评论
打印
Text 2
All around the world, lawyers generate more hostility than the members of any other profession-with the possible exception of journalism. But there are few places where clients have more grounds for complaint than America.
During the decade before the economic crisis, spending on legal services in America grew twice as fast as inflation. The best lawyers made skyscrapers-full of money, tempting ever more students to pile into law schools. But most law graduates never get a big-firm job. Many of them instead become the kind of nuisance-lawsuit filer that makes the tort system a costly nightmare.
There are many reasons for this. One is the excessive costs of a legal education. There is just one path for a lawyer in most American states: a four-year undergraduate degree in some unrelated subject, then a three-year law degree at one of 200 law schools authorized by the American Bar Association and an expensive preparation for the bar exam. This leaves today's average law-school graduate with $100,000 of debt on top of undergraduate debts. Law-school debt means that many cannot afford to go into government or non-profit work, and that they have to work fearsomely hard.
Reforming the system would help both lawyers and their customers. Sensible ideas have been around for a long time, but the state-level bodies that govern the profession have been too conservative to implement them. One idea is to allow people to study law as an undergraduate degree. Another is to let students sit for the bar after only two years of law school. If the bar exam is truly a stern enough test for a would-be lawyer, those who can sit it earlier should be allowed to
do so. Students who do not need the extra training could cut their debt mountain by a third.
The other reason why costs are so high is the restrictive guild-like ownership structure of the business. Except in the District of Columbia, non-lawyers may not own any share of a law firm. This keeps fees high and innovation slow. There is pressure for change from within the profession, but opponents of change among the regulators insist that keeping outsiders out of a law firm isolates lawyers from the pressure to make money rather than serve clients ethically.
In fact, allowing non-lawyers to own shares in law firms would reduce costs and improve services to customers, by encouraging law firms to use technology and to employ professional managers to focus on improving firms' efficiency. After all, other countries, such as Australia and Britain, have started liberalizing their legal professions. America should follow.
26.a lot of students take up law as their profession due to
[A]the growing demand from clients.
[B]the increasing pressure of inflation.
[C]the prospect of working in big firms.
[D]the attraction of financial rewards.
27.Which of the following adds to the costs of legal education in most American states?
[A]Higher tuition fees for undergraduate studies.
[B]Admissions approval from the bar association.
[C]Pursuing a bachelor's degree in another major.
[D]Receiving training by professional associations.
28.Hindrance to the reform of the legal system originates from
[A]lawyers' and clients' strong resistance.
[B]the rigid bodies governing the profession.
[C]the stem exam for would-be lawyers.
[D]non-professionals' sharp criticism.
29.The guild-like ownership structure is considered "restrictive"partly because it
[A]bans outsiders' involvement in the profession.
[B]keeps lawyers from holding law-firm shares.
[C]aggravates the ethical situation in the trade.
[D]prevents lawyers from gaining due profits.
30.In this text, the author mainly discusses
[A]flawed ownership of America's law firms and its causes.
[B]the factors that help make a successful lawyer in America.
[C]a problem in America's legal profession and solutions to it.
[D]the role of undergraduate studies in America's legal education.
Text 3
The US$3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment, as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year's award in March. And it is far from the only one of its type. As a News Feature article in Nature discusses, a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years. Many, like the Fundamental Physics Prize, are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs. These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields, they say, and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.
What's not to like? Quite a lot, according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature. You cannot buy class, as the old saying goes, and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels, The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them, say scientists. They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research. They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research. They do not fund peer-reviewed research. They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.
The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism. Some want to shock, others to draw people into science, or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.
As Nature has pointed out before, there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes-both new and old-are distributed. The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include. But the Nobel Foundation's limit of three recipients per prize, each of whom must still be living, has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research-as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson. The Nobels were, of course, themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money. Time, rather than intention, has given them legitimacy.
As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards, two things seem clear. First, most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one. Second, it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere, It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism-that is the culture of research, after all-but it is the prize-givers' money to do with as they please. It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.
31. The Fundamental Physics Prize is seen as
[A]a symbol of the entrepreneurs' wealth.
