题目内容

For America's colleges, January is a month of reckoning. Most applications for the next academic year beginning in the autumn have to be made by the end of December, so a university's popularity is put to an objective standard: how many people want to attend. One of the more unlikely offices to have been flooded with mail is that of the City University of New York (CUNY), a public college that lacks, among other things, a famous sports team, pastoral campuses and boisterous parties (it doesn't even have dorms), and, until recently, academic credibility.
A primary draw at CUNY is a programmer for particularly clever students, launched in 2001. Some 1, 100 of the 60,000 students at CUNY's five top schools receive a rare thing in the costly world of American colleges: free education. Those accepted by CUNY's honors programmer pay no tuition fees; instead they receive a stipend of $7, 500 (to help with general expenses) and a laptop computer. Applications for early admissions into next year's programme are up 70%.
Admission has nothing to do with being an athlete, or a child of an alunmus, or having an influential sponsor, or being a member of a particularly aggrieved ethnic group—criteria that are increasingly important at America's elite colleges. Most of the students who apply to the honours programme come from relatively poor families, many of them immigrant ones. All that CUNY demands is that these students be diligent and clever.
Last year, the average standardised test score of this group was in the top 7% in the country. Among the rest of CUNY's students averages are lower, but they are now just breaking into the top third (compared with the bottom third in 1997). CUNY does not appear alongside Harvard and Stanford on lists of America's top colleges, but its recent transformation offers a neat parable of meritocracy revisited.
Until the 1960s, a good case could be made that the best deal in American tertiary education was to be found not in Cambridge or Palo Alto, but in Harlem, at a small public school called City College, the core of CUNY. America's first free municipal university, founded in 1847, offered its services to everyone bright enough to meet its grueling standards.
City's golden era came in the last century, when America's best known colleges restricted the number of Jewish students they would admit at exactly the time when New York was teeming with the bright children of poor Jewish immigrants. In 1933—54 City produced nine future Nobel laureates, including the 2005 winner for economics, Robert Aumann (who graduated in 1950).
What went wrong? Put simply, City dropped its standards. It was partly to do with demography, partly to do with earnest muddle headedness. In the 1960s, universities across the country faced intense pressure to admit more minority students. Although City was open to all races, only a small number of black and Hispanic students passed the strict tests (including a future secretary of state, Colin Powell). That, critics decided, could not be squared with City's mission to "serve all the citizens of New York". At first the standards were tweaked, but this was not enough, and in 1969 massive student protests shut down City's campus for two weeks. Faced with upheaval, City scrapped its admissions standards altogether. By 1970, almost any student who graduated from New York's high schools could attend.
The quality of education collapsed. At first, with no barrier to entry, enrolment climbed, but in 1976 the city of New York, which was then in effect bankrupt, forced CUNY to impose tuition fees. An era of free education was over, and a university which had once served such a distinct purpose joined the muddle of America's lower-end education.
By 1997, seven out of ten first-year students in the CUNY system were failing at least one remedial test in reading, writing or moths (meaning that they had not learnt

A. It has started to enjoy a high academic position.
B. The students often have get-togethers.
C. Its campuses are small and crowded.
D. In terms of sports, it is mediocre.

查看答案
更多问题

Born in the trough of the Great Depression, Edmund Phelps, a professor at Columbia University who won the Nobel Prize for economics, has spent much of his intellectual life studying slumps of a different kind. The Depression, which cost both of his parents their jobs, was exacerbated by the monetary, authorities, who kept too tight a grip on the money supply. Mr. Phelps is interested in unemployment that even open-handed central bankers cannot cure.
Most scholars stand on the shoulders of giants. But Mr. Phelps won his laurels in part tar kicking the feet from under his intellectual forerunners. In 1958 William Phillips, of the London School of Economics, showed that for much of the previous hundred years, unemployment was low in Britain when wage inflation was high, and high when inflation was low. Economists were too quick to conclude that policy makers therefore faced a grand, macroeconomic trade-off, embodied in the so-called "Phillips curve". They could settle for unemployment of, say, 6% and an inflation rate of 1%—as prevailed in America at the start of the 1960s—or they could quicken the economy, cutting unemployment by a couple of percentage points at the expense of inflation of 3% or so—which is roughly how things stood in America when Mr. Phelps published his first paper on the subject in 1967.
In such a tight lab our market, companies appease workers by offering higher wages. They then pass on the cost in the form. of dearer prices, cheating workers of a higher real wage. Thus policymakers can engineer lower unemployment only through deception. But "man is a thinking, expectant being,"as Mr. Phelps has put it. Eventually workers will cotton on, demanding still higher wages to offset the rising cost of living. They can be duped for as long as inflation stays one step ahead of their rising expectations of what it will be.
The stable trade-off depicted by the Phillips curve is thus a dangerous mirage. The economy will recover its equilibrium only when workers' expectations are fulfilled, prices turn out as anticipated, and they no longer sell their labour under false pretences. But equilibrium does not, sadly, imply full employment. Mr. Phelps argued that inflation will not settle until unemployment rises to its "natural rate", leaving some workers moldering on the shelf. Given economists' almost theological commitment to the notion that markets clear, the presence of unemployment in the world requires a theodicy to explain it. Mr. Phelps is willing to entertain several. But in much of his work he contends that unemployment is necessary to cow workers, ensuring their loyalty to the company and their diligence on the job, at a wage the company can afford to pay.
"Natural" does not mean optimal. Nor, Mr. Phelps has written, does it mean "a pristine element of nature not susceptible to intervention by man. " Natural simply means impervious to central bankers' efforts to change it, how much money they print.
Economists, including some of his own students, commonly take this natural rate to be slow moving, if not constant, and devote a great deal of effort to estimating it. Mr. Phelps, by contrast, has been more anxious to explain its fluctuations, and to recommend measures to lower it. His book Structural Slumps, published in 1994, is an ambitious attempt to provide a general theory of how the natural rate of unemployment evolves. Some of the factors that he considered important--unemployment benefits or payroll taxes, for example—are widely accepted parts of the story. Others are more idiosyncratic. He and his French collaborator, Jean-Paul Fitoussi, have, for example, blamed Europe's mounting unemployment in the 1980s in part on Ronald Reagan's budget deficits, which were expansionary at home, but squeezed employment in the rest of the world.
A few years ago David Walsh, an economic journalist, lamented that the glare of the Nobel Prize left other equally

