Dividing disciplines in time is the key to training talents!

I was shocked to hear that the Ministry of Education plans to cancel the liberal arts division in the college entrance examination in 2020. Is this decision too hasty?

The call for "canceling the separation of arts and sciences" has been shouted for several years. Although experts and professors hold this view, most of their basis is untenable. For example, the common reason is that students' knowledge structure is incomplete because "literature does not learn science, and science does not learn literature" after the division. In fact, to solve this problem, we only need to add science to liberal arts and science to liberal arts. Why should we cancel the branch? Isn't there an elective course in high school at present? Under the premise of dividing subjects, is it not good for liberal arts to choose science and science to choose liberal arts?

I think the division of subjects is the advantage of our education, not the disadvantage.

Dividing subjects is in line with objective laws, and canceling dividing subjects is a move against objective laws.

Dividing subjects is an initiative that is conducive to students' success, and timely division is the key to cultivating talents!

Next, I will talk about the necessity and importance of division from three aspects.

First, the separation of arts and sciences is an objective need.

The division of arts and sciences is the objective requirement of subject knowledge first. Today's subject knowledge can be divided into two systems: natural science and social science. Natural science mainly studies the mysteries of nature, while social science mainly studies the inherent laws of human society. Based on this, universities are also divided into two categories: science and engineering and literature and history. It can be seen that natural science and social science are different in both research content and research methods. Then for learners, the content and methods of learning should also be different. In other words, it is extremely necessary to divide the arts and sciences in middle schools.

After the division of arts and sciences, it is a reasonable diversion of students' talents. Students have different talents, some are good at writing, some are good at reasoning, some are good at calculating, and some are good at thinking. Some are good at logical reasoning, while others are good at associative imagination. Some people don't understand mathematics at all, and some people don't get started writing articles. Articles that don't know math can also be written superbly, and science that doesn't know how to get started can also be learned superbly. The division of arts and sciences is to adapt to students' talent differences and reduce their mental burden. Let them focus on their hobbies and areas of expertise, so that they can achieve something earlier!

The division of arts and sciences is an important guarantee to promote the effective use of students' time. Effective use of time? Maybe no one has mentioned this problem yet. It is generally believed that as long as time is spent on study, it is effectively used. Actually, it is not. Many people learn mathematics after grade three, and some people learn English for several years. These are all useless studies. Only learning that is helpful to students' life and career can be regarded as effective learning. We know that a person's time is fixed and the ocean of knowledge is vast. If you do these things, you can't do those things Wouldn't it be better for students to spend more time on subjects that are more meaningful to them? The division of arts and sciences can minimize students' ineffective study and promote the effective use of time.

I agree with liberal arts and general education, but the premise is to divide subjects. Fundamentally speaking, the two systems of natural science and social science are mutually penetrating and complementary. In other words, learning social science is inseparable from natural science, and learning natural science is also inseparable from social science. Therefore, I think that after the division, liberal arts students will continue to study natural science; Science students will continue to study social sciences. But learning methods and learning purposes should be different. For example, when liberal arts students study science, they don't have to do problems as a necessity; Science students don't have to memorize literature and history. As we all know, Chairman Mao also knows some physical chemistry, Mr. Zhou also knows atomic electrons, and Mr. Yu also knows Newton's law and Archimedes' principle ... Is it irresponsible for us liberal arts students to do a lot of math and physics problems like science students for this need?

In my opinion, after the division of arts and sciences, it is best for arts to have special science textbooks and science to have social textbooks, with relevant reading lists attached. In this way, every student can walk on two legs in natural science and social science, take what he needs and develop his strengths. Isn't this an ideal result?

Second, dividing subjects in time can promote students' success.

From the perspective of cultivating talents, the division of arts and sciences is only to meet the needs of students' talent and talent development.

We must admit that students' talents are different. Everyone has his own strengths and weaknesses. Their advantages and disadvantages are gradually revealed in the process of education, and students naturally divide them. From primary school to junior high school to high school and university, it can be said that each stage is divided into students. Education must conform to the development of each student, divide subjects in time, strengthen their majors and promote their success.

