【正确答案】the dominant

【答案解析】原文： Current Challenges Confronting U.S. Higher Education　　Good morning, everyone. In our last lecture, we discussed challenges that face universities and colleges worldwide. Today, we’ll take a special look at U.S. higher education and see what challenges U.S. higher education is facing. OK. Let’s get started. 　　The first challenge we’re examining in today’s lecture is the force of the marketplace on higher education. [1] Many people believe that the marketplace has overtaken state government as the dominant external force shaping and reshaping American higher education, even for public colleges and universities. You may ask, "Why is It so?" [2] Well, as is always the case, government support is not keeping pace with educational expenditures. So in many ways, the market is having more bearing on higher education than government. [3] In order to create more flexibility, many public colleges and universities are now asking for less government regulation and supervision. In some instances, they are even asking for less state money in return for more autonomy. And their argument is that the current structures and accountability requirements have hindered their capacity to be effective and efficient. [4] The ability to set their own tuition fees and secure freedom from state policies and regulations in areas such as purchasing and building represent just some of the additional autonomy that public institutions are seeking. And many are pressing for new legislation to provide this freedom through a range of innovations, including public corporations, charter colleges, state enterprise status, and performance contracts.　　So, what is the result of these efforts? [5/6] Well, the result is that activities and research in certain fields and disciplines, for example, engineering, applied natural science, and agricultural science, become higher institutional priorities because they have stronger market value than other programs, such as humanities, do. So, what has happened is that institutions create new programs, alter academic calendars, and　　pursue different financial aid policies to capture more and better students, in particular, those who can afford to pay high tuition. [7] For instance, executive MBA programs are increasingly popular. Also, institutions seek contracts and partnership agreements, and enhance research programs with practical applications that have large financial payouts. In order to do so, they are changing their institutional structures. And how do they do it? Let me tell you. [8] Institutions would add new units that focus on generating external grants and bringing new technology to market. [9] They would build conference centers and create for-profit subsidiaries. All these are done to generate more revenue for institutions. What are the implications of this? [10] Well, the implications are that academic research is increasingly focused on marketable knowledge, entrepreneurial priorities are taking precedence, services are being outsourced, and students are carrying an increasing burden to pay higher tuition fees for their education.　　Then, how do university administrators view this trend? That is, the marketplace is showing stronger impact on how institutions are run. In fact, university administrators see little option except to respond to the marketplace. The reason is, if their institution does not react effectively, it will not have the necessary resources to offer high-quality and diverse academic programs. Institutions unable to compete may face hard circumstances because government support continues to fall, students become better-informed consumers, and advances in technology also widen the number and reach of competitors. In turn, the ability to compete—for students, resources, faculty, and prestige—becomes the driving strategic force. At its extreme, competition can overtake more traditional academic values. However, the downside of pursing market goals without appropriately balancing them against the public good is ... is that institutions will no longer be able to fulfill their social responsibility to produce well-educated citizens and face the threat of losing their privileged place in society as they resemble more closely other market-driven organizations.　　[11] Now, let’s move on to the second challenge facing U.S. higher education, that is, the tension between competition and equality in admissions decisions. [12] Since World War II, U.S. higher education has been engaged in a process of "massification," that is, expanding to serve students from all walks of life. Motivating this effort is a widespread belief in the power of education to create social and economic mobility and a belief in the morality and social value of making higher education accessible to everyone. Research data bear out public perceptions: When young people from low-income backgrounds complete a bachelor’s degree, their income and employment characteristics after graduation are equivalent to their peers from more affluent backgrounds. So, education can truly be "the great equalizer." Although there is widespread public faith in the value of higher education, the progress of massification has been slow and uneven. And why is it slow and uneven? [13-1] Well, one, higher education did not admit significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities until after the civil rights of the 1960s forced change. Second, despite significant expenditures on financial aid, minority and low-income individuals are still less likely to attend college than whites or students from middle- and upper-income families— although access gaps have nowadays narrowed somewhat, large gaps remain between completion rates. [14] Low-income students come to college less prepared, and must balance academic demands with work and family responsibilities. [13-2] Finding ways to increase the enrollment rates of low-income students and encourage their success once enrolled are two of the most important problems facing American higher education. One of the challenges to meet these goals is that they can conflict with the other central tenets of American higher education, that is, market competition and resistance to government control, as I said before. For example, institutional competition for the most academically talented students is likely to encourage increased use of tuition discounting for students who have no financial need, and this could divert resources away from low-income students who need financial aid. Similarly, institutions may seek to distinguish themselves in the academic marketplace by becoming more selective in admissions decisions, thus reducing the number of low-income students admitted. [15] However, a primary role of government is to mediate the potentially negative effects of competition by insisting that institutions adhere to their missions, and that institutions provide need-based financial assistance to students. So, a constant preoccupation of American higher education is this tension between the competitive, ambitious nature of institutions and the interests of government in promoting important public goals, primary among them broad access and widespread success for all students.　　OK. For today’s lecture, we have briefly discussed some of the major challenges facing U. S. higher education, such as the impact of the marketplace on institutions and the tension between competition and promoting public goals.细节辨认题。讲座开头提到，本期讲座围绕美国高等教育所面临的挑战展开。第一个挑战就是市场对于高等教育的影响。讲话者提到，很多人认为市场已经取代州政府，成为塑造和重塑美国高等教育的首要力量。由此可知，原文中的the dominant可以直接用作本题答案。

【正确答案】insufficient/not enough

【答案解析】原文： Current Challenges Confronting U.S. Higher Education　　Good morning, everyone. In our last lecture, we discussed challenges that face universities and colleges worldwide. Today, we’ll take a special look at U.S. higher education and see what challenges U.S. higher education is facing. OK. Let’s get started. 　　The first challenge we’re examining in today’s lecture is the force of the marketplace on higher education. [1] Many people believe that the marketplace has overtaken state government as the dominant external force shaping and reshaping American higher education, even for public colleges and universities. You may ask, "Why is It so?" [2] Well, as is always the case, government support is not keeping pace with educational expenditures. So in many ways, the market is having more bearing on higher education than government. [3] In order to create more flexibility, many public colleges and universities are now asking for less government regulation and supervision. In some instances, they are even asking for less state money in return for more autonomy. And their argument is that the current structures and accountability requirements have hindered their capacity to be effective and efficient. [4] The ability to set their own tuition fees and secure freedom from state policies and regulations in areas such as purchasing and building represent just some of the additional autonomy that public institutions are seeking. And many are pressing for new legislation to provide this freedom through a range of innovations, including public corporations, charter colleges, state enterprise status, and performance contracts.　　So, what is the result of these efforts? [5/6] Well, the result is that activities and research in certain fields and disciplines, for example, engineering, applied natural science, and agricultural science, become higher institutional priorities because they have stronger market value than other programs, such as humanities, do. So, what has happened is that institutions create new programs, alter academic calendars, and　　pursue different financial aid policies to capture more and better students, in particular, those who can afford to pay high tuition. [7] For instance, executive MBA programs are increasingly popular. Also, institutions seek contracts and partnership agreements, and enhance research programs with practical applications that have large financial payouts. In order to do so, they are changing their institutional structures. And how do they do it? Let me tell you. [8] Institutions would add new units that focus on generating external grants and bringing new technology to market. [9] They would build conference centers and create for-profit subsidiaries. All these are done to generate more revenue for institutions. What are the implications of this? [10] Well, the implications are that academic research is increasingly focused on marketable knowledge, entrepreneurial priorities are taking precedence, services are being outsourced, and students are carrying an increasing burden to pay higher tuition fees for their education.　　Then, how do university administrators view this trend? That is, the marketplace is showing stronger impact on how institutions are run. In fact, university administrators see little option except to respond to the marketplace. The reason is, if their institution does not react effectively, it will not have the necessary resources to offer high-quality and diverse academic programs. Institutions unable to compete may face hard circumstances because government support continues to fall, students become better-informed consumers, and advances in technology also widen the number and reach of competitors. In turn, the ability to compete—for students, resources, faculty, and prestige—becomes the driving strategic force. At its extreme, competition can overtake more traditional academic values. However, the downside of pursing market goals without appropriately balancing them against the public good is ... is that institutions will no longer be able to fulfill their social responsibility to produce well-educated citizens and face the threat of losing their privileged place in society as they resemble more closely other market-driven organizations.　　[11] Now, let’s move on to the second challenge facing U.S. higher education, that is, the tension between competition and equality in admissions decisions. [12] Since World War II, U.S. higher education has been engaged in a process of "massification," that is, expanding to serve students from all walks of life. Motivating this effort is a widespread belief in the power of education to create social and economic mobility and a belief in the morality and social value of making higher education accessible to everyone. Research data bear out public perceptions: When young people from low-income backgrounds complete a bachelor’s degree, their income and employment characteristics after graduation are equivalent to their peers from more affluent backgrounds. So, education can truly be "the great equalizer." Although there is widespread public faith in the value of higher education, the progress of massification has been slow and uneven. And why is it slow and uneven? [13-1] Well, one, higher education did not admit significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities until after the civil rights of the 1960s forced change. Second, despite significant expenditures on financial aid, minority and low-income individuals are still less likely to attend college than whites or students from middle- and upper-income families— although access gaps have nowadays narrowed somewhat, large gaps remain between completion rates. [14] Low-income students come to college less prepared, and must balance academic demands with work and family responsibilities. [13-2] Finding ways to increase the enrollment rates of low-income students and encourage their success once enrolled are two of the most important problems facing American higher education. One of the challenges to meet these goals is that they can conflict with the other central tenets of American higher education, that is, market competition and resistance to government control, as I said before. For example, institutional competition for the most academically talented students is likely to encourage increased use of tuition discounting for students who have no financial need, and this could divert resources away from low-income students who need financial aid. Similarly, institutions may seek to distinguish themselves in the academic marketplace by becoming more selective in admissions decisions, thus reducing the number of low-income students admitted. [15] However, a primary role of government is to mediate the potentially negative effects of competition by insisting that institutions adhere to their missions, and that institutions provide need-based financial assistance to students. So, a constant preoccupation of American higher education is this tension between the competitive, ambitious nature of institutions and the interests of government in promoting important public goals, primary among them broad access and widespread success for all students.　　OK. For today’s lecture, we have briefly discussed some of the major challenges facing U. S. higher education, such as the impact of the marketplace on institutions and the tension between competition and promoting public goals.细节归纳题。句[2]提到，政府的支持跟不上教育的开支。原文中的not keeping pace with educational expenditures明显超出了要求的答题字数，因此需要对原文进行归纳总结。“跟不上”可以理解为“不够，不充足”，因此答案可以归纳为insufficient或not enough。