A. unemployment is a hot potato for economists to study.
B. unemployment is the topic that interests Mr. Phelps the most.
C. Mr. Phelps's parents asked him to study unemployment.
D. Mr. Phelps's research is based on the existing research results.

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:W: This month we are speaking to Nick Bailey about his time in Hong Kong. Nick, why did you go to Hong Kong?
M: After I had finished university, I thought that it would be a good chance to go traveling. I'd also heard that there were some good acting opportunities for people who wanted to get into cinema or adverts or films, so I thought that would be a good chance to go and try it out in Hong Kong.
W: What were your first impressions of Hong Kong?
M: Well, as soon as you get off the plane you really, you notice the heat, it's like opening an oven door. It's really humid in Hong Kong. And then later you go to the city and it's quite amazing in the harbour and with all the tall buildings and it reminded me of the pictures I've seen of Sao Paolo, in Brazil.
W: And what were the best things about your stay there?
M: Well, the food is fantastic, you can go to these restaurants called Dim Sum restaurants, and it's like you're in this restaurant and it's massive, and there's lots of people there, and these old ladies pulling these trolleys around and they've got lots of little plates of Dim Sum. Dim Sum is basically little dumplings filled with mincemeat, or filled with chicken, or filled, or vegetables. They're really delicious, and you can have soy sauce as well, that's really great.
W: So the food is wonderful there. Anything else?
M: Also, there's lots of really interesting people there, in Hong Kong, you can get everything from Vietnam Vets to prostitutes to, to business men escaping from bad debts back home, it's quite interesting you get to meet a lot of different types of people, you know.
W: Did you come across anything undesired? Or what was your worst experience?
M: I was living on an island. It had a mountain and it was obviously surrounded by the city. There were no cars, and all were riding bicycles. But the worst thing about living there was that we were on a flat and there were lots of mosquitoes. I suppose they must have come from a pond or something. So at night I got bitten a lot.
W: So you did not live downtown? You lived on an island, not the main island I suppose? That must have given you a lot of inconvenience?
M: That's true, more or less. As I lived on an island, I had to get to the ferry in the morning, which meant I had to get up at 5:40 in the morning. Because the ferry is about 40 minutes. So that was too bad having to get up early.
W: Would you go back? Do you have a kind of plan to go there and find a more permanent job there?
M: I'd really like to go back. Since I left, it's come back to China. It went back in 1997. So I'd like really to see how it has changed, I’ve heard that it has changed a lot.
W: And what was the funniest thing that happened to you?
M: Well, lots of funny things happened really, but there was one funny incident in a post office. On the island where I lived, there was one post office. I went in there and all the blinds were pulled down. I went up to one of the windows and knocked on the window. After about a minute the blind went up and a little guy said, "yes, what do you want'?" And I said I'd got this letter and he was about to give me the stamp for England and then ! said that I needed to send it registered, and so he said, "oh, next counter" So, anyway he pulled the blind down there, and I went to the next counter and then a few seconds later the blind went up and it was the same guy there. I thought that was quite funny.
W: Did you have any problem with the language?
M: Yes. Although, you know, it was an English colony, a lot of people do speak English, taxi drivers don't

A. the amazing harbour
B. the fantastic food
C. the heat
D. the tall buildings

SECTION 4
Directions: Each question below consists of a word printed in capital letters followed by five lettered words or phrases. Choose the lettered word or phrase that is most nearly opposite in meaning to the word in capital letters. Since some of the questions require you to distinguish fine shades of meaning, be sure to consider all the choices before deciding which one is best.
OCCULT:

A. inoffensive
B. casual
C. insincere
D. slowly advanced
E. easily comprehensible

If Hunter's artistic work were to return to its earlier political forum, assessments of it

An evaluation that accords high status to her work
B. Acknowledgement of her political acumen but dismissal of her subject matter as contentious
C. Agreements with assessments made prior to the 1980's but acknowledgments of the evolution in her art work
D. Placement of her among the foremost artists of the pre-1980's
E. A reclassification of her work as psychoanalytical rather than political

答案查题题库