I read Mr. Feng's blog, some ideas, provide a different way of thinking, welcome to criticize.
Admittedly, a more open and flexible way of retaking the examination allows for a comprehensive and in-depth examination of graduate students, allowing those who are truly suitable for scientific research to join it, eliminating students who only take the exam.For students, it is worthwhile to know whether they are suitable for scientific research through this test, and only when the province goes ashore can it find itself struggling.
However, involving students, laboratory members, and re-examination teachers in the examination of students will inevitably lead to increased costs (including time costs, rule improvement costs, etc.).An open and flexible approach may indeed select talented people, but it may not be appropriate for the current situation.Although there is a one-size-fits-all problem, the strict "pipeline" of ancient times seems to me to protect the interests of most people.
Imagine what a less formal, less formal open retake might bring:
More mixed feelings:
Should I contact my teacher in advance?This question as long as you search on the Internet, you will get almost all the affirmative answers, good luck, and you will meet many platforms "over" to the students who are about to participate in the re-examination of some detailed advice.To sum up, most people think that contacting a mentor is especially important for getting into graduate school.Contact your favorite tutor by email in advance, you can let the tutor impress you. They say that the retake tutor is known and contacted in advance, as long as there is no big problem, the retake should be able to pass.
Let's say that not only teachers participate in the re-examination...The seniors and other staff may also benefit.Since "need" to contact the tutor in advance, it is also possible to contact the sister in advance, contact the laboratory.
Higher rules require:
People's pursuit of fairness is innate, even if fairness is relative, but people still continue to move forward in the pursuit of fairness.Net red professor Luo Xiang mentioned: Absolutely perfect circle exists, although we can't draw it, but we are still working hard for it.
Ignoring the demands and aspirations of the general public for fairness in order to examine talents is not actually a progress in selecting talents, but a regression of the examination system.
The essence of the examination is fairness, even if the current relative fairness may sacrifice something, but at least as much as possible to protect the rights of most candidates, or protect an opportunity.
If we can not explore a matching set of rules, we can not achieve what seems to be a more advanced and scientific selection method, and the perfect rule system is based on the existing system, relying on practice to develop and explore.
More time costs:
The time spent on "free visits" and "one-on-one discussions" and whether preparation in the early stages will involve the energy of teachers and related personnel are required to be examined in advance.Can schools and individuals afford this cost of time?Can you get the desired effect at a high cost?Innovation and change are great, but do we also need to consider some real-world situations, such as how to organize candidates to ensure that the full process of the day runs smoothly?
This is not to say that open and flexible re-examination is not good, it is indeed an ideal way to select talents, but perhaps the time is not ripe yet, "flexible" and "old-fashioned" have their reasons.