cultivate people first, and awakening is the strength of students. Cultivate their self-learning initiative and understanding, and let them make meaningful self-choices in unpredictable future situations. The idea and goal of university education is to inherit civilization, carry forward culture, cultivate sound citizens and cultivate social resources. Specifically, university education includes: 1. Humanities education; Second, scientific research and innovation; Third, shape the spiritual home of mankind.

A person with complete personality is the soul of university education. More importantly, in college, learning is not only static knowledge, but also all-round development.

Therefore, university education should not only keep a distance from commercialization and popularization, but also educate and guide the society to develop in an ideal and reasonable direction.

The market is a commercial relationship between supply and demand; Orientation is a programmatic standard to guide the development of things.

Then suppose that university education is market-oriented and universities are managed according to a set of markets, which means that everything in universities, including the establishment of departments, the selection of topics, the arrangement and employment of personnel, and the evaluation of professional titles, must run around the invisible hand of the market. Then university education can't be guided by cultural inheritance and the creation of humanistic education, but become eager for quick success and instant benefit, losing the dignity and mission of the Cultural Palace.

Three generations of gentlemen. University education must remain indifferent and free. When the president of Harvard University came to Peking University to give a lecture in May 2003, he said, "For example, biological research has now reached a market value of hundreds of billions of dollars. However, this kind of value is not created under the impulse of market forces in just a few years, but the best scholars gathered in universities, under any constraint and guidance of the US dollar, give full play to their imagination to create and research products. "

It should be guided not by the market, but by the great spirit of all-round development of morality, intelligence, physique and beauty. This spirit is not born out of thin air, but must be rooted in a political and cultural community, which is the real spirit inherent in university education. In a word, universities, as the bastion of national scientific spirit and the home of democratic spirit, have their own independent ideas. No matter how the market changes, university education should fulfill its mission according to its own spirit. Is university education a market word that can be guided and harvested? thank you

Chairman, judges, hello.

First of all, I want to point out some mistakes in the other side's argument: first, the goal of university education is not to develop civilization and inherit culture; Second, marketization does not mean following a set of markets; Third, developing in accordance with the spirit of morality, intelligence, physique and beauty does not violate our market-oriented development goals.

First of all, I want to emphasize what is the key point here-that is reality. In the face of university education, we must face up to the practical problems and constantly improve to face them. Another debater said a thousand words, what is good and what is bad, but the problem was solved. Admittedly, we do not deny that the market has its shortcomings, but the development of everything has its shortcomings, which does not deny that the marketization of university education is an inevitable trend. It is wrong for the other debater to criticize our views only by critical thinking, which makes the problem worse, but does not solve it. Marxist philosophy holds that if we want to solve problems and do things, we must proceed from reality. The other party has established an idealized foundation. How can we see the problem clearly? We want everything to start from the right time, location, people and harmony. What is the reality now-that is, we are now in a market environment. Starting from this reality, the marketization of university education is an irresistible historical trend and the requirement of the times.

According to the statistics of the Ministry of Education, in 200 1 year, the number of college graduates nationwide was 1 15000, and the number of unemployed people reached 340,000, accounting for about 30% of the total number. By 2005, the number of unemployed people had increased to 930,000, nearly double that of 200 1. In 2008, the number of college graduates in China reached more than 5 million, and the employment situation became more and more severe. If the other debater still insists that university education is not market-oriented, what should many people do? There are no available people in the job market and college students can't find suitable jobs. Both sides are miserable. Reality is reality. When we leave the university, we must face the challenge of the market. Talents trained by university education must meet the challenges of the market, and the main purpose of university education is to train talents needed by the market. As the transition of students to society, universities are bound to undertake this historical mission. Therefore, we say that the allocation of resources in university education must be market-oriented.

Now I want to explain three conditions that university education must meet: first, to serve the society; Second, cultivate specialized personnel; Third, develop science. In a real sense, if university education cannot be marketized, it will lose its real meaning. If the university is really like the ivory tower that the other party said, wouldn't it be isolated from society and a backwater? How do universities cultivate a new generation of talents? The education system of many universities in the United States tells us that marketization is to cultivate people who are needed by the market. Free and open education makes college students more aware of what they should be, rather than being confused about university education.