In the primary school stage, we should first discover and tap students with artistic and sports expertise, so that they can receive more special training and professional knowledge, which is in line with their talents, tap their potential and lay a solid foundation. To this end, the requirements of other subjects can be appropriately reduced. Therefore, after graduating from primary school, students who are interested in art and sports can be distinguished. This can be regarded as the first division.

In junior high school, with the increase of courses, students will naturally divide because of their different talents and hobbies, focusing on the partial subjects of arts and sciences. Some of them are weak; There are strong and weak; Some arts and sciences are very strong; Some arts and sciences are weak. This is a normal phenomenon, and there is no need to pursue perfection. After graduating from junior high school, in order to adapt to the development of each student, we should rationally divert students. It's best to enroll students separately in high school: liberal arts is a good choice, science is a strong choice, liberal arts is a strong choice, and liberal arts is a weak choice, so go to a vocational secondary school or technical school. This is a dichotomy, which is the usual division of arts and sciences.

In senior high school, with the deepening of study, students' hobbies tend to be stable, and they can basically set up their own ambitions. Therefore, after graduating from high school, students should be able to choose their ideal major on the basis of specializing in arts and sciences. This is the third section.

In the university stage, through systematic study of this major, students will find that there is no end to learning in any field. At this time, they will choose their own research topics according to their own interests, conduct research, and then achieve results and create things. This is fourth area.

Every student can finally create something in his own field, which is the ultimate goal of education. In order to achieve this goal, it is necessary to divide the subjects in time. Allow them to study less or not to study some subjects that are of little significance to them in the future, so that they can concentrate more energy and time on their special subjects.

From this point of view, the division of disciplines meets the development requirements of each student, providing them with the greatest choice and space to play, which is conducive to their technical specialization and becoming talents needed by the country. For every student, let every student get the best development, which is the most reasonable education and the fairest education.

Of course, in the past, liberal arts didn't study science and science didn't study literature after dividing subjects, which was wrong. The author thinks that the purpose of dividing subjects is to let students know the development direction of their lives, concentrate on their studies and not be blind.

Third, "liberal arts generalist" is a requirement for most students.

Nowadays, many people advocate that students should "have liberal arts and general education", especially Wang Guoping, a doctor of education in Peking University, clearly pointed out that "it is the future trend to develop from training professionals to training generalists"!

They take it for granted that the future society needs "liberal arts generalists". They think that contemporary science and technology progress rapidly, and it is impossible to keep up with the times without learning science; Humanities are profound and profound, and it is impossible to understand culture. In this case, education should cultivate students into "liberal arts general" talents, let them develop in an all-round way, and never let them be eliminated by society!

Is this the right idea? It seems reasonable. But a little analysis reveals its mistakes.

The "liberal arts general course" is really good, but it is not necessarily bad if there is no liberal arts general course. The future society really needs "liberal arts general education" talents, but it also needs those who are only literate or general education, even those who are illiterate and only know technology. A retired teacher looks at talents like this: "Astronauts are talents, scientists who develop spacecraft are talents, and people who rivet spacecraft are talents."

One more thing, who doesn't want "liberal arts general education"? Who doesn't know that "liberal arts general education" is good? However, those who can do it will always be a minority, and the ability of most students will not be reached! Chairman Mao can't reach it if others don't say it. It is said that no one can practice all 72 skills of Shaolin. Master doesn't allow disciples to practice more. Ordinary disciples can only choose one, and those with high talents can only practice two or three. Practice everything, okay? All right. Why didn't the master let his disciples practice? Ability can't reach!

Students' intelligence is different. Some arts and sciences are handy, and some mathematics is not enlightened at all. Some people can learn three or four foreign languages, while others can't even learn one. Regardless of students' differences, it is not objective and unscientific to blindly ask them for "common sense of arts and sciences", which can only increase students' unnecessary learning burden!