【正确答案】regulation and supervision

【答案解析】原文： Current Challenges Confronting U.S. Higher Education　　Good morning, everyone. In our last lecture, we discussed challenges that face universities and colleges worldwide. Today, we’ll take a special look at U.S. higher education and see what challenges U.S. higher education is facing. OK. Let’s get started. 　　The first challenge we’re examining in today’s lecture is the force of the marketplace on higher education. [1] Many people believe that the marketplace has overtaken state government as the dominant external force shaping and reshaping American higher education, even for public colleges and universities. You may ask, "Why is It so?" [2] Well, as is always the case, government support is not keeping pace with educational expenditures. So in many ways, the market is having more bearing on higher education than government. [3] In order to create more flexibility, many public colleges and universities are now asking for less government regulation and supervision. In some instances, they are even asking for less state money in return for more autonomy. And their argument is that the current structures and accountability requirements have hindered their capacity to be effective and efficient. [4] The ability to set their own tuition fees and secure freedom from state policies and regulations in areas such as purchasing and building represent just some of the additional autonomy that public institutions are seeking. And many are pressing for new legislation to provide this freedom through a range of innovations, including public corporations, charter colleges, state enterprise status, and performance contracts.　　So, what is the result of these efforts? [5/6] Well, the result is that activities and research in certain fields and disciplines, for example, engineering, applied natural science, and agricultural science, become higher institutional priorities because they have stronger market value than other programs, such as humanities, do. So, what has happened is that institutions create new programs, alter academic calendars, and　　pursue different financial aid policies to capture more and better students, in particular, those who can afford to pay high tuition. [7] For instance, executive MBA programs are increasingly popular. Also, institutions seek contracts and partnership agreements, and enhance research programs with practical applications that have large financial payouts. In order to do so, they are changing their institutional structures. And how do they do it? Let me tell you. [8] Institutions would add new units that focus on generating external grants and bringing new technology to market. [9] They would build conference centers and create for-profit subsidiaries. All these are done to generate more revenue for institutions. What are the implications of this? [10] Well, the implications are that academic research is increasingly focused on marketable knowledge, entrepreneurial priorities are taking precedence, services are being outsourced, and students are carrying an increasing burden to pay higher tuition fees for their education.　　Then, how do university administrators view this trend? That is, the marketplace is showing stronger impact on how institutions are run. In fact, university administrators see little option except to respond to the marketplace. The reason is, if their institution does not react effectively, it will not have the necessary resources to offer high-quality and diverse academic programs. Institutions unable to compete may face hard circumstances because government support continues to fall, students become better-informed consumers, and advances in technology also widen the number and reach of competitors. In turn, the ability to compete—for students, resources, faculty, and prestige—becomes the driving strategic force. At its extreme, competition can overtake more traditional academic values. However, the downside of pursing market goals without appropriately balancing them against the public good is ... is that institutions will no longer be able to fulfill their social responsibility to produce well-educated citizens and face the threat of losing their privileged place in society as they resemble more closely other market-driven organizations.　　[11] Now, let’s move on to the second challenge facing U.S. higher education, that is, the tension between competition and equality in admissions decisions. [12] Since World War II, U.S. higher education has been engaged in a process of "massification," that is, expanding to serve students from all walks of life. Motivating this effort is a widespread belief in the power of education to create social and economic mobility and a belief in the morality and social value of making higher education accessible to everyone. Research data bear out public perceptions: When young people from low-income backgrounds complete a bachelor’s degree, their income and employment characteristics after graduation are equivalent to their peers from more affluent backgrounds. So, education can truly be "the great equalizer." Although there is widespread public faith in the value of higher education, the progress of massification has been slow and uneven. And why is it slow and uneven? [13-1] Well, one, higher education did not admit significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities until after the civil rights of the 1960s forced change. Second, despite significant expenditures on financial aid, minority and low-income individuals are still less likely to attend college than whites or students from middle- and upper-income families— although access gaps have nowadays narrowed somewhat, large gaps remain between completion rates. [14] Low-income students come to college less prepared, and must balance academic demands with work and family responsibilities. [13-2] Finding ways to increase the enrollment rates of low-income students and encourage their success once enrolled are two of the most important problems facing American higher education. One of the challenges to meet these goals is that they can conflict with the other central tenets of American higher education, that is, market competition and resistance to government control, as I said before. For example, institutional competition for the most academically talented students is likely to encourage increased use of tuition discounting for students who have no financial need, and this could divert resources away from low-income students who need financial aid. Similarly, institutions may seek to distinguish themselves in the academic marketplace by becoming more selective in admissions decisions, thus reducing the number of low-income students admitted. [15] However, a primary role of government is to mediate the potentially negative effects of competition by insisting that institutions adhere to their missions, and that institutions provide need-based financial assistance to students. So, a constant preoccupation of American higher education is this tension between the competitive, ambitious nature of institutions and the interests of government in promoting important public goals, primary among them broad access and widespread success for all students.　　OK. For today’s lecture, we have briefly discussed some of the major challenges facing U. S. higher education, such as the impact of the marketplace on institutions and the tension between competition and promoting public goals.细节辨认题。句[3]提到，高校为了获得更高的灵活度，要求政府减少对高等教育的管控和监督，原文中的regulation and supervision可以直接用作本题答案。

