Question

帮忙翻译这篇文章 谢谢

Recent stories in the newspapers and magazines suggest that teaching and research contradict each other, that research plays too prominent a part in academic promotions, and that teaching is badly underemphasized. There is an element of truth in these statements, but they also ignore deeper and more important relationships.
Research experience is an essential element of hiring and promotion at a research university because it is the emphasis on research that distinguishes such a university from an arts college. Some professors, however, neglect teaching for research and that presents a problem.
Most research universities reward outstanding teaching, but the greatest recognition is usually given for achievements in research. Part of the reason is the difficulty of judging teaching. A highly responsible and tough professor is usually appreciated by top students who want to be challenged, but disliked by those whose records are less impressive. The mild professor gets overall ratings that are usually high, but there is a sense of disappointment in the part of the best students, exactly those for whom the system should present the greatest challenges. Thus, a university trying to promote professors primarily on the teaching qualities would have to confront this confusion.
As modern science moves faster, two forces are exerted on professor: one is the time needed to keep on with the profession; the other is the time needed to teach. The training of new scientists requires outstanding teaching at the research university as well as the arts college. Although scientists are usually "made" in the elementary schools, scientists can be "lost" by poor teaching at the college and graduate school levels. The solution is not to separate teaching and research, but to recognize that the combination is difficult but vital. The title of professor should be given only to those who profess, and it is perhaps time for universities to reserve it for those willing to be an earnest part of the community of scholars. Professor unwilling to teach can be called "distinguished research investigators" or something else.

Answer 1

最近在报纸和杂志上的事情表明教学与研究相抵触,研究在学术促进上扮演了太重要的部分，教学没有得到应有的重视。这儿有真郑坦实成分在这些陈述中,但他们还是不管更深层次、更重要的关系。
研究经验是一个基本要素在雇佣和晋升在一个研究型大学烂棚,因为它是把重点放在研究是饥丛则这样一所与艺术学院区别开来的大学。然而,有些教授教学进行研究和忽视,展示了一个问题
等一下，我换台电脑帮你翻

追问

然后呢

Answer 2

翻译：
最近的报纸与杂志上的文章认为教学与研究相抵触，太过于重视研究在学术提升上的作用而忽视了教学的作用。这些观点有一定的事实，但它们同时也忽略了两者之间的更深次、更重要的关系。
研究经验在研究型大学里是人才招聘和晋升的基本要素，因为正是对研究的重视使这种大学得以区别于一般的文科院校。然而，有些教授轻教学重研究并由此产生了一个问题。大多数的研究型大学会奖励突出的教学，但是最好的荣誉一般都给与那些研究上的成就。部分的原因在于对教学评定的困难。一个有高度责任感的搭梁搜吃苦耐劳的教授通常渣茄会受到那些乐于接受挑战的尖子生所欣赏而不受那些成绩平平的学生所欢迎。温文儒雅的教授的综合评分通常较高，但是却会让那些最好的学生失望，确切说是那些体制给他们提供了最大挑战的学生。因此，一所大学想主要地依靠教学质量来提升教授就必须面对这个困惑。因为现代科学发展迅速，在教授们身上就暴露出了两个压力：一个是继续专业深造所需要的时间，另一个是教学的时间。新科学家的培训要求在研究型大学与文科院校上都有突出的教学成绩。虽然科学家通常在小学阶段就定型了，但也会由于大学与研究生阶段的差劲的教学水平而流失。解决的方法是不把教学与研究分开，而是认识到教学与研究的结合是困难而至关重要的。教授知历的头衔应该给予那些相当教授的人，也许各大学已经是时候考虑保留这个头衔给予那些真心地想成为学者的人。不愿意教学的教授可以冠以“卓越的研究员”或者什么称呼。

手工翻译的，如果有帮助，请采纳！