代写范文

留学资讯

写作技巧

论文代写专题

服务承诺

资金托管
原创保证
实力保障
24小时客服
使命必达

51Due提供Essay,Paper,Report,Assignment等学科作业的代写与辅导,同时涵盖Personal Statement,转学申请等留学文书代写。

51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标

私人订制你的未来职场 世界名企,高端行业岗位等 在新的起点上实现更高水平的发展

积累工作经验
多元化文化交流
专业实操技能
建立人际资源圈

留学生作业代写:Creation and Distribution of Knowledge

2017-06-23 来源: 51due教员组 类别: 更多范文

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的assignment代写范文- Creation and Distribution of Knowledge,供大家参考学习,这篇论文讨论了知识的创造与传播。在人们看来,大学是创造和传播知识的摇篮,通过知识的力量使人们改变命运。而大学教授们要做的就是尽最大的努力让学生充分理解知识,他们渴望向学生灌输他们所知道的一切,以便学生能尽可能多地掌握知识。

Creation and Distribution of Knowledge,知识的创造与传播,assignment代写,paper代写,留学生作业代写

Introduction

It seems to us that universities are a cradle for the creation and distribution of knowledge and they are believed to be a paradise for shaping talents for the society and making people change their fate through the power of knowledge. There is no doubt that universities have really help cultivate countless great minds and many people have even regarded the universities as the ocean of knowledge and they firmly believe the authority of universities in creating and distributing knowledge. However, there are also some people that doubt about the authority of universities in creating and distributing knowledge and they even put forward that the authority of universities in creating and distributing knowledge should be challenged. For example, both Swartz and Tomar hold that the creation and distribution of knowledge in the universities is not as free as it is expected to and they two even raise that the principles of the academy are hypocritical and therefore should be reformed if possible. Therefore the following will focus on the analysis of Swartz and Tomar’s arguments toward the creation and distribution of knowledge, during which I will also talk about my own opinion both toward the creation and distribution of knowledge and toward whether I agree or not to Swartz and Tomar’s arguments toward the creation and distribution of knowledge.

Creation and Distribution of Knowledge

First and foremost comes Tomar’s view toward the creation and distribution of knowledge of the academy. To put it into more specifically, Tomar holds that professors tend to block students’ access to knowledge so that they can all the time keep their own positions as the controllers of knowledge which will not to be threatened in any way. In this way, it can be acknowledged that they would not like their students to learn too much so that they may learn more than themselves, leading to students’ shaking their position as controllers of knowledge. His opposition toward professors’ behaviors can be indicated from the sentence that “Even though the occasional scrutiny and reform of pedagogy, the professor remains the single great channel for knowledge, the funnel through which years of singular education are condensed into ideas conveniently framed by a textbook and a semester of lectures” (131). Taking a careful look at this sentence, words like single, singular, textbook, lectures etc. can all enable us to easily detect Tomar’s negative attitude toward professors. Also, the example of Professor Quinn can be seen as a powerful justification of professors’ wrong behavior toward students. It is put in this way that “Quinn criticizes his students in harsh terms for violating the university’s honor code and his personal standards of integrity”, from which we can get that the professors are not aware of their wrong behaviors for insisting the universities’ honor code on one hand and they even would like their students to follow it as well. Thus, there is no doubt that Tomar deems that professors should get reformed in themselves and they should also learn to keep themselves updated with the times as it is now already a times with the population of the Internet.

Moreover, Tomar mentions that “The Internet is putting an end to the ‘monopoly on knowledge’” (132), through which we can know that Tomar is referring to professors’ behavior as monopoly of knowledge and he expresses his thanks to the appearance of the Internet. In addition, this sentence “Before the Internet, finding information, building it into knowledge, and knowing how to learn and how to profit from it were all considered to be part of a special skill set” (133) has further confirmed that it is the Internet that has made the creation and distribution of information become really free and it is equal for each and every one for the creation and distribution of information without the differences between professors and students. But what is lucky to say is that “Professors and students think differently about information sharing” (132), from which we can know that Tomar is happy to find that students have not been badly influenced by their professors and they think differently about information sharing.

Personally speaking, I am in favor of Tomar’s view that the Internet has contributed to the free creation and distribution of knowledge and the Internet has really done much toward learners’ pursuit of knowledge in one way or another. But I have to point out that I do not hold that professors would choose to obstruct students’ access to knowledge in order to keep their own authority of being the controllers of knowledge. What the professors always do is to try their best to get students fully understood and they are eager to instill all they know to their students so that students can learn as much as possible. As for me, I hold that the best state for the creation and distribution of knowledge is that professors can teach students what they know for one part and teach them how to search on the Internet so as to dually benefit the creation and distribution of knowledge.

With Tomar’s opinion as for the creation and distribution of knowledge being mentioned at length in the above, what follows is Swartz’s opinion toward the creation and distribution of knowledge. In the case of Aaron Swartz, the charge is that academia is blocking access to knowledge and inhibiting its democratization. In Yang’s essay, Aaron Swartz is described as “an accused felon prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney of Massachusetts for the crime of downloading too many (4.8 million) academic articles from an online archive hosted by MIT” (139), from which we can know that Swartz has been prosecuted because he has committed criminal action. But as a matter of fact, Yang does not hold that Swartz should be prosecuted and Yang considers Swartz as a victim of injustice in the society. It is put in this way that “It cannot serve society’s purpose to make a felon and an inmate out of so gifted and well-meaning a person as Aaron Swartz, and thus he was a victim of a grave injustice” (146), from which we can also predict that it is due to academia’s inhibiting its democratization that has led to the injustice in the society so as to result in Swartz’s death in the end. So we can say that Yang is criticizing the academy and feels pitiful toward Swartz more or less.

As to me, I am not quite in favor of Yang’s opinion that there is too much injustice in the society and I believe that there are various people that are still upholding the principles of justice. Justice will speak louder than injustice and it is not the academy’s fault that has inhibited the realization of democratization. Seen from my perspective, I have somewhat deemed that relevant democratization has been realized and it is not possible for the realization of absolute democratization.

Conclusion

To sum up, the creation and distribution of knowledge in the universities do have some disadvantages as call for later improvement. But it can still not say that the universities’ creation and distribution of knowledge is with no shining point and professors are not taking their responsibility to teach students. What I would like to express is that professors should reflect on themselves as for whether they should improve themselves on their behaviors about the creation and distribution of knowledge and how they can do better to contribute to the creation and distribution of knowledge.

Works Cited

1. Tomar, Dave. “Use Me”. The Shadow Scholar: How I Made a Living Helping College Kids Cheat. New York: Bloomsbury, 2012. 79-87. Print. Permission granted via CCC.

2. Yang, Wesley. “The Life and Afterlife of Aaron Swartz.” New York Magazine. New York Media, 8 Feb. 2013. Permission by the New York Magazine, part of New York Media Holdings, LLC.

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明:原创assignment代写范文源自编辑创作,未经官方许可,网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为,未经同意的情况下,51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务assignment代写、essay代写、paper代写服务。

51due为留学生提供最好的assignment代写服务,亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多assignment代写范文 提供留学生作业代写服务,详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ:800020041。-ZR

上一篇:留学生作业代写:The Algeria 下一篇:美国作业代写:The Influences of Clima