【正确答案】freedom/autonomy

【答案解析】原文： Current Challenges Confronting U.S. Higher Education　　Good morning, everyone. In our last lecture, we discussed challenges that face universities and colleges worldwide. Today, we’ll take a special look at U.S. higher education and see what challenges U.S. higher education is facing. OK. Let’s get started. 　　The first challenge we’re examining in today’s lecture is the force of the marketplace on higher education. [1] Many people believe that the marketplace has overtaken state government as the dominant external force shaping and reshaping American higher education, even for public colleges and universities. You may ask, "Why is It so?" [2] Well, as is always the case, government support is not keeping pace with educational expenditures. So in many ways, the market is having more bearing on higher education than government. [3] In order to create more flexibility, many public colleges and universities are now asking for less government regulation and supervision. In some instances, they are even asking for less state money in return for more autonomy. And their argument is that the current structures and accountability requirements have hindered their capacity to be effective and efficient. [4] The ability to set their own tuition fees and secure freedom from state policies and regulations in areas such as purchasing and building represent just some of the additional autonomy that public institutions are seeking. And many are pressing for new legislation to provide this freedom through a range of innovations, including public corporations, charter colleges, state enterprise status, and performance contracts.　　So, what is the result of these efforts? [5/6] Well, the result is that activities and research in certain fields and disciplines, for example, engineering, applied natural science, and agricultural science, become higher institutional priorities because they have stronger market value than other programs, such as humanities, do. So, what has happened is that institutions create new programs, alter academic calendars, and　　pursue different financial aid policies to capture more and better students, in particular, those who can afford to pay high tuition. [7] For instance, executive MBA programs are increasingly popular. Also, institutions seek contracts and partnership agreements, and enhance research programs with practical applications that have large financial payouts. In order to do so, they are changing their institutional structures. And how do they do it? Let me tell you. [8] Institutions would add new units that focus on generating external grants and bringing new technology to market. [9] They would build conference centers and create for-profit subsidiaries. All these are done to generate more revenue for institutions. What are the implications of this? [10] Well, the implications are that academic research is increasingly focused on marketable knowledge, entrepreneurial priorities are taking precedence, services are being outsourced, and students are carrying an increasing burden to pay higher tuition fees for their education.　　Then, how do university administrators view this trend? That is, the marketplace is showing stronger impact on how institutions are run. In fact, university administrators see little option except to respond to the marketplace. The reason is, if their institution does not react effectively, it will not have the necessary resources to offer high-quality and diverse academic programs. Institutions unable to compete may face hard circumstances because government support continues to fall, students become better-informed consumers, and advances in technology also widen the number and reach of competitors. In turn, the ability to compete—for students, resources, faculty, and prestige—becomes the driving strategic force. At its extreme, competition can overtake more traditional academic values. However, the downside of pursing market goals without appropriately balancing them against the public good is ... is that institutions will no longer be able to fulfill their social responsibility to produce well-educated citizens and face the threat of losing their privileged place in society as they resemble more closely other market-driven organizations.　　[11] Now, let’s move on to the second challenge facing U.S. higher education, that is, the tension between competition and equality in admissions decisions. [12] Since World War II, U.S. higher education has been engaged in a process of "massification," that is, expanding to serve students from all walks of life. Motivating this effort is a widespread belief in the power of education to create social and economic mobility and a belief in the morality and social value of making higher education accessible to everyone. Research data bear out public perceptions: When young people from low-income backgrounds complete a bachelor’s degree, their income and employment characteristics after graduation are equivalent to their peers from more affluent backgrounds. So, education can truly be "the great equalizer." Although there is widespread public faith in the value of higher education, the progress of massification has been slow and uneven. And why is it slow and uneven? [13-1] Well, one, higher education did not admit significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities until after the civil rights of the 1960s forced change. Second, despite significant expenditures on financial aid, minority and low-income individuals are still less likely to attend college than whites or students from middle- and upper-income families— although access gaps have nowadays narrowed somewhat, large gaps remain between completion rates. [14] Low-income students come to college less prepared, and must balance academic demands with work and family responsibilities. [13-2] Finding ways to increase the enrollment rates of low-income students and encourage their success once enrolled are two of the most important problems facing American higher education. One of the challenges to meet these goals is that they can conflict with the other central tenets of American higher education, that is, market competition and resistance to government control, as I said before. For example, institutional competition for the most academically talented students is likely to encourage increased use of tuition discounting for students who have no financial need, and this could divert resources away from low-income students who need financial aid. Similarly, institutions may seek to distinguish themselves in the academic marketplace by becoming more selective in admissions decisions, thus reducing the number of low-income students admitted. [15] However, a primary role of government is to mediate the potentially negative effects of competition by insisting that institutions adhere to their missions, and that institutions provide need-based financial assistance to students. So, a constant preoccupation of American higher education is this tension between the competitive, ambitious nature of institutions and the interests of government in promoting important public goals, primary among them broad access and widespread success for all students.　　OK. For today’s lecture, we have briefly discussed some of the major challenges facing U. S. higher education, such as the impact of the marketplace on institutions and the tension between competition and promoting public goals.细节辨认题。句[4]提到，高校希望能够独立制定学费，并且能够在物资采购和学校修建等方面不受国家政策和法规监管，以实现一定的自主权。因此，他们呼吁出台新的法规，以使他们能够获得这种自由。由此可知，freedom或autonomy均可作为本题答案。

【正确答案】certain fields/certain disciplines

【答案解析】原文： Current Challenges Confronting U.S. Higher Education　　Good morning, everyone. In our last lecture, we discussed challenges that face universities and colleges worldwide. Today, we’ll take a special look at U.S. higher education and see what challenges U.S. higher education is facing. OK. Let’s get started. 　　The first challenge we’re examining in today’s lecture is the force of the marketplace on higher education. [1] Many people believe that the marketplace has overtaken state government as the dominant external force shaping and reshaping American higher education, even for public colleges and universities. You may ask, "Why is It so?" [2] Well, as is always the case, government support is not keeping pace with educational expenditures. So in many ways, the market is having more bearing on higher education than government. [3] In order to create more flexibility, many public colleges and universities are now asking for less government regulation and supervision. In some instances, they are even asking for less state money in return for more autonomy. And their argument is that the current structures and accountability requirements have hindered their capacity to be effective and efficient. [4] The ability to set their own tuition fees and secure freedom from state policies and regulations in areas such as purchasing and building represent just some of the additional autonomy that public institutions are seeking. And many are pressing for new legislation to provide this freedom through a range of innovations, including public corporations, charter colleges, state enterprise status, and performance contracts.　　So, what is the result of these efforts? [5/6] Well, the result is that activities and research in certain fields and disciplines, for example, engineering, applied natural science, and agricultural science, become higher institutional priorities because they have stronger market value than other programs, such as humanities, do. So, what has happened is that institutions create new programs, alter academic calendars, and　　pursue different financial aid policies to capture more and better students, in particular, those who can afford to pay high tuition. [7] For instance, executive MBA programs are increasingly popular. Also, institutions seek contracts and partnership agreements, and enhance research programs with practical applications that have large financial payouts. In order to do so, they are changing their institutional structures. And how do they do it? Let me tell you. [8] Institutions would add new units that focus on generating external grants and bringing new technology to market. [9] They would build conference centers and create for-profit subsidiaries. All these are done to generate more revenue for institutions. What are the implications of this? [10] Well, the implications are that academic research is increasingly focused on marketable knowledge, entrepreneurial priorities are taking precedence, services are being outsourced, and students are carrying an increasing burden to pay higher tuition fees for their education.　　Then, how do university administrators view this trend? That is, the marketplace is showing stronger impact on how institutions are run. In fact, university administrators see little option except to respond to the marketplace. The reason is, if their institution does not react effectively, it will not have the necessary resources to offer high-quality and diverse academic programs. Institutions unable to compete may face hard circumstances because government support continues to fall, students become better-informed consumers, and advances in technology also widen the number and reach of competitors. In turn, the ability to compete—for students, resources, faculty, and prestige—becomes the driving strategic force. At its extreme, competition can overtake more traditional academic values. However, the downside of pursing market goals without appropriately balancing them against the public good is ... is that institutions will no longer be able to fulfill their social responsibility to produce well-educated citizens and face the threat of losing their privileged place in society as they resemble more closely other market-driven organizations.　　[11] Now, let’s move on to the second challenge facing U.S. higher education, that is, the tension between competition and equality in admissions decisions. [12] Since World War II, U.S. higher education has been engaged in a process of "massification," that is, expanding to serve students from all walks of life. Motivating this effort is a widespread belief in the power of education to create social and economic mobility and a belief in the morality and social value of making higher education accessible to everyone. Research data bear out public perceptions: When young people from low-income backgrounds complete a bachelor’s degree, their income and employment characteristics after graduation are equivalent to their peers from more affluent backgrounds. So, education can truly be "the great equalizer." Although there is widespread public faith in the value of higher education, the progress of massification has been slow and uneven. And why is it slow and uneven? [13-1] Well, one, higher education did not admit significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities until after the civil rights of the 1960s forced change. Second, despite significant expenditures on financial aid, minority and low-income individuals are still less likely to attend college than whites or students from middle- and upper-income families— although access gaps have nowadays narrowed somewhat, large gaps remain between completion rates. [14] Low-income students come to college less prepared, and must balance academic demands with work and family responsibilities. [13-2] Finding ways to increase the enrollment rates of low-income students and encourage their success once enrolled are two of the most important problems facing American higher education. One of the challenges to meet these goals is that they can conflict with the other central tenets of American higher education, that is, market competition and resistance to government control, as I said before. For example, institutional competition for the most academically talented students is likely to encourage increased use of tuition discounting for students who have no financial need, and this could divert resources away from low-income students who need financial aid. Similarly, institutions may seek to distinguish themselves in the academic marketplace by becoming more selective in admissions decisions, thus reducing the number of low-income students admitted. [15] However, a primary role of government is to mediate the potentially negative effects of competition by insisting that institutions adhere to their missions, and that institutions provide need-based financial assistance to students. So, a constant preoccupation of American higher education is this tension between the competitive, ambitious nature of institutions and the interests of government in promoting important public goals, primary among them broad access and widespread success for all students.　　OK. For today’s lecture, we have briefly discussed some of the major challenges facing U. S. higher education, such as the impact of the marketplace on institutions and the tension between competition and promoting public goals.细节归纳题。句[5]提到，高校对于如engineering，applied natural science，agricultural science等领域给予了更高的优先权，因为字数限制，仅选用了原文中的certain fields或certain disciplines作为答案。如果不加certain，而仅将field sand disciplines作为答案，则无法表达出是某一部分学科和领域受到重视，因此certain一词不可省略。