[B]a possible replacement of the Nobel Prizes.
[C]an example of bankers' investments.
[D]a handsome reward for researchers.
32. The critics think that the new awards will most benefit
[A]the profit-oriented scientists.
[B]the founders of the new awards.
[C]the achievement-based system.
[D]peer-review-led research.
33. The discovery of the Higgs boson is a typical case which involves
[A]controversies over the recipients' status.
[B]the joint effort of modern researchers.
[C]legitimate concerns over the new prizes.
[D]the demonstration of research findings.
34. According to Paragraph 4,which of the following is true of the Nobels?
[A]Their endurance has done justice to them.
[B]Their legitimacy has long been in dispute.
[C]They are the most representative honor.
[D]History has never cast doubt on them.
35.The author believes that the now awards are
[A]acceptable despite the criticism.
[B]harmful to the culture of research.
[C]subject to undesirable changes.
[D]unworthy of public attention.
Text 4
"The Heart of the Matter," the just-released report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS), deserves praise for affirming the importance of the humanities and social sciences to the prosperity and security of liberal democracy in America. Regrettably, however, the report's failure to address the true nature of the crisis facing liberal education may cause more harm than good.
In 2010, leading congressional Democrats and Republicans sent letters to the AAAS asking that it identify actions that could be taken by "federal, state and local governments, universities, foundations, educators, individual benefactors and others" to "maintain national excellence in humanities and social scientific scholarship and education." In response, the American Academy formed the Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences. Among the commission's 51 members are top-tier-university presidents, scholars, lawyers, judges, and business executives, as well as prominent figures from diplomacy, filmmaking, music and journalism.
The goals identified in the report are generally admirable. Because representative government presupposes an informed citizenry, the report supports full literacy; stresses the study of history and government, particularly American history and American government; and encourages the use of new digital technologies. To encourage innovation and competition, the report calls for increased investment in research, the crafting of coherent curricula that improve students' ability to solve problems and communicate effectively in the 21st century, increased funding for teachers and the encouragement of scholars to bring their learning to bear on the great challenges of the day. The report also advocates greater study of foreign languages, international affairs and the expansion of study abroad programs.
Unfortunately, despite 2? years in the making, "The Heart of the Matter" never gets to the heart of the matter: the illiberal nature of liberal education at our leading colleges and universities. The commission ignores that for several decades America's colleges and universities have produced graduates who don't know the content and character of liberal education and are thus deprived of its benefits. Sadly, the spirit of inquiry once at home on campus has been replaced by the use of the humanities and social sciences as vehicles for publicizing "progressive," or left-liberal propaganda.
Today, professors routinely treat the progressive interpretation of history and progressive public policy as the proper subject of study while portraying conservative or classical liberal ideas-such as free markets and self-reliance-as falling outside the boundaries of routine, and sometimes legitimate, intellectual investigation.
The AAAS displays great enthusiasm for liberal education. Yet its report may well set back reform by obscuring the depth and breadth of the challenge that Congress asked it to illuminate.
36. According to Paragraph 1, what is the author's attitude toward the AAAS's report?
[A] Critical
[B] Appreciative
[C] Contemptuous
[D] Tolerant
37. Influential figures in the Congress required that the AAAS report on how to
[A] retain people's interest in liberal education
[B] define the government's role in education
[C] keep a leading position in liberal education
[D] safeguard individuals' rights to education
38. According to Paragraph 3, the report suggests
[A] an exclusive study of American history
[B] a greater emphasis on theoretical subjects
[C] the application of emerging technologies
[D] funding for the study of foreign languages
39. The author implies in Paragraph 5 that professors are
[A] supportive of free markets
[B] cautious about intellectual investigation
[C] conservative about public policy
[D] biased against classical liberal ideas
40. Which of the following would be the best title for the text?
[A] Ways to Grasp "The Heart of the Matter"
[B] Illiberal Education and "The Heart of the Matter"
[C] The AAAS's Contribution to Liberal Education
[D] Progressive Policy vs. Liberal Education
