當然可以。以下是上文英文評論文章的中文翻譯版：

從科舉到高考：重塑中國作文考試以契合現代文化與大學教育

引言

中國高考作文是大學入學考試體系中的關鍵一環，其本意是考查學生書面漢語表達能力，並判斷其是否具備進入大學學習的基礎。不論學生將來學習理工科還是文史類，作文能力都被視為通用素養。然而，我們不得不問：這種考試形式是否真正考查了大學所需的能力？是否反映了現代社會和教育理念的變化？本文認為，高考作文依然受制於科舉制度的“文以載道”傳統，亟需進行實質性改革，以促進學生的獨立思考、邏輯推理與真實表達。

一、“文以載道”：科舉思想的遺產

歷史上的科舉制度通過八股文選拔官員，其核心理念是“文以載道”——文章應當承載儒家道德。這種制度強調結構規範與思想正確，而非個性表達與邏輯思辨。雖科舉已於1905年廢除，但其影響仍深植於今天的高考作文之中。

在今天的作文評分標準中，“立意高遠”、“思想積極向上”等模糊而道德化的標準，往往影響學生的寫作風格，使作文成為一種“思想表演”，而非真實思想的表達。

二、當下的高考作文：表達與套話之間

近年來，高考作文題目試圖走向開放和多元。以2025年部分試題為例：

• 全國卷一題目：

“他想要給孩子們唱上一段，可是心裡直翻騰，開不了口。”
“假如我是一隻鳥，我也應該用嘶啞的喉嚨歌唱……”
“因為一個民族已經起來。”

• 全國卷二題目：

“如果有一天，我們能夠將夢贈予他人……”

看似情感豐富、開放自由，實則過於抽象與象徵化，很難與真實生活建立聯繫。學生為了迎合“主旋律”或“正確表達”，往往編造情節、套用模板、堆砌空話，造成：

• 空話（無實質內容）

• 套話（固定句式）

• 模板化寫作（“高分萬能”段落）

寫作成為一種技巧表演，而非思想的呈現。

三、國際寫作考試的比較：考查什麼才是真正重要的？

世界主要國家的寫作考試更強調邏輯論證、真實表達和批判性思維。以下為部分真實試題示例：

🇺🇸 美國 SAT（已於2021年取消）

“請分析作者如何通過證據、推理和修辭說服讀者。”
強調：

• 閱讀理解

• 分析能力

• 語言組織與邏輯

🇺🇸 美國 AP 英語語言與寫作

“你是否支持高校用評語替代成績？請寫一篇有說服力的議論文。”
考查：

• 清晰立場

• 多角度論證

• 實例引用

🇬🇧 英國 A-Level 英語

“比較兩位作者如何呈現‘身份’這一主題。”
考查：

• 文本比較

• 語言與結構分析

• 論點組織能力

🇸🇬 新加坡 GP（General Paper）

“競爭總是有利的嗎？”
“言論自由在現代社會中有多重要？”
考查：

• 社會現實理解

• 多角度思辨

• 自我立場與現實案例的結合

✅ 這些考試關注的，不是“價值表演”，而是清晰表達、理性分析與真實立意。

四、高考作文的錯位：與大學教育要求不符

與國際標準相比，中國高考作文存在明顯不匹配：

因此，學生在高考中訓練的是“虛構的深刻”與“寫作技巧”，而不是大學真正需要的結構化思維與表達能力。

五、改革方向：什麼樣的作文才真正適合現代大學教育？

為真正服務於高等教育與文化發展的需要，作文考試應從根本上進行以下變革：

✅ 1. 轉向論證類寫作

題目應緊扣現實，具有辯論性與思辨性。如：

“人工智能是否應該參與學生作文評分？”
“中國如何在發展與環保之間找到平衡？”

✅ 2. 引入材料型寫作

給出一段文字、圖表或新聞材料，讓學生分析、評論或評判。既鍛煉閱讀，也訓練寫作邏輯。

✅ 3. 拓寬寫作文體

允許多種寫作形式，如：

• 評論性文章

• 建議報告

• 自我反思類文本

• 新聞評論或案例分析

這些都與大學寫作更接近。

✅ 4. 改革評分標準

弱化“立意高遠”式模糊評價，轉而強調：

• 邏輯是否清晰？

• 論據是否貼切？

• 表達是否真實、自然？

結語

高考作文長期以來受到“科舉”文化和“文以載道”理念的影響，使其更像一種“道德展示”，而非思想檢驗。面對一個追求多元化、全球化與創新精神的時代，中國應重新定義作文考試的價值。借鑑國際經驗，未來的高考作文應重在思維的培養與真實的表達，獎勵有邏輯、有思想的作品，而非唯美、唯正的“八股新文”。

唯有如此，高考才能真正選拔出具有現代素養的大學新生，為中國的教育與文化注入新的活力。

Certainly. Below is the revised version of the essay, now including real test question examples from overseas assessments (SAT, AP, A-Level, Singapore GP) within the body for clearer illustration and stronger comparative analysis.