【正确答案】stronger market value

【答案解析】原文： Current Challenges Confronting U.S. Higher Education　　Good morning, everyone. In our last lecture, we discussed challenges that face universities and colleges worldwide. Today, we’ll take a special look at U.S. higher education and see what challenges U.S. higher education is facing. OK. Let’s get started. 　　The first challenge we’re examining in today’s lecture is the force of the marketplace on higher education. [1] Many people believe that the marketplace has overtaken state government as the dominant external force shaping and reshaping American higher education, even for public colleges and universities. You may ask, "Why is It so?" [2] Well, as is always the case, government support is not keeping pace with educational expenditures. So in many ways, the market is having more bearing on higher education than government. [3] In order to create more flexibility, many public colleges and universities are now asking for less government regulation and supervision. In some instances, they are even asking for less state money in return for more autonomy. And their argument is that the current structures and accountability requirements have hindered their capacity to be effective and efficient. [4] The ability to set their own tuition fees and secure freedom from state policies and regulations in areas such as purchasing and building represent just some of the additional autonomy that public institutions are seeking. And many are pressing for new legislation to provide this freedom through a range of innovations, including public corporations, charter colleges, state enterprise status, and performance contracts.　　So, what is the result of these efforts? [5/6] Well, the result is that activities and research in certain fields and disciplines, for example, engineering, applied natural science, and agricultural science, become higher institutional priorities because they have stronger market value than other programs, such as humanities, do. So, what has happened is that institutions create new programs, alter academic calendars, and　　pursue different financial aid policies to capture more and better students, in particular, those who can afford to pay high tuition. [7] For instance, executive MBA programs are increasingly popular. Also, institutions seek contracts and partnership agreements, and enhance research programs with practical applications that have large financial payouts. In order to do so, they are changing their institutional structures. And how do they do it? Let me tell you. [8] Institutions would add new units that focus on generating external grants and bringing new technology to market. [9] They would build conference centers and create for-profit subsidiaries. All these are done to generate more revenue for institutions. What are the implications of this? [10] Well, the implications are that academic research is increasingly focused on marketable knowledge, entrepreneurial priorities are taking precedence, services are being outsourced, and students are carrying an increasing burden to pay higher tuition fees for their education.　　Then, how do university administrators view this trend? That is, the marketplace is showing stronger impact on how institutions are run. In fact, university administrators see little option except to respond to the marketplace. The reason is, if their institution does not react effectively, it will not have the necessary resources to offer high-quality and diverse academic programs. Institutions unable to compete may face hard circumstances because government support continues to fall, students become better-informed consumers, and advances in technology also widen the number and reach of competitors. In turn, the ability to compete—for students, resources, faculty, and prestige—becomes the driving strategic force. At its extreme, competition can overtake more traditional academic values. However, the downside of pursing market goals without appropriately balancing them against the public good is ... is that institutions will no longer be able to fulfill their social responsibility to produce well-educated citizens and face the threat of losing their privileged place in society as they resemble more closely other market-driven organizations.　　[11] Now, let’s move on to the second challenge facing U.S. higher education, that is, the tension between competition and equality in admissions decisions. [12] Since World War II, U.S. higher education has been engaged in a process of "massification," that is, expanding to serve students from all walks of life. Motivating this effort is a widespread belief in the power of education to create social and economic mobility and a belief in the morality and social value of making higher education accessible to everyone. Research data bear out public perceptions: When young people from low-income backgrounds complete a bachelor’s degree, their income and employment characteristics after graduation are equivalent to their peers from more affluent backgrounds. So, education can truly be "the great equalizer." Although there is widespread public faith in the value of higher education, the progress of massification has been slow and uneven. And why is it slow and uneven? [13-1] Well, one, higher education did not admit significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities until after the civil rights of the 1960s forced change. Second, despite significant expenditures on financial aid, minority and low-income individuals are still less likely to attend college than whites or students from middle- and upper-income families— although access gaps have nowadays narrowed somewhat, large gaps remain between completion rates. [14] Low-income students come to college less prepared, and must balance academic demands with work and family responsibilities. [13-2] Finding ways to increase the enrollment rates of low-income students and encourage their success once enrolled are two of the most important problems facing American higher education. One of the challenges to meet these goals is that they can conflict with the other central tenets of American higher education, that is, market competition and resistance to government control, as I said before. For example, institutional competition for the most academically talented students is likely to encourage increased use of tuition discounting for students who have no financial need, and this could divert resources away from low-income students who need financial aid. Similarly, institutions may seek to distinguish themselves in the academic marketplace by becoming more selective in admissions decisions, thus reducing the number of low-income students admitted. [15] However, a primary role of government is to mediate the potentially negative effects of competition by insisting that institutions adhere to their missions, and that institutions provide need-based financial assistance to students. So, a constant preoccupation of American higher education is this tension between the competitive, ambitious nature of institutions and the interests of government in promoting important public goals, primary among them broad access and widespread success for all students.　　OK. For today’s lecture, we have briefly discussed some of the major challenges facing U. S. higher education, such as the impact of the marketplace on institutions and the tension between competition and promoting public goals.细节辨认题。本题与第5题关联紧密，讲座中提到，高校对某些领域和学科给予了特殊重视，是因为与其他学科相比，这些领域有着更大的市场价值。因此，本题答案为stronger market value。

【正确答案】executive MBA programs

【答案解析】原文： Current Challenges Confronting U.S. Higher Education　　Good morning, everyone. In our last lecture, we discussed challenges that face universities and colleges worldwide. Today, we’ll take a special look at U.S. higher education and see what challenges U.S. higher education is facing. OK. Let’s get started. 　　The first challenge we’re examining in today’s lecture is the force of the marketplace on higher education. [1] Many people believe that the marketplace has overtaken state government as the dominant external force shaping and reshaping American higher education, even for public colleges and universities. You may ask, "Why is It so?" [2] Well, as is always the case, government support is not keeping pace with educational expenditures. So in many ways, the market is having more bearing on higher education than government. [3] In order to create more flexibility, many public colleges and universities are now asking for less government regulation and supervision. In some instances, they are even asking for less state money in return for more autonomy. And their argument is that the current structures and accountability requirements have hindered their capacity to be effective and efficient. [4] The ability to set their own tuition fees and secure freedom from state policies and regulations in areas such as purchasing and building represent just some of the additional autonomy that public institutions are seeking. And many are pressing for new legislation to provide this freedom through a range of innovations, including public corporations, charter colleges, state enterprise status, and performance contracts.　　So, what is the result of these efforts? [5/6] Well, the result is that activities and research in certain fields and disciplines, for example, engineering, applied natural science, and agricultural science, become higher institutional priorities because they have stronger market value than other programs, such as humanities, do. So, what has happened is that institutions create new programs, alter academic calendars, and　　pursue different financial aid policies to capture more and better students, in particular, those who can afford to pay high tuition. [7] For instance, executive MBA programs are increasingly popular. Also, institutions seek contracts and partnership agreements, and enhance research programs with practical applications that have large financial payouts. In order to do so, they are changing their institutional structures. And how do they do it? Let me tell you. [8] Institutions would add new units that focus on generating external grants and bringing new technology to market. [9] They would build conference centers and create for-profit subsidiaries. All these are done to generate more revenue for institutions. What are the implications of this? [10] Well, the implications are that academic research is increasingly focused on marketable knowledge, entrepreneurial priorities are taking precedence, services are being outsourced, and students are carrying an increasing burden to pay higher tuition fees for their education.　　Then, how do university administrators view this trend? That is, the marketplace is showing stronger impact on how institutions are run. In fact, university administrators see little option except to respond to the marketplace. The reason is, if their institution does not react effectively, it will not have the necessary resources to offer high-quality and diverse academic programs. Institutions unable to compete may face hard circumstances because government support continues to fall, students become better-informed consumers, and advances in technology also widen the number and reach of competitors. In turn, the ability to compete—for students, resources, faculty, and prestige—becomes the driving strategic force. At its extreme, competition can overtake more traditional academic values. However, the downside of pursing market goals without appropriately balancing them against the public good is ... is that institutions will no longer be able to fulfill their social responsibility to produce well-educated citizens and face the threat of losing their privileged place in society as they resemble more closely other market-driven organizations.　　[11] Now, let’s move on to the second challenge facing U.S. higher education, that is, the tension between competition and equality in admissions decisions. [12] Since World War II, U.S. higher education has been engaged in a process of "massification," that is, expanding to serve students from all walks of life. Motivating this effort is a widespread belief in the power of education to create social and economic mobility and a belief in the morality and social value of making higher education accessible to everyone. Research data bear out public perceptions: When young people from low-income backgrounds complete a bachelor’s degree, their income and employment characteristics after graduation are equivalent to their peers from more affluent backgrounds. So, education can truly be "the great equalizer." Although there is widespread public faith in the value of higher education, the progress of massification has been slow and uneven. And why is it slow and uneven? [13-1] Well, one, higher education did not admit significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities until after the civil rights of the 1960s forced change. Second, despite significant expenditures on financial aid, minority and low-income individuals are still less likely to attend college than whites or students from middle- and upper-income families— although access gaps have nowadays narrowed somewhat, large gaps remain between completion rates. [14] Low-income students come to college less prepared, and must balance academic demands with work and family responsibilities. [13-2] Finding ways to increase the enrollment rates of low-income students and encourage their success once enrolled are two of the most important problems facing American higher education. One of the challenges to meet these goals is that they can conflict with the other central tenets of American higher education, that is, market competition and resistance to government control, as I said before. For example, institutional competition for the most academically talented students is likely to encourage increased use of tuition discounting for students who have no financial need, and this could divert resources away from low-income students who need financial aid. Similarly, institutions may seek to distinguish themselves in the academic marketplace by becoming more selective in admissions decisions, thus reducing the number of low-income students admitted. [15] However, a primary role of government is to mediate the potentially negative effects of competition by insisting that institutions adhere to their missions, and that institutions provide need-based financial assistance to students. So, a constant preoccupation of American higher education is this tension between the competitive, ambitious nature of institutions and the interests of government in promoting important public goals, primary among them broad access and widespread success for all students.　　OK. For today’s lecture, we have briefly discussed some of the major challenges facing U. S. higher education, such as the impact of the marketplace on institutions and the tension between competition and promoting public goals.细节辨认题。讲座中提到，高校通过设立新课程、变更学年安排、出台新的资助政策来吸引更多更优质的生源，尤其是付得起高额学费的学生。由句[7]可知，executive MBA programs就是其中之一。因此，本题答案为executive MBA programs。

