论中国高考作文

论中国高考作文

中国高考作文的设立目的是：考查考生的中文书面表达能力，为全国各类普通高等院校（不分学科、专业）选拔出语言表达能力合格的新生。换言之，高考作文并不是为某些特定学科（如文学、新闻、哲学等文科专业）设立的专项写作测试，而是作为一种通用工具，用以评估学生在大学阶段能否使用中文有效进行书面表达。正因如此，其命题范围、写作要求以及评分标准，必须秉持中性、广泛、能力导向的原则，不能偏向任何学科、写作风格或意识形态。

基于这一根本目的，高考作文命题的首要原则，应当是考查学生运用中文进行有效书面表达的能力，而非考查其文学写作才华、政治态度，或对特定题材的情感倾向。

然而，中国高考作文，在很多程度上, 还是跟从封建时代的“以文取士”“文以载道”， 认为高考作文不仅是对学生语言表达能力的考核，更是一场文化政治的展演，是主流价值观与青年思想对话的重要场域。

基于此，作文题目，往往集中于诸如“家国情怀”， “思想定为”“人物事迹”“自然景物”“内心感悟”等特定内容，例如，《我在这战斗的一年里》（1977年），《先天下之忧而忧，后天下之乐而乐》（1982年），"幸存者偏差"、"劳动颂歌"，，还有一些根据提供的资料写作文。另外，就是作文题目的意思非常模糊，例如，《尝试》（90 年代），”时光瓶” (2018年), “续航” (2023)。但是，题目虽然模糊，并不意味着你什么都可以写；考生必须会“审题”，即仔细分析猜测出题人的意图以及它希望的书写内容；当然，这些一般都必须是“正能量”；如果”猜”得不对，就叫“跑题”，基本是零分。为什么不把题目说得更明确呢？！中国历届的高考作文题目，大家可以在网上搜一下，这儿就不再累书了。

作文的评分标准（并不在考卷上说明，也不公布），常以“思想深刻”“感情真挚”“描述细致”等文学性、思想性指标为核心。

中国作文的出题方式和评分标准，实质上使高考作文考查，偏离了其根本定位，向文科方向滑移，进而影响了不同学科学生之间的公平竞争。这不仅损害学生选拔的公平原则，也有悖于高考“为国家各类高校选拔人才”的制度初衷。

事实上，一个学生即便不擅长描写人物心理、抒发情感或讲述故事，也完全可能具备清晰、准确、条理清楚的中文书面表达能力。他们可能擅长撰写科技说明文、逻辑议论文，或者更倾向于结构化、分析性的表达方式。这类表达能力，在现代社会的各类专业领域中同样至关重要。而当作文命题和评分标准过度偏向文学表达或政治思维时，这类学生便难以展现真实水平，甚至因此失去进入理想高校的机会。

进一步说，在评分实践中，只要考生能在规定时间内、在空白试卷上，独立完成一篇由自己构思、用中文撰写的文章，阅卷者就应当依据其语言表达能力——包括文字组织、逻辑清晰度、语言规范性、段落结构合理性等方面——予以评判，而不应以其所写“内容”是否深刻、感人、积极正面等为得分依据。换言之，高考作文评分的本质标准，应该是“会不会写”，而不是“写得对不对”“写得感不感人”或“写得符不符合某种主旋律”。

当然，在实际评分过程中，为防止“抄袭套作”或“提前背诵”，保障考试公平，阅卷教师确有必要根据文章的表达痕迹、语言流畅性与逻辑自然度作出合理判断。这确实在操作上存在一定难度，但不能因此就放弃基本原则，转而以主观题材喜好、意识形态倾向作为评判依据。

总之，高考作文作为一种选拔工具，其核心应是评价学生的中文书面表达能力，而非文学创作水平或思想政治倾向。命题应尽可能开放与中性，评分则应立足于表达技巧本身，避免将表达风格、内容偏好、情感深度等非本质要素纳入主要评分项。唯有如此，考试才能够考察出考生的真实水平，并确保公平公正，保障各类人才的有效选拔。

