本文目录
翻译一篇经济学相关文章（二）
2. 模型规范随机边境生产职能广泛地使用分析技术效率在过去二十年。Aigner 原始的模型、Lovell 和Schmidt (1977) 并且Meeusen 和van den Broeck (1977) 被修改了和被扩大了在numberofways 。Onedevelopmenthasbeentoexpressinefficiencyasanexplicitfunction offirm-specificvariables 。Themodelcanbeestimatedbyatwo-stagetechniquewherethe 随机边境首先被获得并且被预言的效率然后退步在牢固具体可变物。但是，一个同时估计做法有提供一致的好处和高效率的估计。Battese 和Coelli (1993 年，1995) 提出了这样模型根据盘区数据。被指定生产职能，注意现在被转动对因素影响technicalefficiency 。不幸地，thereexistsnoformalprocedurewhichcanbefollowed indecidingwhatvariablesshouldbeincludedintheefficiencyfunctionversustheproduction 作用。在最经验主义的研究中、常规输入譬如劳资或他们的等值通常包括在生产职能，以其它可变物是includedintheefficiencyfunction 。AccordingtoBatteseandCoelli(1993) ，somevariables 也许甚而出现在两个作用。在种植业，技术效率可能由大范围因素影响。这些mayinclude: A. 生物factors..these 与种类属性，相互连续影响有关在庄稼之中根据密集的庄稼系统，土壤特征，并且重音gen- erated 由自然灾害在庄稼期间成长。某种程度上，生产商是能tocontrol 或影响thesefactors viamanagement 决定。B. Humanresources..theseembraceknowledgeandskillsforcarryingoutproductionand managerialactivities 。Humancapitalcanbeaccumulatedthroughformaleducationand 训练，orlearning 由做，andcanbecomplementedbyexternaltechnicalservices 。C. 社会经济conditions..these 包括经济发展、政策框架和协会设置的状况。在中国，政
try to make you spacing better, and make it easier for people to translate!
2． 专用模型
随机边境作物函数已经在过去二十年里被广泛地应用于科技有效性的分析上。Aigner, Lovell和Schmidt(1977)及van den Broeck(1977)双方的原始模型完全可以相互替代，并且已经由它们演化出大量更多的研究方法。其中一个分支就是用于描述企业有效性的外在函数—专用变量。模型参数可以用双战策技巧来估计，即是说，先得出随机边界，再由企业专用变量回归得出预期效率。不过，一种同步估计过程在提供常数和有效估计量上更占优势。Battese和Coelli（1993,1995）根据平面数据提出了这样的一个模型。
在指定产品函数之后，我们接下来就要关注影响科技有效性的因素了。不巧的是，（这里有一句没有空格的句子看不懂）。在大部分经验研究里，产品函数都包括有常规自变量，如劳动力，资本或者和它们相差不多的变量，再加进一些只包含在效率函数当中的其它相应变量。Battese和Coelli（1993）指出，有些变量可能同时出现在两个函数中。
作物产品，科持有效性有可能被极大范围的因素所影响。可能包括：
A． 生物因素----这些与变量属性有关，在强烈的作物体系中作物间的相互连续的影响，土壤特征，以及作物生长中自然灾害的巨大压力。从一定程度上来说，耕种者通过适当的方法决策能够控制或影响这些有影响的因素。
B． 人力资源----（还是看不懂的句子。。。）
C． 社会经济情形----包括经济发展地位，政策构架和制度的制定。在中国，农业部分在各种程度上依然存在着政府干涉情形。存在着许多不容忽视的区域性的关于食品政策上的改革，尤其是地方谷物市场情形及地方政府的财政能力占有很大的决定性影响力量。特别地，土地使用期限是影响科技有效性的一个重要决定性因素。
基于数据的局限性，并不是上面提及的所有因素都能够引入分析模型。此外，Lovell和Schmidt(1980, 第23页)争论到有效性还和农业管理实施有极大的关系。因此，我们还需要考虑是否把下面的的变量包括进函数：受过良好教育的户主将有可能更能够有效的利用现有的。
英语作文）
So That Nobody Has To Go To School If They Don’t Want To
by Roger Sipher
A decline in standardized test scores is but the most recent indicator that American education is in trouble.
One reason for the crisis is that present mandatory-attendance laws force many to attend school who have no wish to be there. Such children have little desire to learn and are so antagonistic to school that neither they nor more highly motivated students receive the quality education that is the birthright of every American.
The solution to this problem is simple: Abolish compulsory-attendance laws and allow only those who are committed to getting an education to attend.
This will not end public education. Contrary to conventional belief, legislators enacted compulsory-attendance laws to legalize what already existed. William Landes and Lewis Solomon, economists, found little evidence that mandatory-attendance laws increased the number of children in school. They found, too, that school systems have never effectively enforced such laws, usually because of the expense involved.
There is no contradiction between the assertion that compulsory attendance has had little effect on the number of children attending school and the argument that repeal would be a positive step toward improving education. Most parents want a high school education for their children. Unfortunately, compulsory attendance hampers the ability of public school officials to enforce legitimate educational and disciplinary policies and thereby make the education a good one.
Private schools have no such problem. They can fail or dismiss students, knowing such students can attend public school. Without compulsory attendance, public schools would be freer to oust students whose academic or personal behavior undermines the educational mission of the institution.