【正确答案】external grants

【答案解析】原文： Current Challenges Confronting U.S. Higher Education　　Good morning, everyone. In our last lecture, we discussed challenges that face universities and colleges worldwide. Today, we’ll take a special look at U.S. higher education and see what challenges U.S. higher education is facing. OK. Let’s get started. 　　The first challenge we’re examining in today’s lecture is the force of the marketplace on higher education. [1] Many people believe that the marketplace has overtaken state government as the dominant external force shaping and reshaping American higher education, even for public colleges and universities. You may ask, "Why is It so?" [2] Well, as is always the case, government support is not keeping pace with educational expenditures. So in many ways, the market is having more bearing on higher education than government. [3] In order to create more flexibility, many public colleges and universities are now asking for less government regulation and supervision. In some instances, they are even asking for less state money in return for more autonomy. And their argument is that the current structures and accountability requirements have hindered their capacity to be effective and efficient. [4] The ability to set their own tuition fees and secure freedom from state policies and regulations in areas such as purchasing and building represent just some of the additional autonomy that public institutions are seeking. And many are pressing for new legislation to provide this freedom through a range of innovations, including public corporations, charter colleges, state enterprise status, and performance contracts.　　So, what is the result of these efforts? [5/6] Well, the result is that activities and research in certain fields and disciplines, for example, engineering, applied natural science, and agricultural science, become higher institutional priorities because they have stronger market value than other programs, such as humanities, do. So, what has happened is that institutions create new programs, alter academic calendars, and　　pursue different financial aid policies to capture more and better students, in particular, those who can afford to pay high tuition. [7] For instance, executive MBA programs are increasingly popular. Also, institutions seek contracts and partnership agreements, and enhance research programs with practical applications that have large financial payouts. In order to do so, they are changing their institutional structures. And how do they do it? Let me tell you. [8] Institutions would add new units that focus on generating external grants and bringing new technology to market. [9] They would build conference centers and create for-profit subsidiaries. All these are done to generate more revenue for institutions. What are the implications of this? [10] Well, the implications are that academic research is increasingly focused on marketable knowledge, entrepreneurial priorities are taking precedence, services are being outsourced, and students are carrying an increasing burden to pay higher tuition fees for their education.　　Then, how do university administrators view this trend? That is, the marketplace is showing stronger impact on how institutions are run. In fact, university administrators see little option except to respond to the marketplace. The reason is, if their institution does not react effectively, it will not have the necessary resources to offer high-quality and diverse academic programs. Institutions unable to compete may face hard circumstances because government support continues to fall, students become better-informed consumers, and advances in technology also widen the number and reach of competitors. In turn, the ability to compete—for students, resources, faculty, and prestige—becomes the driving strategic force. At its extreme, competition can overtake more traditional academic values. However, the downside of pursing market goals without appropriately balancing them against the public good is ... is that institutions will no longer be able to fulfill their social responsibility to produce well-educated citizens and face the threat of losing their privileged place in society as they resemble more closely other market-driven organizations.　　[11] Now, let’s move on to the second challenge facing U.S. higher education, that is, the tension between competition and equality in admissions decisions. [12] Since World War II, U.S. higher education has been engaged in a process of "massification," that is, expanding to serve students from all walks of life. Motivating this effort is a widespread belief in the power of education to create social and economic mobility and a belief in the morality and social value of making higher education accessible to everyone. Research data bear out public perceptions: When young people from low-income backgrounds complete a bachelor’s degree, their income and employment characteristics after graduation are equivalent to their peers from more affluent backgrounds. So, education can truly be "the great equalizer." Although there is widespread public faith in the value of higher education, the progress of massification has been slow and uneven. And why is it slow and uneven? [13-1] Well, one, higher education did not admit significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities until after the civil rights of the 1960s forced change. Second, despite significant expenditures on financial aid, minority and low-income individuals are still less likely to attend college than whites or students from middle- and upper-income families— although access gaps have nowadays narrowed somewhat, large gaps remain between completion rates. [14] Low-income students come to college less prepared, and must balance academic demands with work and family responsibilities. [13-2] Finding ways to increase the enrollment rates of low-income students and encourage their success once enrolled are two of the most important problems facing American higher education. One of the challenges to meet these goals is that they can conflict with the other central tenets of American higher education, that is, market competition and resistance to government control, as I said before. For example, institutional competition for the most academically talented students is likely to encourage increased use of tuition discounting for students who have no financial need, and this could divert resources away from low-income students who need financial aid. Similarly, institutions may seek to distinguish themselves in the academic marketplace by becoming more selective in admissions decisions, thus reducing the number of low-income students admitted. [15] However, a primary role of government is to mediate the potentially negative effects of competition by insisting that institutions adhere to their missions, and that institutions provide need-based financial assistance to students. So, a constant preoccupation of American higher education is this tension between the competitive, ambitious nature of institutions and the interests of government in promoting important public goals, primary among them broad access and widespread success for all students.　　OK. For today’s lecture, we have briefly discussed some of the major challenges facing U. S. higher education, such as the impact of the marketplace on institutions and the tension between competition and promoting public goals.细节辨认题。句[8]提到，高等教育机构会设立新的部门，这些部门将会着重吸引外部研究资金。因此，本题答案为external grants。