此外，在中学生作文教学中流行的所谓“审题、破题、起承转合、引经据典、三段五段论”等写作套路，某种程度上仍是古代科举应试写作的遗风，与现代社会所要求的自主表达、逻辑组织、真实语言等写作能力严重脱节。这种教学方式容易使写作成为一种“套话表演”，不利于学生真实表达能力的培养，也影响了高考作文考查目标的实现。

2025-05-23

=============================

On the Chinese Writing Test for University Entrance  (Gaokao Essays)
By Bo Zhang

The purpose of the Chinese Writing Test (Gaokao Essays) is to assess the written Chinese expression ability of all high school graduates and to select qualified candidates for general higher education institutions nationwide, regardless of their disciplines or majors. In other words, the Gaokao Writing Test is not a specialized writing test designed for particular fields such as literature, journalism, or philosophy. Rather, it serves as a universal tool to evaluate whether students possess the ability to complete basic written tasks in Chinese during their university studies. Therefore, its topic selection, writing requirements, and scoring standards must adhere to principles of neutrality, broad applicability, and a competency-based orientation, without favoring any specific discipline, writing style, or ideological inclination.

Based on this fundamental goal, the primary principle of Gaokao essay topics should be to test students’ ability to effectively express themselves in written Chinese — not their literary creativity, political stance, or emotional alignment with specific themes. However, nearly all Gaokao essays have focused on specific subject matter such as “patriotism,” “biographical narratives,” “natural scenery,” and “inner reflections,” while scoring criteria often emphasize literary or ideological elements like “profound thought” and “emotion description.” This trend has, in essence, shifted the writing assessment away from its original orientation toward a more liberal arts-oriented direction, thereby affecting fairness among students from different academic backgrounds.

In fact, a student who is not adept at describing inner emotions, narrating stories, or writing about human characters may still possess a clear, precise, and logically structured command of written Chinese. Such students might excel at writing technical expositions, logical arguments, or prefer structured, analytical forms of expression. These writing skills are equally crucial across various professional fields in modern society. When essay topics and scoring standards become overly skewed toward literary expression or political thinking, these students are deprived of the opportunity to demonstrate their real abilities and may even lose the chance to enter their ideal universities. This not only undermines the principle of fairness but also deviates from the Gaokao’s fundamental function of selecting talent for the country’s higher education system.

Furthermore, in scoring practice, as long as a student can independently complete a self-conceived, Chinese-written essay on a blank test sheet within the allotted time, the evaluator should assess the work based on the student’s writing ability—including textual organization, logical clarity, language correctness, and paragraph coherence—rather than awarding points based on whether the essay’s content is “profound,” “moving,” or “aligned with a certain mainstream ideology.” In essence, the core standard for evaluating Gaokao essays should be “can the student write?”—not “is what they wrote correct?”, “is it touching?”, or “does it conform to a certain narrative?”

Admittedly, to prevent plagiarism or pre-prepared essays and ensure fairness, examiners do need to make reasonable judgments based on signs of authentic expression, fluency of language, and natural logical flow. While this may pose practical difficulties, it does not justify abandoning core principles in favor of subjective preferences for certain topics or ideological leanings.

In conclusion, the Gaokao essay, as a broadly applicable selection tool, should fundamentally evaluate students’ written expression skills—not their literary talent or ideological position. Topics should remain as open and neutral as possible, and scoring should focus on writing competence itself, avoiding the inclusion of non-essential elements such as stylistic preference, thematic content, or emotional depth in the main scoring criteria. Only in this way can true fairness be ensured, and the proper selection of talent be guaranteed.

Moreover, popular teaching practices in Chinese middle schools—such as “understanding the topic,” “breaking down the prompt,” using “three-part or five-part essay structures,” or excessive reliance on classical allusions—are largely inherited from the traditional keju (imperial examination) system. These methods are significantly out of step with the modern writing skills required today, such as independent expression, logical organization, and authentic language use. Such instructional approaches can easily turn writing into a “formulaic performance,” which is detrimental to the cultivation of genuine writing ability and undermines the Gaokao essay's intended evaluative purpose.