To sum up, we analyze that university education should be market-oriented from the aspects of concept, reality, purpose and action, and only in this way can we realize its value and serve the society.

(Two opposing arguments) Thank you, Madam President. Hello.

Just now, the other debater smiled and told us a lot of reasons for market orientation. Even if the sweet words don't convince me, I will still explain many mistakes below.

University education is a social activity to cultivate high-quality talents in universities; The market is a commercial relationship between supply and demand. There is a fundamental contradiction between university education and market in terms of objectives and characteristics, and marketization is even more logical.

Deng Xiaoping, the great father of reform, once said two words to guide the development of China: First, rejuvenating the country through science and education; There is also a saying that education faces modernization and the future. Two famous sayings contain the wisdom and luxury of this great designer. Why does he only talk about science education and never set foot in the market? Because he knows that education is pure and cannot be influenced by commercial nature.

The purpose of university education is to cultivate talents, serve the society and improve the national quality. The main purpose of science in university education is to promote social development and improve the living standard of human beings in the future. The three industrial revolutions in the west are good examples, all of which are beneficial to human society. Because of the emergence of science and technology, the market thought it was profitable, so it made a transformation. What leads the market is technology. Since the market is technology-oriented, and technology is the product of university education, it is undoubtedly a reversal of right and wrong to take the market as the direction of university education. This is a huge paradox.

The development of enterprises needs to be market-oriented, otherwise it will be difficult to adapt to the wave of global economic integration. However, under the macro-control, there have also been four international economic crises, such as financial crisis. How can this dangerous thing guide our sacred education? I think this is tantamount to the blind leading the way.

The reason why university education is different from college education is that universities are teaching professional knowledge and guiding students how to be human. If market-oriented university education is adopted, it will promote egoism and individualism, cultivate all money-oriented college students, and lead to salinization and desertification of education. Imagine if Madame Curie should not contribute scientific research achievements to the country, but apply for a patent to make a lot of money.

After college graduates enter the society, many people choose to teach or volunteer in remote areas or immerse themselves in studying new technologies. Yuan Longping, the father of hybrid rice, has been experimenting with rice for eight years. How many eight years can a life have? Why did he tirelessly make 7% of the world's arable land feed 2 1% of the population? He devoted himself to scientific research for the development of the country and the nation. This is the significance and purpose of university education, and it is also a spiritual height that the market with commercialization as its connotation cannot reach. Universities are proud of how many scientists they have trained, not how many millionaires they have trained.

The president of Harvard University once said: "If one day, all my students are working part-time, all my professors are running companies, and my campus is covered with company posters, then I and the whole world will make a lot of money. However, I will not be happy about this, because this is a technological prosperity without soul. "

To sum up, our view is that university education should not be market-oriented.

(Cross-examination)

Everything has its own trend. Since the other debater thinks that university education should not be market-oriented, what should it be?

Sorry, what we are discussing today is whether university education should be market-oriented, not what university education should be oriented to.

Marx put forward the social attribute of man, so what is the connection between man and society?

Marx certainly told us to proceed from reality. But we are now a socialist market economy, so do we have to face the market now? Talents trained in the market are trained for profit. What about us? Or should we cultivate all-round talents?

If a round cake is cut off by two thirds, is it still a complete round cake?

(The opposing party argues) No. ..

Since two-thirds of a cake is not cake, and so on, if our university education is out of touch with society, please tell me how to serve society after leaving society.

University education is quality education rather than market education.

(The three debates are at loggerheads) Hello everyone. When we hold a debate here, the world economy is changing. The world market is depressed, unemployment and bankruptcy continue, and the mortgage crisis in the United States has led to tragedy. The first world economic crisis and the second world economic crisis are also talking about something. What do you think of each other?

The other party mentioned money again. When we say "marketization", we don't mean that our mouths are watering. It is doubtful that our money will last for nine days. Do other debaters want our country to become a country full of copper smell?

(3) I don't think the other side understands what I mean. What I want to make clear is that there will be a persistent crisis in the market. Moreover, the market has such a big drawback, and the other party is still stubborn. Do you want to push our students into the abyss?