【正确答案】conference centers

【答案解析】原文： Current Challenges Confronting U.S. Higher Education　　Good morning, everyone. In our last lecture, we discussed challenges that face universities and colleges worldwide. Today, we’ll take a special look at U.S. higher education and see what challenges U.S. higher education is facing. OK. Let’s get started. 　　The first challenge we’re examining in today’s lecture is the force of the marketplace on higher education. [1] Many people believe that the marketplace has overtaken state government as the dominant external force shaping and reshaping American higher education, even for public colleges and universities. You may ask, "Why is It so?" [2] Well, as is always the case, government support is not keeping pace with educational expenditures. So in many ways, the market is having more bearing on higher education than government. [3] In order to create more flexibility, many public colleges and universities are now asking for less government regulation and supervision. In some instances, they are even asking for less state money in return for more autonomy. And their argument is that the current structures and accountability requirements have hindered their capacity to be effective and efficient. [4] The ability to set their own tuition fees and secure freedom from state policies and regulations in areas such as purchasing and building represent just some of the additional autonomy that public institutions are seeking. And many are pressing for new legislation to provide this freedom through a range of innovations, including public corporations, charter colleges, state enterprise status, and performance contracts.　　So, what is the result of these efforts? [5/6] Well, the result is that activities and research in certain fields and disciplines, for example, engineering, applied natural science, and agricultural science, become higher institutional priorities because they have stronger market value than other programs, such as humanities, do. So, what has happened is that institutions create new programs, alter academic calendars, and　　pursue different financial aid policies to capture more and better students, in particular, those who can afford to pay high tuition. [7] For instance, executive MBA programs are increasingly popular. Also, institutions seek contracts and partnership agreements, and enhance research programs with practical applications that have large financial payouts. In order to do so, they are changing their institutional structures. And how do they do it? Let me tell you. [8] Institutions would add new units that focus on generating external grants and bringing new technology to market. [9] They would build conference centers and create for-profit subsidiaries. All these are done to generate more revenue for institutions. What are the implications of this? [10] Well, the implications are that academic research is increasingly focused on marketable knowledge, entrepreneurial priorities are taking precedence, services are being outsourced, and students are carrying an increasing burden to pay higher tuition fees for their education.　　Then, how do university administrators view this trend? That is, the marketplace is showing stronger impact on how institutions are run. In fact, university administrators see little option except to respond to the marketplace. The reason is, if their institution does not react effectively, it will not have the necessary resources to offer high-quality and diverse academic programs. Institutions unable to compete may face hard circumstances because government support continues to fall, students become better-informed consumers, and advances in technology also widen the number and reach of competitors. In turn, the ability to compete—for students, resources, faculty, and prestige—becomes the driving strategic force. At its extreme, competition can overtake more traditional academic values. However, the downside of pursing market goals without appropriately balancing them against the public good is ... is that institutions will no longer be able to fulfill their social responsibility to produce well-educated citizens and face the threat of losing their privileged place in society as they resemble more closely other market-driven organizations.　　[11] Now, let’s move on to the second challenge facing U.S. higher education, that is, the tension between competition and equality in admissions decisions. [12] Since World War II, U.S. higher education has been engaged in a process of "massification," that is, expanding to serve students from all walks of life. Motivating this effort is a widespread belief in the power of education to create social and economic mobility and a belief in the morality and social value of making higher education accessible to everyone. Research data bear out public perceptions: When young people from low-income backgrounds complete a bachelor’s degree, their income and employment characteristics after graduation are equivalent to their peers from more affluent backgrounds. So, education can truly be "the great equalizer." Although there is widespread public faith in the value of higher education, the progress of massification has been slow and uneven. And why is it slow and uneven? [13-1] Well, one, higher education did not admit significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities until after the civil rights of the 1960s forced change. Second, despite significant expenditures on financial aid, minority and low-income individuals are still less likely to attend college than whites or students from middle- and upper-income families— although access gaps have nowadays narrowed somewhat, large gaps remain between completion rates. [14] Low-income students come to college less prepared, and must balance academic demands with work and family responsibilities. [13-2] Finding ways to increase the enrollment rates of low-income students and encourage their success once enrolled are two of the most important problems facing American higher education. One of the challenges to meet these goals is that they can conflict with the other central tenets of American higher education, that is, market competition and resistance to government control, as I said before. For example, institutional competition for the most academically talented students is likely to encourage increased use of tuition discounting for students who have no financial need, and this could divert resources away from low-income students who need financial aid. Similarly, institutions may seek to distinguish themselves in the academic marketplace by becoming more selective in admissions decisions, thus reducing the number of low-income students admitted. [15] However, a primary role of government is to mediate the potentially negative effects of competition by insisting that institutions adhere to their missions, and that institutions provide need-based financial assistance to students. So, a constant preoccupation of American higher education is this tension between the competitive, ambitious nature of institutions and the interests of government in promoting important public goals, primary among them broad access and widespread success for all students.　　OK. For today’s lecture, we have briefly discussed some of the major challenges facing U. S. higher education, such as the impact of the marketplace on institutions and the tension between competition and promoting public goals.conference centers细节辨认题。句[9]提到，高等教育机构还将建造会议中心，设立盈利性附属机构。因此，本题答案为conference centers。

【正确答案】marketable knowledge

【答案解析】原文： Current Challenges Confronting U.S. Higher Education　　Good morning, everyone. In our last lecture, we discussed challenges that face universities and colleges worldwide. Today, we’ll take a special look at U.S. higher education and see what challenges U.S. higher education is facing. OK. Let’s get started. 　　The first challenge we’re examining in today’s lecture is the force of the marketplace on higher education. [1] Many people believe that the marketplace has overtaken state government as the dominant external force shaping and reshaping American higher education, even for public colleges and universities. You may ask, "Why is It so?" [2] Well, as is always the case, government support is not keeping pace with educational expenditures. So in many ways, the market is having more bearing on higher education than government. [3] In order to create more flexibility, many public colleges and universities are now asking for less government regulation and supervision. In some instances, they are even asking for less state money in return for more autonomy. And their argument is that the current structures and accountability requirements have hindered their capacity to be effective and efficient. [4] The ability to set their own tuition fees and secure freedom from state policies and regulations in areas such as purchasing and building represent just some of the additional autonomy that public institutions are seeking. And many are pressing for new legislation to provide this freedom through a range of innovations, including public corporations, charter colleges, state enterprise status, and performance contracts.　　So, what is the result of these efforts? [5/6] Well, the result is that activities and research in certain fields and disciplines, for example, engineering, applied natural science, and agricultural science, become higher institutional priorities because they have stronger market value than other programs, such as humanities, do. So, what has happened is that institutions create new programs, alter academic calendars, and　　pursue different financial aid policies to capture more and better students, in particular, those who can afford to pay high tuition. [7] For instance, executive MBA programs are increasingly popular. Also, institutions seek contracts and partnership agreements, and enhance research programs with practical applications that have large financial payouts. In order to do so, they are changing their institutional structures. And how do they do it? Let me tell you. [8] Institutions would add new units that focus on generating external grants and bringing new technology to market. [9] They would build conference centers and create for-profit subsidiaries. All these are done to generate more revenue for institutions. What are the implications of this? [10] Well, the implications are that academic research is increasingly focused on marketable knowledge, entrepreneurial priorities are taking precedence, services are being outsourced, and students are carrying an increasing burden to pay higher tuition fees for their education.　　Then, how do university administrators view this trend? That is, the marketplace is showing stronger impact on how institutions are run. In fact, university administrators see little option except to respond to the marketplace. The reason is, if their institution does not react effectively, it will not have the necessary resources to offer high-quality and diverse academic programs. Institutions unable to compete may face hard circumstances because government support continues to fall, students become better-informed consumers, and advances in technology also widen the number and reach of competitors. In turn, the ability to compete—for students, resources, faculty, and prestige—becomes the driving strategic force. At its extreme, competition can overtake more traditional academic values. However, the downside of pursing market goals without appropriately balancing them against the public good is ... is that institutions will no longer be able to fulfill their social responsibility to produce well-educated citizens and face the threat of losing their privileged place in society as they resemble more closely other market-driven organizations.　　[11] Now, let’s move on to the second challenge facing U.S. higher education, that is, the tension between competition and equality in admissions decisions. [12] Since World War II, U.S. higher education has been engaged in a process of "massification," that is, expanding to serve students from all walks of life. Motivating this effort is a widespread belief in the power of education to create social and economic mobility and a belief in the morality and social value of making higher education accessible to everyone. Research data bear out public perceptions: When young people from low-income backgrounds complete a bachelor’s degree, their income and employment characteristics after graduation are equivalent to their peers from more affluent backgrounds. So, education can truly be "the great equalizer." Although there is widespread public faith in the value of higher education, the progress of massification has been slow and uneven. And why is it slow and uneven? [13-1] Well, one, higher education did not admit significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities until after the civil rights of the 1960s forced change. Second, despite significant expenditures on financial aid, minority and low-income individuals are still less likely to attend college than whites or students from middle- and upper-income families— although access gaps have nowadays narrowed somewhat, large gaps remain between completion rates. [14] Low-income students come to college less prepared, and must balance academic demands with work and family responsibilities. [13-2] Finding ways to increase the enrollment rates of low-income students and encourage their success once enrolled are two of the most important problems facing American higher education. One of the challenges to meet these goals is that they can conflict with the other central tenets of American higher education, that is, market competition and resistance to government control, as I said before. For example, institutional competition for the most academically talented students is likely to encourage increased use of tuition discounting for students who have no financial need, and this could divert resources away from low-income students who need financial aid. Similarly, institutions may seek to distinguish themselves in the academic marketplace by becoming more selective in admissions decisions, thus reducing the number of low-income students admitted. [15] However, a primary role of government is to mediate the potentially negative effects of competition by insisting that institutions adhere to their missions, and that institutions provide need-based financial assistance to students. So, a constant preoccupation of American higher education is this tension between the competitive, ambitious nature of institutions and the interests of government in promoting important public goals, primary among them broad access and widespread success for all students.　　OK. For today’s lecture, we have briefly discussed some of the major challenges facing U. S. higher education, such as the impact of the marketplace on institutions and the tension between competition and promoting public goals.细节辨认题。讲座对高等教育机构的一系列措施进行了分析，点明他们这样做的后果是学术研究越来越偏向市场相关领域，企业的需求会被优先考虑，服务开始外包，学生也将面临越来越大的学费压力。原文中的marketable knowledge可直接作为本题答案。