Has not the noble experiment of a formal education for everyone failed? While we pay homage to the homily, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink,“ we have pretended it is not true in education.
Ask high school teachers if recalcitrant students learn anything of value. Ask teachers if these students do any homework. Quite the contrary, these students know they will be passed from grade to grade until they are old enough to quit or until, as is more likely, they receive a high school diploma. At the point when students could legally quit, most choose to remain since they know they are likely to be allowed to graduate whether they do acceptable work or not.
Abolition of archaic attendance laws would produce enormous dividends.
First, it would alert everyone that school is a serious place where one goes to learn. Schools are neither day-care centers nor indoor street corners. Young people who resist learning should stay away; indeed, an end to compulsory schooling would require them to stay away.
Second, students opposed to learning would not be able to pollute the educational atmosphere for those who want to learn. Teachers could stop policing recalcitrant students and start educating.
Third, grades would show what they are supposed to: how well a student is learning. Parents could again read report cards and know if their children were making progress.
Fourth, public esteem for schools would increase. People would stop regarding them as way stations for adolescents and start thinking of them as institutions for educating America’s youth.
Fifth, elementary schools would change because students would find out early they had better learn something or risk flunking out later. Elementary teachers would no longer have to pass their failures on to junior high and high school.
Sixth, the cost of enforcing compulsory education would be eliminated. Despite enforcement efforts, nearly 15 percent of the school-age children in our largest cities are almost permanently absent from school.
Communities could use these savings to support institutions to deal with young people not in school. If, in the long run, these institutions prove more costly, at least we would not confuse their mission with that of schools.
Schools should be for education. At present, they are only tangentially so. They have attempted to serve an all-encompassing social function, trying to be all things to all people. In the process they have failed miserably at what they were originally formed to accomplish.
国内教育和国外教育有什么不一样
我一直服务教育信息化20年，从接触广泛的国内公立学校和近年来开展STEM教育了解了一些国外的教育情况。所以，针对您的问题，我想发表一些我的拙见，希望能够对大家有帮助。
1、教育目标的不同。在国内，我们大多是把教育的目标主要集中在学生知识体系的构建和学习，以知识掌握的程度来评价学生。由于国内社会观念对人的评价的特点。家长、学校对教育的目标基本上是以升学为主，学生通过统一的知识量化评价-也就是考试分数来作为唯一成长结果。而在国外尤其是欧美国家对学生培养更希望是培养学生能力适应社会需求。学生是希望通过在学校的学习发现自己的兴趣，并深入的学习。对知识也成体系的学习，但对学生的要求却更多元化和个性化，允许学生通过多重渠道的评价进行升学。满足学生自己的生涯规划的学习。简单的归纳就国内更侧重于分数和所以说，首先是我们对学生教育目标并不相同。
2、教育方式不同
本省欧美国家家庭教育和我们不同。学生从小在培养学生的独立能力方面就不同。比如国外更多是的车库文化。学生在学习的方式上就更适合个性化发展。那么我们开展的教育从方式上就存在着很大的不同。国内教育基本上还是填鸭式教学，以知识灌输为主，并没有过多的考虑知识解决现实生活中问题这些内容。甚至为了题目，不惜使用一些不符合现实逻辑的题目让学生来解。而过外更多是以体验式和个性化学习为主，开放性更好，教学会根据学生情况给予在学习上不同的鼓励。会努力尊重学生个性化的发展，而并不会为了知识必须要求学生采用标准的答案！
3、家庭培养不同，在国外家长会在小的时候以习惯培养为主，会要求严格的多，溺爱惯养比较少，而是会立规矩，随着年龄的变化给予更多的自由度。而在国内，家长会从小溺爱，甚至是几个家长的宠爱，在小时候会形成很多不良习惯，很少舍得让他自己解决遇到的问题，好多家长主动代劳。而随着年龄越来越大，反而会过多的介入到学生一些本应该自己做出的决定。比如升学、专业的选择、个人朋友关系等。
所以，从中西方的教育各个方面存在着很多的不同。但我们有自己的优势，尤其是在知识传授上有很多的优势，而在学生能力培养上却缺少方法和耐心。
求关于教育的英文论文（带翻译）
I’m on the top of the world.我是世界之王。
I’m the best! I’m the greatest! I’m invincible.我是最棒的.我是不可征服的。
I’m ready for any challenge.我已经准备好应付任何挑战。
idiom; comparison; English; Chinese：
英文关键词：题目采用五号“Times NewRoman”字体，加粗，两个单词的首字母要大写，置于粗体方括号【】内，顶格放置；随后的内容与前面的粗体方括号【】之间空一格，不用任何其他标点符号。
采用五号“Times New Roman”字体，不加粗，除了专有名词外，其他单词的首字母不大写，各单词之间用分号“；”隔开，分号之后空一格。
official正式的formal正式的有什么不一样
前者是官方的，如官方死亡证明 official death certificate
后者是正式的，正规的，如填写在姓名栏的formal name，向人致歉的formal letter，正规教育formal education，正式合同formal contract，晚礼服formal dress，表达都是一种尊重、庄重的感觉和氛围
formal education的优点
能锻炼孩子的毅力，牢固掌握知识。
正规教育(Formaleducation)：更为结构化，以机构为基础的教授和学习，学校、学院、大学的课程。缺点是不利于发展孩子的全面综合能力，唯分数论。
