6. History Seminars Should Be Shorter
Author
admin
Reading (45 seconds)
History Seminars Should Be Shorter
Currently, all of the seminar classes in the history department are three hours long. I would like to propose that history seminars be shortened to two hours. I make this proposal for two reasons. First, most students just cannot concentrate for three hours straight. I myself have taken these three-hour seminars and found them tiring and sometimes boring. Also, when a seminar lasts that long, people stop concentrating and stop learning, so the third hour of a three-hour seminar is a waste of everyone‘s time. Two-hour seminars would be much more efficient.
Listening
Preparation time: 30 seconds
speaking time: 1 minute
Texts
W: I totally disagree with Tim’s proposal.
M: Why?
W: Well, look, Tim is my friend, but he is not a typical student. He stays up late partying every night, week nights too.
M: If he parties every night, no wonder he can’t pay attention.
W: Yes, and most students aren’t like that. They come to class prepared and rested and they can concentrate.
M: So you are saying the problem is really Tim.
W: Yes. He was in one of my classes last year. And whenever I looked at him he was actually sleeping.
M: I guess if he is sleeping, he can’t really know what’s happening. What other people in classes are doing?
W: Right! And you wanna know what does happen in that last hour of seminar? And in a lot of seminars that I have been in that’s when things get interesting.
M: Really?
W: Yes, that’s usually when students get really involved in a discussion and start exchanging important ideas. And if the history department actually did what Tim suggests, well, if they did that what would happen is you lose what might be the most worthwhile part of a seminar.
Explanation
(Reading part summary)
The claim in the letter: I propose shortening history seminars from three hours to two hours.
The first reason: Sustaining focus for three consecutive hours can be challenging for students.
The second reason: The third hour of a three-hour seminar often sees a decline in student concentration and learning, rendering it less effective.
(Listening part summary)
The female student’s opposition: The woman holds reservations about the proposal and doesn’t believe it to be a favorable idea.
The first reason
The individual who penned the letter hosts a party every evening. As a result, his ability to focus in class may be compromised. Unlike him, the majority of students come to class well-prepared and maintain focus throughout.
The second reason
Additionally, the man was observed sleeping during class.Hence, his lack of engagement means he may not fully comprehend the content presented during the third hour of a three-hour seminar.During this period, students actively engage in discussions and share their thoughts. This hour constitutes the most crucial aspect of a seminar class.
(Sample answer)
The reading passage presents a letter proposing the reduction of history seminars from three hours to two hours. However, in the ensuing conversation, the woman opposes this suggestion.
Her primary objection is rooted in the credibility of the individual advocating for the change. She highlights the lifestyle of the letter’s author, who is known for hosting nightly parties. Consequently, she questions his capacity to remain attentive during class sessions. In contrast, she asserts that most students, unlike the author, approach their studies with diligence and prioritize classroom engagement.
Furthermore, she cites specific instances of the author’s lack of engagement, noting his tendency to fall asleep during class. She underscores the significance of the third hour of the seminar, wherein students actively participate in discussions and knowledge exchange. Thus, she argues that shortening the seminar would deprive students of valuable learning opportunities and detract from the overall educational experience.
History Seminars Should Be Shorter
Currently, all of the seminar classes in the history department are three hours long. I would like to propose that history seminars be shortened to two hours. I make this proposal for two reasons. First, most students just cannot concentrate for three hours straight. I myself have taken these three-hour seminars and found them tiring and sometimes boring. Also, when a seminar lasts that long, people stop concentrating and stop learning, so the third hour of a three-hour seminar is a waste of everyone‘s time. Two-hour seminars would be much more efficient.
Listening
Preparation time: 30 seconds
speaking time: 1 minute
Texts
W: I totally disagree with Tim’s proposal.
M: Why?
W: Well, look, Tim is my friend, but he is not a typical student. He stays up late partying every night, week nights too.
M: If he parties every night, no wonder he can’t pay attention.
W: Yes, and most students aren’t like that. They come to class prepared and rested and they can concentrate.
M: So you are saying the problem is really Tim.
W: Yes. He was in one of my classes last year. And whenever I looked at him he was actually sleeping.
M: I guess if he is sleeping, he can’t really know what’s happening. What other people in classes are doing?
W: Right! And you wanna know what does happen in that last hour of seminar? And in a lot of seminars that I have been in that’s when things get interesting.
M: Really?
W: Yes, that’s usually when students get really involved in a discussion and start exchanging important ideas. And if the history department actually did what Tim suggests, well, if they did that what would happen is you lose what might be the most worthwhile part of a seminar.
Explanation
(Reading part summary)
The claim in the letter: I propose shortening history seminars from three hours to two hours.
The first reason: Sustaining focus for three consecutive hours can be challenging for students.
The second reason: The third hour of a three-hour seminar often sees a decline in student concentration and learning, rendering it less effective.
(Listening part summary)
The female student’s opposition: The woman holds reservations about the proposal and doesn’t believe it to be a favorable idea.
The first reason
The individual who penned the letter hosts a party every evening. As a result, his ability to focus in class may be compromised. Unlike him, the majority of students come to class well-prepared and maintain focus throughout.
The second reason
Additionally, the man was observed sleeping during class.Hence, his lack of engagement means he may not fully comprehend the content presented during the third hour of a three-hour seminar.During this period, students actively engage in discussions and share their thoughts. This hour constitutes the most crucial aspect of a seminar class.
(Sample answer)
The reading passage presents a letter proposing the reduction of history seminars from three hours to two hours. However, in the ensuing conversation, the woman opposes this suggestion.
Her primary objection is rooted in the credibility of the individual advocating for the change. She highlights the lifestyle of the letter’s author, who is known for hosting nightly parties. Consequently, she questions his capacity to remain attentive during class sessions. In contrast, she asserts that most students, unlike the author, approach their studies with diligence and prioritize classroom engagement.
Furthermore, she cites specific instances of the author’s lack of engagement, noting his tendency to fall asleep during class. She underscores the significance of the third hour of the seminar, wherein students actively participate in discussions and knowledge exchange. Thus, she argues that shortening the seminar would deprive students of valuable learning opportunities and detract from the overall educational experience.