From Keju to Gaokao: Reforming the Chinese Essay Test for a Modern Age

Introduction

The Chinese Gaokao essay test is a critical component of the university entrance examination system. It is designed to assess students’ proficiency in written Chinese and their readiness for higher education, regardless of their intended field of study. Yet, questions persist about whether this test effectively measures what it claims to—especially in the context of modern university requirements, international standards, and cognitive development. This essay argues that the Gaokao essay, still rooted in the Keju tradition, must be substantially reformed to foster independent thinking, logical reasoning, and authentic expression.

I. The Legacy of Keju: “Wen Yi Zai Dao” (文以載道)

Historically, the Chinese Keju examination selected government officials based on Confucian orthodoxy and rhetorical form. At its core was the ideal of “文以載道”—writing as a means to carry moral truth. The system favored the “eight-legged essay” (baguwen), which emphasized structure and doctrine over individual insight. Though the Keju was abolished in 1905, its imprint persists in today’s Gaokao essay, where “correct ideas” and a “positive tone” are still often silently rewarded.

Rather than prioritizing clarity of argument or logical analysis, Gaokao essays often reflect a moral performance, echoing the legacy of writing as an ideological tool rather than an intellectual endeavor.

II. The Current Gaokao Essay: Between Expression and Conformity

The Gaokao has experimented with more open-ended prompts, such as the 2025 National Paper I:

“If I were a bird, I should sing with a hoarse voice…” — Ai Qing

Or National Paper II:

“If dreams could be given to others…”

On the surface, these prompts suggest emotional openness and freedom of expression. In practice, however, they are highly abstract, vague in context, and easily lend themselves to formulaic responses. Students often fabricate emotions, personal experiences, or even “grand reflections” to satisfy presumed expectations for “elevated moral tone” or “depth,” leading to:

• 空話 (empty talk)

• 套話 (clichés)

• 模版化寫作 (template-based essays)

What is tested, in the end, is not so much the student’s authentic voice or logical reasoning, but their ability to simulate depth and perform virtue—a lingering consequence of the Keju tradition.

III. International Comparisons: Testing What Matters

Modern essay assessments in other countries prioritize clear reasoning, argumentation, and evidence-based analysis. Below are examples from real international exams:

1. United States – SAT Essay (before 2021 discontinuation)

“Write an essay in which you explain how the author builds an argument to persuade the audience. In your essay, analyze how the author uses evidence, reasoning, and stylistic or persuasive elements.”

This format assesses:

• Comprehension of source material

• Logical analysis

• Academic tone and clarity

2. United States – AP English Language and Composition

“Write an essay that argues your position on whether colleges should consider eliminating grades in favor of written evaluations.”

Students must:

• State a clear thesis

• Use reasoning and evidence

• Respond to multiple perspectives

3. United Kingdom – A-Level English

“Compare how two writers present ideas about identity in their texts. Consider how language, form, and structure shape meaning.”

This task develops:

• Comparative thinking

• Close reading skills

• Coherent written argument

4. Singapore – General Paper

“Is competition always desirable?”
“To what extent is freedom of speech essential in a modern society?”

Students are expected to:

• Construct logical, thesis-driven essays

• Reference real-world examples

• Show balanced, critical perspectives

🟩 In all these examples, the focus is clear: train students to think, argue, and express, not to conform.

IV. The Gaokao’s Misalignment with Higher Education Needs

When compared against international benchmarks, the Gaokao essay appears misaligned in the following ways:

The result: students may enter university without having practiced structured reasoning, critical synthesis, or disciplined academic writing—key abilities needed for any field of study.

V. Toward Reform: What Should the Gaokao Essay Become?

To serve its true purpose—preparing students for university-level thinking—the Gaokao essay must change in structure, content, and philosophy.

✅ 1. Shift Toward Argument-Based Writing

Replace metaphorical and poetic prompts with more direct, socially relevant topics. For example:

“Should Artificial Intelligence be allowed to grade student essays?”
“How should China balance development and environmental protection?”

✅ 2. Introduce Source-Based Essays

Provide a short article or data set and ask students to analyze or evaluate it in writing. This encourages:

• Reading comprehension

• Evidence integration

• Logical coherence

✅ 3. Diversify Essay Genres

Include formats such as:

• Opinion essays

• Policy proposals

• Reflective reports

• Analytical reviews

These mimic university assignments and real-world writing demands.

✅ 4. Reform Evaluation Standards

Reorient from vague criteria like “立意高遠” (elevated ideas) to more measurable standards:

• Is the argument clear and coherent?

• Are examples relevant and well-integrated?

• Is the writing genuine and logically sound?

Conclusion

The Gaokao essay, in its current form, is a legacy of China’s Keju system, where writing served to showcase moral compliance rather than independent thought. In an age that demands global citizenship, innovation, and intellectual rigor, China must reimagine its writing assessment. Drawing lessons from international tests, the future Gaokao should aim to develop thinkers, not imitators, and reward truthful, well-reasoned writing over moral performance. Only then can it truly prepare students for university—and for life.