I reiterate that the market is not money, but money is only a part of the economy. Moreover, the market includes economy, and money is not a concept.

I think the purpose of the market is to obtain the greatest economic benefits. Well, today, the party and state in China always stand for people-oriented, and university education is also conducted under the leadership of the party and state, but it has never been mentioned that university education should be market-oriented. How do you explain this?

The market is changing rapidly. We study here to better serve the market in the future, not to keep up with the money. On the other hand, it deviates from this track and always confuses money with the market.

Market-oriented customization of social resources is the main feature of market economy. However, there are essential differences between educational construction and economic construction. Why does the other party insist on his own opinion?

(Positive argument) When we leave the university, we must face the challenge of the market and be market-oriented.

(Offensive and defensive link)

As I mentioned above, there are so many hidden dangers in the market. Why do other debaters insist on their own opinions and keep saying that university education should be market-oriented?

(Three positive arguments) Why does the other side have to seize the bad effect of the market and ignore the good effect of the market? Then I want to ask each other, what is the original intention of studying hard for more than ten years to enter the university? After studying hard for more than ten years, I can't stand in the society and can't adapt to the society. What's the use of having a pair of leather?

We don't have to do it for money, we can support our families. You can support your family here and make great contributions to society. Just for the money? Is it a market pension?

I never said anything about supporting the elderly. We are talking about market orientation. Why don't you listen carefully to our debate-oriented definition? I also want to ask my opponent, what's the point of higher education universities if they can't train talents needed by society?

I think my opponent misunderstood the meaning of the market. The market is the relationship between business supply and demand. How to understand it?

Even if it is the relationship between supply and demand of business and universities export talents for the market, we can also think that talents can be commodities. If you want to refute this view, please find a better example. In addition, one of the missions of college students is to meet the mission of new technology. How can college students understand and complete our mission when they leave the market?

Our task now is to revitalize China. Go with the party and the people. However, guidance, I think the other debater misunderstood this meaning and led the wrong programmatic standard. You have lost all procedural standards. What can you do?

Orientation is to take it as the trend. But universities are not necessarily market-oriented, nor are they necessarily market-oriented. We only meet part of the market demand. Universities need to cultivate talents who are the pillars of the country. Then I want to ask each other, what is the talent pillar? Is it just a combination of morality, intelligence, physique and beauty? Don't you need practical ability?

(Three arguments disagree) Is it unnecessary? Should it be?

(All three arguments are affirmative) So the other party says it shouldn't, which means it doesn't have to be? Also, may I ask the other party, does today's society need theorists or generalists who combine theory with practice?

(Three objections) Does this have anything to do with the debate?

Of course, the market needs talents who combine theory with practice, not just theoretical knowledge.

(small paragraph)

First of all, I correct the other party's three mistakes: first, the other party said that we should proceed from practice, because we proceed from reality, so we see the disadvantages; Second, the other party has just answered our question, and the market is changing rapidly. Should our university education be guided by the ever-changing market? How hard does our teacher work? Third, the combination of theory and practice is needed now. Is it a practice market? The other side has been grasping the employment problem, and the other defense friend said that if it was marketized, it would not face such a severe situation. I think the root cause of the employment problem is that the knowledge and ability of college students have not been well developed, not the market problem. No matter which university in China, there are all kinds of majors, instead of setting up several popular majors according to market demand, as the other party said. As long as you study well, it is easy to find a job. In the current fierce competition, there are more and more college students, and the jobs can't meet the employment needs of college students. Naturally, the phenomenon of survival of the fittest appears, and fierce competition is inevitable.

Just now, the opponent's defense friend has said 1000 words, which shows that the writing is thick, but the other side has also made many mistakes. Here are some key points:

First, the concept is wrong; First of all, university education should be market-oriented, not necessary. I stress once again that there is no need to implement market-oriented standards in all areas of university education. Not exclusive, but the pursuit of efficiency; Second, market orientation does not mean focusing on business and money. Instead, we take the demand structure of market talents as the principle of our resource allocation. Market-oriented is the fundamental need to meet the needs of society and serve social interests; Third, market orientation must include competition mechanism. Natural selection, survival of the fittest Promote the all-round development of talents.

