单选题. What a waste of money! In return for an average of £44,000 of debt, students get an average of only 14 hours of lecture and tutorial time a week in Britain. Annual fees have risen from £1,000 to £9,000 in the last decade, but contact time at university has barely risen at all. And graduating doesn't even provide any guarantee of a decent job: six in ten graduates today are in non-graduate jobs. No wonder it has become fashionable to denounce many universities as little more than elaborate con-tricks (骗术). There's a lot for students to complain about: the repayment threshold for paying back loans will be frozen for five years, meaning that lower-paid graduates have to start repaying their loans; and maintenance grants have been replaced by loans, meaning that students from poorer backgrounds face higher debt than those with wealthier parents. Yet it still pays to go to university. If going to university doesn't work out, students pay very little—if any—of their tuition fees back: you only start repaying when you are earning £21,000 a year. Almost half of graduates—those who go on to earn less—will have a portion of their debt written off. It's not just the lectures and tutorials that are important. Education is the sum of what students teach each other in between lectures and seminars. Students do not merely benefit while at university; studies show they go on to be healthier and happier than non-graduates, and also far more likely to vote. Whatever your talents, it is extraordinarily difficult to get a leading job in most fields without having been to university. Recruiters circle elite universities like vultures (兀鹰). Many top firms will not even look at applications from those who lack a 2.1, i.e., an upper-second class degree, from an elite university. Students at university also meet those likely to be in leading jobs in the future, forming contacts for life. This might not be right, but school-leavers who fail to acknowledge as much risk malting the wrong decision about going to university. Perhaps the reason why so many universities offer their students so little is they know studying at a top university remains a brilliant investment even if you don't learn anything. Studying at university will only become less attractive if employers shift their focus away from where someone went to university—and there is no sign of that happening anytime soon. School-leavers may moan, but they have little choice but to embrace university and the student debt that comes with it.1. What is the author's opinion of going to university? ______
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】 根据题干中的going to university定位至前三段。 本题问作者对上大学的看法,具有一定概括性。文章前两段均是对上大学的负面评价:第1段感叹上大学是浪费钱(waste of money),付出大,回报低;第2段指出大学受到的诟病(denounce)。第3段第1句指出,尽管如此,上大学依然是值得的(Yet it still pays)。A项“终究是值得的”与其同义,故为答案。 B项“纯粹是浪费时间”与第1段第1句waste of money对应,但作者最终还是认为“值得其所”(it still pays)。第3段第1句表明尽管有各种弊端,作者对上大学的态度还是积极的,故排除C项“很难说是好是坏”。虽然第1段第1句说到大学学费在增加,造成债务重,但这只是相对回报来说,作者并没有说学费的绝对值是贵的(expensive),且也没有针对most young people来说,因此D项“对大多数年轻人来说太贵了”也可排除。 [参考译文] 真是浪费钱啊!和平均4.4万英镑的债务相比,英国的大学生得到的回报仅为每周平均14个小时的授课和辅导时间。在过去十年里,每年的学费从1000英镑升到9000英镑,但是大学里学生和导师的接触时间几乎没有增加。此外,大学毕业并不能确保学生获得一份好工作:如今每10个毕业生中,有6个所从事的工作是不要求大学学位的。 难怪人们纷纷谴责大学与精心设计的骗局无异。学生满腹牢骚:学费贷款在头五年内是没有“偿还起点”的(译者注:当年收入大于偿还起点金额时,欠款者须将超过该起点的那部分金额中的一定比例用来偿还贷款),这意味着工资微薄的毕业生刚毕业就必须开始偿还他们的贷款:生活补助金被贷款取代,这意味着与富裕家庭的学生相比,家境贫困的学生会面临更高的债务。 尽管如此,上大学依然是值得的。如果上大学对个人前途没有用的话,那这样的学生就几乎不用偿还他们的学费(即便要还也只是很少的金额):因为只有当年收入达2.1万英镑时才需要开始偿还贷款。大约有一半的毕业生——那些收入一直很低的人——可以注销部分债务。大学里重要的不仅仅是课程和辅导,大学教育还包括学生在课程和研讨课之外、彼此之间相互学到的知识。学生不仅仅在上大学期间受益;研究还表明他们比没上过大学的人更健康,更快乐,更有可能参与选举投票。 无论你多有才华,如果没上过大学,在大多数领域你想要得到一份要职都极其困难。招聘人员像兀鹰一样在名校间盘旋。对于那些没有达到名校2.1这个成绩(即名校的二级甲等学位)的求职者,很多顶尖公司甚至看都不看一眼他们的求职申请。大学生在校园里还会遇上那些将来有可能身居要职的人,建立起终身的联系。尽管不一定会如此,但是不同意这种观点的中学毕业生在决定是否上大学这个问题上会有犯错的风险。 或许很多大学给予学生那么少回报的原因在于,他们知道上名校依然是明智的投资,即使学生什么也没学到。只有当用人单位不再重视应聘者毕业于哪所大学,上大学的吸引力才没那么大——而迄今为止还没有迹象表明这种情况会很快来临。中学毕业生可能会哀叹,但是他们没有选择,1只能接受大学和随之而来的学生贷款。