当然可以。以下是上文英文评论文章的中文翻译版：

从科举到高考：重塑中国作文考试以契合现代文化与大学教育

引言

中国高考作文是大学入学考试体系中的关键一环，其本意是考查学生书面汉语表达能力，并判断其是否具备进入大学学习的基础。不论学生将来学习理工科还是文史类，作文能力都被视为通用素养。然而，我们不得不问：这种考试形式是否真正考查了大学所需的能力？是否反映了现代社会和教育理念的变化？本文认为，高考作文依然受制于科举制度的“文以载道”传统，亟需进行实质性改革，以促进学生的独立思考、逻辑推理与真实表达。

一、“文以载道”：科举思想的遗产

历史上的科举制度通过八股文选拔官员，其核心理念是“文以载道”——文章应当承载儒家道德。这种制度强调结构规范与思想正确，而非个性表达与逻辑思辨。虽科举已于1905年废除，但其影响仍深植于今天的高考作文之中。

在今天的作文评分标准中，“立意高远”、“思想积极向上”等模糊而道德化的标准，往往影响学生的写作风格，使作文成为一种“思想表演”，而非真实思想的表达。

二、当下的高考作文：表达与套话之间

近年来，高考作文题目试图走向开放和多元。以2025年部分试题为例：

• 全国卷一题目：

“他想要给孩子们唱上一段，可是心里直翻腾，开不了口。”
“假如我是一只鸟，我也应该用嘶哑的喉咙歌唱……”
“因为一个民族已经起来。”

• 全国卷二题目：

“如果有一天，我们能够将梦赠予他人……”

看似情感丰富、开放自由，实则过于抽象与象征化，很难与真实生活建立联系。学生为了迎合“主旋律”或“正确表达”，往往编造情节、套用模板、堆砌空话，造成：

• 空话（无实质内容）

• 套话（固定句式）

• 模板化写作（“高分万能”段落）

写作成为一种技巧表演，而非思想的呈现。

三、国际写作考试的比较：考查什么才是真正重要的？

世界主要国家的写作考试更强调逻辑论证、真实表达和批判性思维。以下为部分真实试题示例：

🇺🇸 美国 SAT（已于2021年取消）

“请分析作者如何通过证据、推理和修辞说服读者。”
强调：

• 阅读理解

• 分析能力

• 语言组织与逻辑

🇺🇸 美国 AP 英语语言与写作

“你是否支持高校用评语替代成绩？请写一篇有说服力的议论文。”
考查：

• 清晰立场

• 多角度论证

• 实例引用

🇬🇧 英国 A-Level 英语

“比较两位作者如何呈现‘身份’这一主题。”
考查：

• 文本比较

• 语言与结构分析

• 论点组织能力

🇸🇬 新加坡 GP（General Paper）

“竞争总是有利的吗？”
“言论自由在现代社会中有多重要？”
考查：

• 社会现实理解

• 多角度思辨

• 自我立场与现实案例的结合

✅ 这些考试关注的，不是“价值表演”，而是清晰表达、理性分析与真实立意。

四、高考作文的错位：与大学教育要求不符

与国际标准相比，中国高考作文存在明显不匹配：

因此，学生在高考中训练的是“虚构的深刻”与“写作技巧”，而不是大学真正需要的结构化思维与表达能力。

五、改革方向：什么样的作文才真正适合现代大学教育？

为真正服务于高等教育与文化发展的需要，作文考试应从根本上进行以下变革：

✅ 1. 转向论证类写作

题目应紧扣现实，具有辩论性与思辨性。如：

“人工智能是否应该参与学生作文评分？”
“中国如何在发展与环保之间找到平衡？”

✅ 2. 引入材料型写作

给出一段文字、图表或新闻材料，让学生分析、评论或评判。既锻炼阅读，也训练写作逻辑。

✅ 3. 拓宽写作文体

允许多种写作形式，如：

• 评论性文章

• 建议报告

• 自我反思类文本

• 新闻评论或案例分析

这些都与大学写作更接近。

✅ 4. 改革评分标准

弱化“立意高远”式模糊评价，转而强调：

• 逻辑是否清晰？

• 论据是否贴切？

• 表达是否真实、自然？

结语

高考作文长期以来受到“科举”文化和“文以载道”理念的影响，使其更像一种“道德展示”，而非思想检验。面对一个追求多元化、全球化与创新精神的时代，中国应重新定义作文考试的价值。借鉴国际经验，未来的高考作文应重在思维的培养与真实的表达，奖励有逻辑、有思想的作品，而非唯美、唯正的“八股新文”。

唯有如此，高考才能真正选拔出具有现代素养的大学新生，为中国的教育与文化注入新的活力。

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” (文以载道)

Historically, the Chinese Keju examination selected government officials based on Confucian orthodoxy and rhetorical form. At its core was the ideal of “文以载道”—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:

• 空话 (empty talk)

• 套话 (clichés)

• 模版化写作 (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 “立意高远” (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.