Second, logical errors. Just now, the other debater said that spiritual enlightenment is self-directed, and university education itself includes improving one's own quality. And what we are talking about is the direction of action or development. Can a part of you guide you The other debater just doesn't give examples and puts the cart before the horse. The purpose and content of university education are confused and inconsistent.

Third, the argument is insufficient. The other side's argument is not enough to support the other side's point of view.

Therefore, we believe that university education should be market-oriented.

(summary meeting)

Here I want to point out some mistakes of the other side. First, the market is changing rapidly, but our education has not changed rapidly. If our education is changing with each passing day, how should teachers teach it? Please be considerate of our teacher. Second, is the original intention of going to college to become a money-making machine? The other party has always pointed out that college students will face the market, yes, but we can't be money-making machines. Third, the non-marketization of education will face modernization. The other party has always said that we should proceed from reality. Yes, we are proceeding from reality. The campus has not completely set the hot industry as its own major. Fourth, the other party said that the campus is not a market, but a market-oriented one. What is the orientation, and will eventually develop in this direction? The other party has stated our views.

When talking about whether university education should be market-oriented, another debater has always supported the problem of difficult employment for college students. Another debater said that if it was market-oriented, it would not face such a severe situation. Employment is difficult for the following reasons. First, there are so many talents, especially college students, that the number of college students brought by economic development can not meet the number of college students in that year. Naturally, the phenomenon of survival of the fittest will continue and fierce competition is inevitable. Second, the root cause is that it is well known.

Now let's think about it from the opposite side. If the market is oriented and the majors or disciplines needed by the market are set, how can the employment of college students be solved? Graduation posts are limited, so why should the other debater bear it?

Furthermore, the market also has disadvantages: first, it can't solve the aggregate problem; Secondly, it can't extricate itself from monopoly; Third, its adjustment is blind and lagging. If it is market-oriented, it will be quick success and instant benefit. When will the goal of building a harmonious socialist society be realized? The market is changing for no reason. This market is not a temporary market. A few years ago, the Korean wave was frozen. If it is market-oriented, the graduates of that session should all hate each other's debating friends!

The ultimate goal of university education is to cultivate people with all-round development, and market-oriented education will inevitably distort and deviate from this goal. It cultivates economic man rather than all-rounder. A few years ago, Peking University students threw sulfuric acid at giant pandas, and college students committed suicide constantly. This reflects from the side that it is more important to cultivate moral and other qualities in cultivating talents. There is a very incisive saying that virtue without talent is a defective product, talent without virtue is a drug, talent without virtue is a waste, and talent without virtue is a genuine product. If the market is oriented and college students value money regardless of morality, they will do whatever it takes, and the world will not be chaotic.

University is not an accessory of the market, and university education should not be market-oriented. University education is the cradle of talents, but it is not only the cradle of entrepreneurs, but also the cradle of politicians, philosophers and scientists. Hawking's research on astrophysics is not popular in the market, but who can deny his contribution? Should he give up studying science and engage in complicated marketing work? Should Madame Curie refuse to dedicate her research to the country and make a fortune with the patent right? Should graduates from National University of Defense Technology leave steel guns to guard the frontiers of the motherland? Should the graduates of Youth Political College betray the national intelligence and go to Taiwan Province Province to make a fortune?

Turning over the history of human civilization, from Darwin's theory of evolution to Einstein's theory of relativity, university education adheres to the concept of respecting individuality and seeking truth, and has trained a group of talents who have made great contributions to human development. Their research results can't be transformed into products on the market for ten or twenty years. But they are more about helping people get rid of ignorance.

Market-oriented, it is necessary to measure whether products meet the standards according to the needs of the buyer's market, then university education will tend to be sacred to enterprises, and there will be the following disadvantages: First, cultivate money-making machines that lack humanity and spirituality; Second, cultivate a thing of the past; Third, talents lack autonomous learning ability and motivation; Fourth, ignore the basic disciplines and don't adhere to the discipline spirit.

To sum up, university education should not be market-oriented.