Therefore, the timely division of arts and sciences not only conforms to the development of students' specialties, but also takes care of each student's weaknesses. The reason why the 100-meter athlete doesn't practice decathlon is that his 100-meter performance is outstanding, and on the other hand, his shot put and javelin are too weak! He may play basketball, which is his hobby.

Let's look at the learning process of students from another angle. In fact, it is a process of constantly choosing and giving up. At first, every student wanted to learn all the subjects well. However, due to various factors such as talent and hobbies, they have to give up some subjects during their studies.

For example, in primary school, we can think that some students choose art and sports because of their physical beauty, and we can also think that other students give up music, sports and art because they are tone-deaf, unable to draw and lack sports expertise. Who doesn't want to sing well? Who doesn't want to paint beautifully? Who doesn't want to run fast? But the talent is not high, and there is no other way but to give up. Of course, there are also some students who are good at everything and take it as a hobby. Even if it is a hobby, you should give it up selectively, otherwise you can't learn it by instrumental music alone.

In junior high school, with the increase of subjects and the difficulty of knowledge, the differences of students' intelligence are more prominent. Because of the limitation of intelligence, most students will be biased. If students can define their own development direction at this time, they can give up some subjects. For example, in mathematics, some students basically don't understand mathematics in grade three, so how can they learn high school mathematics and advanced mathematics? Another example is a foreign language. Perhaps because of talent or interest, some students' grades are almost the same. What does it matter? If he is sure that he can't study abroad in the future and doesn't engage in a career that requires a foreign language, he can also give up. Even if it is Chinese, some students may not understand it when writing articles in high school, so it doesn't matter. As long as he is good at math and physics, he can completely ignore his Chinese grades for the time being. Because Chinese articles belong to social science, he may not be unable to write a paper on natural science in the future.

We must admit the differences in students' intelligence. It is normal to have weak subjects. If music, physical education and art are included, students' partiality becomes more and more obvious. It is true that some students are gifted and easy to learn arts, arts and physical education. But that's very few. Most students' qualifications are relatively average. Forcing them to learn too much will only be counterproductive, and eventually they will learn nothing well. If we let them give up some subjects and concentrate their time and energy on their own professional subjects, the results will be much better.

In addition, the reason why students feel bitter and tired in their studies is mostly because of their weak subjects. Dominant subjects bring him a lot of happiness. Imagine a student who can't learn mathematics in grade three, what is the situation facing high school mathematics? What would it be like to let a person with a tone deficiency practice vocal music? The point is that that kind of study is meaningless at all. Because mathematics has nothing to do with his future. Sanmao, a famous writer, scored zero in mathematics. I'm afraid of playing truant from math every day, so I became a writer.

As the old saying goes, "If you don't do something, you can do something". Only by letting students give up weak subjects properly can they make a difference!

Concluding remarks

Obviously, the abolition of the division of arts and sciences and the pursuit of liberal arts and general education require all students to follow the standards of the highest-level talents, and its fallacy is obvious. Dividing disciplines in time, including physical education students, art students and liberal arts students, is the key to cultivate all students into useful people. For example, a student with gymnastics talent can become a talent by going to gymnastics after "liberal arts general education" in high school? Absolutely not. Please don't say that he is a special student, this is a special case. In fact, which subject's talent does not belong to special students?

I remember Minister Yuan Guiren said when answering a reporter's question and interpreting the Outline, "Cultivating more innovative talents is our fundamental task. We should start here first, and we should reform everything that hinders talent training; We will stick to anything that is conducive to cultivating talents. "

The author believes that the separation of arts and sciences is conducive to cultivating talents and should be adhered to under the premise of appropriate reform.

In addition, the author believes that we should not only divide subjects, but also divide subjects by time. What is timeliness? I thought it should be earlier, and it would be more timely to pay attention to the third grade. I have explained this point in my last article. Otherwise, talents like San Mao, Qian Zhongshu, Mao Zedong and Yu Dahua may be rejected by high schools. Of course, there is no need to change the course after the division, and the mathematics and physics of the liberal arts class are all right. This also caters to the different needs of other students. The results of the senior high school entrance examination and liberal arts students are for reference only.