【正确答案】admissions decisions

【答案解析】原文： Current Challenges Confronting U.S. Higher Education　　Good morning, everyone. In our last lecture, we discussed challenges that face universities and colleges worldwide. Today, we’ll take a special look at U.S. higher education and see what challenges U.S. higher education is facing. OK. Let’s get started. 　　The first challenge we’re examining in today’s lecture is the force of the marketplace on higher education. [1] Many people believe that the marketplace has overtaken state government as the dominant external force shaping and reshaping American higher education, even for public colleges and universities. You may ask, "Why is It so?" [2] Well, as is always the case, government support is not keeping pace with educational expenditures. So in many ways, the market is having more bearing on higher education than government. [3] In order to create more flexibility, many public colleges and universities are now asking for less government regulation and supervision. In some instances, they are even asking for less state money in return for more autonomy. And their argument is that the current structures and accountability requirements have hindered their capacity to be effective and efficient. [4] The ability to set their own tuition fees and secure freedom from state policies and regulations in areas such as purchasing and building represent just some of the additional autonomy that public institutions are seeking. And many are pressing for new legislation to provide this freedom through a range of innovations, including public corporations, charter colleges, state enterprise status, and performance contracts.　　So, what is the result of these efforts? [5/6] Well, the result is that activities and research in certain fields and disciplines, for example, engineering, applied natural science, and agricultural science, become higher institutional priorities because they have stronger market value than other programs, such as humanities, do. So, what has happened is that institutions create new programs, alter academic calendars, and　　pursue different financial aid policies to capture more and better students, in particular, those who can afford to pay high tuition. [7] For instance, executive MBA programs are increasingly popular. Also, institutions seek contracts and partnership agreements, and enhance research programs with practical applications that have large financial payouts. In order to do so, they are changing their institutional structures. And how do they do it? Let me tell you. [8] Institutions would add new units that focus on generating external grants and bringing new technology to market. [9] They would build conference centers and create for-profit subsidiaries. All these are done to generate more revenue for institutions. What are the implications of this? [10] Well, the implications are that academic research is increasingly focused on marketable knowledge, entrepreneurial priorities are taking precedence, services are being outsourced, and students are carrying an increasing burden to pay higher tuition fees for their education.　　Then, how do university administrators view this trend? That is, the marketplace is showing stronger impact on how institutions are run. In fact, university administrators see little option except to respond to the marketplace. The reason is, if their institution does not react effectively, it will not have the necessary resources to offer high-quality and diverse academic programs. Institutions unable to compete may face hard circumstances because government support continues to fall, students become better-informed consumers, and advances in technology also widen the number and reach of competitors. In turn, the ability to compete—for students, resources, faculty, and prestige—becomes the driving strategic force. At its extreme, competition can overtake more traditional academic values. However, the downside of pursing market goals without appropriately balancing them against the public good is ... is that institutions will no longer be able to fulfill their social responsibility to produce well-educated citizens and face the threat of losing their privileged place in society as they resemble more closely other market-driven organizations.　　[11] Now, let’s move on to the second challenge facing U.S. higher education, that is, the tension between competition and equality in admissions decisions. [12] Since World War II, U.S. higher education has been engaged in a process of "massification," that is, expanding to serve students from all walks of life. Motivating this effort is a widespread belief in the power of education to create social and economic mobility and a belief in the morality and social value of making higher education accessible to everyone. Research data bear out public perceptions: When young people from low-income backgrounds complete a bachelor’s degree, their income and employment characteristics after graduation are equivalent to their peers from more affluent backgrounds. So, education can truly be "the great equalizer." Although there is widespread public faith in the value of higher education, the progress of massification has been slow and uneven. And why is it slow and uneven? [13-1] Well, one, higher education did not admit significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities until after the civil rights of the 1960s forced change. Second, despite significant expenditures on financial aid, minority and low-income individuals are still less likely to attend college than whites or students from middle- and upper-income families— although access gaps have nowadays narrowed somewhat, large gaps remain between completion rates. [14] Low-income students come to college less prepared, and must balance academic demands with work and family responsibilities. [13-2] Finding ways to increase the enrollment rates of low-income students and encourage their success once enrolled are two of the most important problems facing American higher education. One of the challenges to meet these goals is that they can conflict with the other central tenets of American higher education, that is, market competition and resistance to government control, as I said before. For example, institutional competition for the most academically talented students is likely to encourage increased use of tuition discounting for students who have no financial need, and this could divert resources away from low-income students who need financial aid. Similarly, institutions may seek to distinguish themselves in the academic marketplace by becoming more selective in admissions decisions, thus reducing the number of low-income students admitted. [15] However, a primary role of government is to mediate the potentially negative effects of competition by insisting that institutions adhere to their missions, and that institutions provide need-based financial assistance to students. So, a constant preoccupation of American higher education is this tension between the competitive, ambitious nature of institutions and the interests of government in promoting important public goals, primary among them broad access and widespread success for all students.　　OK. For today’s lecture, we have briefly discussed some of the major challenges facing U. S. higher education, such as the impact of the marketplace on institutions and the tension between competition and promoting public goals.细节辨认题。句[11]明确指出， 高等教育所面临的第二个挑战是竞争与录取公平之间 的紧张关系。由于题目中已经给出了equality in，因此 原文中的admissions decisions可直接作为答案。

【正确答案】serving all students

【答案解析】原文： Current Challenges Confronting U.S. Higher Education　　Good morning, everyone. In our last lecture, we discussed challenges that face universities and colleges worldwide. Today, we’ll take a special look at U.S. higher education and see what challenges U.S. higher education is facing. OK. Let’s get started. 　　The first challenge we’re examining in today’s lecture is the force of the marketplace on higher education. [1] Many people believe that the marketplace has overtaken state government as the dominant external force shaping and reshaping American higher education, even for public colleges and universities. You may ask, "Why is It so?" [2] Well, as is always the case, government support is not keeping pace with educational expenditures. So in many ways, the market is having more bearing on higher education than government. [3] In order to create more flexibility, many public colleges and universities are now asking for less government regulation and supervision. In some instances, they are even asking for less state money in return for more autonomy. And their argument is that the current structures and accountability requirements have hindered their capacity to be effective and efficient. [4] The ability to set their own tuition fees and secure freedom from state policies and regulations in areas such as purchasing and building represent just some of the additional autonomy that public institutions are seeking. And many are pressing for new legislation to provide this freedom through a range of innovations, including public corporations, charter colleges, state enterprise status, and performance contracts.　　So, what is the result of these efforts? [5/6] Well, the result is that activities and research in certain fields and disciplines, for example, engineering, applied natural science, and agricultural science, become higher institutional priorities because they have stronger market value than other programs, such as humanities, do. So, what has happened is that institutions create new programs, alter academic calendars, and　　pursue different financial aid policies to capture more and better students, in particular, those who can afford to pay high tuition. [7] For instance, executive MBA programs are increasingly popular. Also, institutions seek contracts and partnership agreements, and enhance research programs with practical applications that have large financial payouts. In order to do so, they are changing their institutional structures. And how do they do it? Let me tell you. [8] Institutions would add new units that focus on generating external grants and bringing new technology to market. [9] They would build conference centers and create for-profit subsidiaries. All these are done to generate more revenue for institutions. What are the implications of this? [10] Well, the implications are that academic research is increasingly focused on marketable knowledge, entrepreneurial priorities are taking precedence, services are being outsourced, and students are carrying an increasing burden to pay higher tuition fees for their education.　　Then, how do university administrators view this trend? That is, the marketplace is showing stronger impact on how institutions are run. In fact, university administrators see little option except to respond to the marketplace. The reason is, if their institution does not react effectively, it will not have the necessary resources to offer high-quality and diverse academic programs. Institutions unable to compete may face hard circumstances because government support continues to fall, students become better-informed consumers, and advances in technology also widen the number and reach of competitors. In turn, the ability to compete—for students, resources, faculty, and prestige—becomes the driving strategic force. At its extreme, competition can overtake more traditional academic values. However, the downside of pursing market goals without appropriately balancing them against the public good is ... is that institutions will no longer be able to fulfill their social responsibility to produce well-educated citizens and face the threat of losing their privileged place in society as they resemble more closely other market-driven organizations.　　[11] Now, let’s move on to the second challenge facing U.S. higher education, that is, the tension between competition and equality in admissions decisions. [12] Since World War II, U.S. higher education has been engaged in a process of "massification," that is, expanding to serve students from all walks of life. Motivating this effort is a widespread belief in the power of education to create social and economic mobility and a belief in the morality and social value of making higher education accessible to everyone. Research data bear out public perceptions: When young people from low-income backgrounds complete a bachelor’s degree, their income and employment characteristics after graduation are equivalent to their peers from more affluent backgrounds. So, education can truly be "the great equalizer." Although there is widespread public faith in the value of higher education, the progress of massification has been slow and uneven. And why is it slow and uneven? [13-1] Well, one, higher education did not admit significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities until after the civil rights of the 1960s forced change. Second, despite significant expenditures on financial aid, minority and low-income individuals are still less likely to attend college than whites or students from middle- and upper-income families— although access gaps have nowadays narrowed somewhat, large gaps remain between completion rates. [14] Low-income students come to college less prepared, and must balance academic demands with work and family responsibilities. [13-2] Finding ways to increase the enrollment rates of low-income students and encourage their success once enrolled are two of the most important problems facing American higher education. One of the challenges to meet these goals is that they can conflict with the other central tenets of American higher education, that is, market competition and resistance to government control, as I said before. For example, institutional competition for the most academically talented students is likely to encourage increased use of tuition discounting for students who have no financial need, and this could divert resources away from low-income students who need financial aid. Similarly, institutions may seek to distinguish themselves in the academic marketplace by becoming more selective in admissions decisions, thus reducing the number of low-income students admitted. [15] However, a primary role of government is to mediate the potentially negative effects of competition by insisting that institutions adhere to their missions, and that institutions provide need-based financial assistance to students. So, a constant preoccupation of American higher education is this tension between the competitive, ambitious nature of institutions and the interests of government in promoting important public goals, primary among them broad access and widespread success for all students.　　OK. For today’s lecture, we have briefly discussed some of the major challenges facing U. S. higher education, such as the impact of the marketplace on institutions and the tension between competition and promoting public goals.细节归纳题。由句[12]可知，二战后高校呈现出一种“大众化”趋势，也就是说，高校扩招社会中各个阶层的学生，以促进教育机会均等。原文中的expanding to serve students from all walks of life明显超出了要求的答题字数。根据句意，可总结归纳为serving all students。

