For our students, marks is above everything. Teachers will judge us from our marks. With marks we can be enrolled into junior middle schools. With marks, we can be enrolled into senior middle schools. With marks we can be enrolled into college. With marks we can be enrolled into postgraduate and doctrine studies. Still with marks we can be graded and be allowed to go abroad for further studies. Our parents will be strict with us with the marks. Our society judge us from marks. However, sometimes we students compare one another with marks directly. We are completely controlled by marks. We like them and we feel sorry for them. But what attitude towards our marks should we take? Truly, marks functions cannot be underestimated. In terms of test in our study, marks are fair and real. That is the reason why we say "Everyone is equal before marks. " However, I think marks are the sole standard to judge the success or failure of students in exams. Sometimes, marks more than ten or less than one or two in our exams comparing with others mean not everything. The success or failure in exams will be influenced by experience on the spot and the examinee's health etc. Once in a while one cannot fail in exams. " Success or failure is common sense for military. " I think everyone is familiar with the famous saying. Don't you think such will be the case with our study? In exams, one cannot be " never-defeated general" . Even though one will be very good in everyday study, he cannot succeed in every exam sometimes. We can get proof from the fact that the very best one we call "Number One Scholar" in the entrance exams for college and ordinary middle school and specialized secondary school over the years is not eminent above all others nor top student in every study. As a matter of fact, "high marks" and "ability" are not unified. Some time ago, a new phrase " high marks but poor competence" came into being. Once I happened to meet such a teacher as this .It is said that the teacher just graduated from a far-famed key university. But his teaching result is much less than that of the one who just graduated from a not-well-renowned college. When lecturing, the teacher only repeated what the text-books says, which was very dull so the his students' interest in learning was not aroused. His teaching was short of unity of teaching and learning. At present there is a fact that we know a few brilliant and top college graduates are not qualified for their posts. The reason for it may be lack of the ability to combine knowledge learnt from books with pragmatics in their work. Students of this kind will be successful in every exam but they will be able to use freely their knowledge in their posts. Don't you think it waste training such persons for the country?
