题目内容
SECTION B INTERVIEW
Directions: In this section you will hear everything ONCE ONLY. Listen carefully and then answer the questions that follow. Questions 1 to 5 are based on an interview. At the end of the interview you will be given 10 seconds to answer each of the following five questions.
Now listen to the interview.
听力原文：M: I'm Avi Arditti and this week on Wordmaster: surviving a job interview! Here's the first bit of advice from human resources consultant Sharon Armstrong: It's not just words you have to think about, but also how yon express them. Avoid, she says, a flat monotone voice that people sometimes get when they are nervous.
W: It loses something and I think that it can add so much if you show your excitement and your eagerness to work for that company.
M: Next: be prepared for a common approach known as behavioral-based interviewing.
W: And that is where past performance will indicate future performance. So good interviewers will ask you very detailed questions where they'll put you on the spot and they'll want to know specifically your role in what you did for a particular project. And so the key to giving a good answer to a behavioral interview question is to do what I call a STAR, S-T-A-R.The S and the T stand for explaining a situation or a task that you were given, the A is the action you took and the R is the results.
M: So what you're saying is that you need to be prepared before you walk into the door.
W: Go through some mock interviews, if you can have friends ask you questions. Practice in the mirror, answering questions. Go in with three or four things you really want to stress about yourself. And then you can bring those out no matter what the question is asked.
M: How do you follow up after the interview？
W: Please send a thank-you letter. I'm begging you. And you can do it by E-mail, and in that thank you letter you do a couple of things. Make sure that you express sincere appreciation for the time that they spent interviewing you. You have an opportunity to re-emphasize some of your strongest qualities. You have another chance to make that case as to how your skills match their needs, ff there was something that you wish you had said a little more about, again an opportunity to do it here. Now that sounds like a lot to cover, but you do it very briefly, in a short couple of paragraphs and get it out right away.
M: Keep it short, keep it simple？
W: Absolutely. Again, they're business people; they don't have a lot of time. Just getting it is going to make a big difference. I talk to recruiters all the time. They never get thank-you letters. It's such simple business etiquette that people just don't take the time to do it.
M: These days, interviewers ask tougher questions than they used to.
W: It's no longer "What do you see yourself doing in five years？" Those are old questions. They're asking questions that are going to get at more specific things. For example, "Give me a specific example of a time when a coworker criticized your work in front of others. How did you respond？ How has that event shaped the way you communicate with others？" They're trying to get at your communication skills. "Give me a specific example of a time when you sold your supervisor on an idea or concept. How did you proceed？ What was the result？" That's your assertiveness. So be ready for these kinds of questions, and if you have this experience in your background, just be able to communicate it effectively. You don't have to use the proper language all the time, just get across your results and your accomplishments.
M: And you probably shouldn't be afraid to say "Well, I don't understand that question. "
W: Absolutely. And don't feel like you have to answer immediately. Take a moment. Pausing is comfortable—if you're comfortable with it, it will seem comfortable. But if you sometimes launch into an answer right away, you might head down a road you don't
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Why did the President and the First Lady, the Vice President and Mrs. Gore look like seated statues at the Madame Tussaud's？
At the end of the last paragraph the author uses humorous exaggeration in order to ______.
Some analysts see the gulf between the rich and the rest as an incentive for strivers, or as just the way things are. Others see it as having a corrosive effect on people's faith in the markets and democracy. Still others contend that economic polarization is a root cause of America's political polarization. Could, and should, something be done？
Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz, two Harvard economists, think yes. Their book, the Race Between Education and Technology (Harvard, $ 39.95), contain many tables, a few equations and a powerfully told story about how and why the United States became the world's richest nation--namely, thanks to its schools.
The authors skillfully demonstrate that for more than a century, and at a steady rate, technological breakthroughs--the mass production system, electricity, computers--have been increasing the demand for ever more educated workers. And, they show, America's school system met this demand, not with a national policy, but in grassroots fashion, as communities taxed themselves and built schools and colleges.
If only it were that easy.
The authors' argument is really two books in one. One offers an incisive history of American education, especially the spread of the public high school and the state university system. It proves to be an uplifting tale of public commitment and open access. The authors remind us that the United States long remained "the best poor man's country". A place where talent could rise.
The other story rigorously measures the impact of education on income. The authors' compilation of hard data on educational attainment according to when people were bona is an awesome achievement, though not always a gripping read.
They show that by the 1850s, America's school enrollment rate already "exceeded that of any other nation". And this lead held for a long time. By 1960, some 70 percent of Americans graduated from high school--far above the rate in any other country. College graduation rates also rose.
In the marketplace, such educational attainment was extremely valuable, but it didn't produce wide economic disparity so long as more people were coming to the job market with education. The Wage premium-- or differential paid to people with a high school or a college education--fell between 1915 and 1950.
But more recently, high school graduation rates flatlined at around 70 percent. American college attendance roses, though college graduation rates languished. The upshot is that while the average college graduates in 1970 earned 45 percent more than high school graduates, the differential three decades later exceeds 80 percent.
"In the first half of the century," the authors summarize, "education raced of technology, but later in the century technology raced ahead of educational gains."
Proving that the demand for and supply of educated workers began not in the time of Bill Gates but in the era of Thomas Edison is virtuoso social science. But wasn't a slowdown in rising educational attainment unavoidable？ After all, it's one thing to increase the average years of schooling by leaps and bounds when most people start near zero, but quite another when national average is already high.
The authors reject the idea that the United States has reached some natural limit in educational advances. Other countries are now at higher levels.
What, then, is holding American youth back？
The authors give a two-part answer. For one thing, the financial aid system is a maze. More important, many people with high school diplomas are not ready for college.
The second problem, the authors write, is concen
The millions of calculations involved, ______ by hand, would have lost all practical value
微信支付 
支付宝支付