【正确答案】enrollment rates/admission rates

【答案解析】原文： Current Challenges Confronting U.S. Higher Education　　Good morning, everyone. In our last lecture, we discussed challenges that face universities and colleges worldwide. Today, we’ll take a special look at U.S. higher education and see what challenges U.S. higher education is facing. OK. Let’s get started. 　　The first challenge we’re examining in today’s lecture is the force of the marketplace on higher education. [1] Many people believe that the marketplace has overtaken state government as the dominant external force shaping and reshaping American higher education, even for public colleges and universities. You may ask, "Why is It so?" [2] Well, as is always the case, government support is not keeping pace with educational expenditures. So in many ways, the market is having more bearing on higher education than government. [3] In order to create more flexibility, many public colleges and universities are now asking for less government regulation and supervision. In some instances, they are even asking for less state money in return for more autonomy. And their argument is that the current structures and accountability requirements have hindered their capacity to be effective and efficient. [4] The ability to set their own tuition fees and secure freedom from state policies and regulations in areas such as purchasing and building represent just some of the additional autonomy that public institutions are seeking. And many are pressing for new legislation to provide this freedom through a range of innovations, including public corporations, charter colleges, state enterprise status, and performance contracts.　　So, what is the result of these efforts? [5/6] Well, the result is that activities and research in certain fields and disciplines, for example, engineering, applied natural science, and agricultural science, become higher institutional priorities because they have stronger market value than other programs, such as humanities, do. So, what has happened is that institutions create new programs, alter academic calendars, and　　pursue different financial aid policies to capture more and better students, in particular, those who can afford to pay high tuition. [7] For instance, executive MBA programs are increasingly popular. Also, institutions seek contracts and partnership agreements, and enhance research programs with practical applications that have large financial payouts. In order to do so, they are changing their institutional structures. And how do they do it? Let me tell you. [8] Institutions would add new units that focus on generating external grants and bringing new technology to market. [9] They would build conference centers and create for-profit subsidiaries. All these are done to generate more revenue for institutions. What are the implications of this? [10] Well, the implications are that academic research is increasingly focused on marketable knowledge, entrepreneurial priorities are taking precedence, services are being outsourced, and students are carrying an increasing burden to pay higher tuition fees for their education.　　Then, how do university administrators view this trend? That is, the marketplace is showing stronger impact on how institutions are run. In fact, university administrators see little option except to respond to the marketplace. The reason is, if their institution does not react effectively, it will not have the necessary resources to offer high-quality and diverse academic programs. Institutions unable to compete may face hard circumstances because government support continues to fall, students become better-informed consumers, and advances in technology also widen the number and reach of competitors. In turn, the ability to compete—for students, resources, faculty, and prestige—becomes the driving strategic force. At its extreme, competition can overtake more traditional academic values. However, the downside of pursing market goals without appropriately balancing them against the public good is ... is that institutions will no longer be able to fulfill their social responsibility to produce well-educated citizens and face the threat of losing their privileged place in society as they resemble more closely other market-driven organizations.　　[11] Now, let’s move on to the second challenge facing U.S. higher education, that is, the tension between competition and equality in admissions decisions. [12] Since World War II, U.S. higher education has been engaged in a process of "massification," that is, expanding to serve students from all walks of life. Motivating this effort is a widespread belief in the power of education to create social and economic mobility and a belief in the morality and social value of making higher education accessible to everyone. Research data bear out public perceptions: When young people from low-income backgrounds complete a bachelor’s degree, their income and employment characteristics after graduation are equivalent to their peers from more affluent backgrounds. So, education can truly be "the great equalizer." Although there is widespread public faith in the value of higher education, the progress of massification has been slow and uneven. And why is it slow and uneven? [13-1] Well, one, higher education did not admit significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities until after the civil rights of the 1960s forced change. Second, despite significant expenditures on financial aid, minority and low-income individuals are still less likely to attend college than whites or students from middle- and upper-income families— although access gaps have nowadays narrowed somewhat, large gaps remain between completion rates. [14] Low-income students come to college less prepared, and must balance academic demands with work and family responsibilities. [13-2] Finding ways to increase the enrollment rates of low-income students and encourage their success once enrolled are two of the most important problems facing American higher education. One of the challenges to meet these goals is that they can conflict with the other central tenets of American higher education, that is, market competition and resistance to government control, as I said before. For example, institutional competition for the most academically talented students is likely to encourage increased use of tuition discounting for students who have no financial need, and this could divert resources away from low-income students who need financial aid. Similarly, institutions may seek to distinguish themselves in the academic marketplace by becoming more selective in admissions decisions, thus reducing the number of low-income students admitted. [15] However, a primary role of government is to mediate the potentially negative effects of competition by insisting that institutions adhere to their missions, and that institutions provide need-based financial assistance to students. So, a constant preoccupation of American higher education is this tension between the competitive, ambitious nature of institutions and the interests of government in promoting important public goals, primary among them broad access and widespread success for all students.　　OK. For today’s lecture, we have briefly discussed some of the major challenges facing U. S. higher education, such as the impact of the marketplace on institutions and the tension between competition and promoting public goals.细节归纳题。本题解释说明。“大众化”进程缓慢且不均衡的原因。句[13-1]提到，原因之一是在二十世纪六十年代强制改革之前，高校的种族和少数族裔学生的录取人数并不多。原文中没有能够直接用作答案的词语，但从语义来看，录取率低是其核心。同时由句[13-2]可以看出，高等教育急需解决的两个问题分别对应了上述的两个原因：入学率低和毕业率低。由此可以判断，enrollment rates或admission rates可以作为本题答案。

【正确答案】complete high education

【答案解析】原文： Current Challenges Confronting U.S. Higher Education　　Good morning, everyone. In our last lecture, we discussed challenges that face universities and colleges worldwide. Today, we’ll take a special look at U.S. higher education and see what challenges U.S. higher education is facing. OK. Let’s get started. 　　The first challenge we’re examining in today’s lecture is the force of the marketplace on higher education. [1] Many people believe that the marketplace has overtaken state government as the dominant external force shaping and reshaping American higher education, even for public colleges and universities. You may ask, "Why is It so?" [2] Well, as is always the case, government support is not keeping pace with educational expenditures. So in many ways, the market is having more bearing on higher education than government. [3] In order to create more flexibility, many public colleges and universities are now asking for less government regulation and supervision. In some instances, they are even asking for less state money in return for more autonomy. And their argument is that the current structures and accountability requirements have hindered their capacity to be effective and efficient. [4] The ability to set their own tuition fees and secure freedom from state policies and regulations in areas such as purchasing and building represent just some of the additional autonomy that public institutions are seeking. And many are pressing for new legislation to provide this freedom through a range of innovations, including public corporations, charter colleges, state enterprise status, and performance contracts.　　So, what is the result of these efforts? [5/6] Well, the result is that activities and research in certain fields and disciplines, for example, engineering, applied natural science, and agricultural science, become higher institutional priorities because they have stronger market value than other programs, such as humanities, do. So, what has happened is that institutions create new programs, alter academic calendars, and　　pursue different financial aid policies to capture more and better students, in particular, those who can afford to pay high tuition. [7] For instance, executive MBA programs are increasingly popular. Also, institutions seek contracts and partnership agreements, and enhance research programs with practical applications that have large financial payouts. In order to do so, they are changing their institutional structures. And how do they do it? Let me tell you. [8] Institutions would add new units that focus on generating external grants and bringing new technology to market. [9] They would build conference centers and create for-profit subsidiaries. All these are done to generate more revenue for institutions. What are the implications of this? [10] Well, the implications are that academic research is increasingly focused on marketable knowledge, entrepreneurial priorities are taking precedence, services are being outsourced, and students are carrying an increasing burden to pay higher tuition fees for their education.　　Then, how do university administrators view this trend? That is, the marketplace is showing stronger impact on how institutions are run. In fact, university administrators see little option except to respond to the marketplace. The reason is, if their institution does not react effectively, it will not have the necessary resources to offer high-quality and diverse academic programs. Institutions unable to compete may face hard circumstances because government support continues to fall, students become better-informed consumers, and advances in technology also widen the number and reach of competitors. In turn, the ability to compete—for students, resources, faculty, and prestige—becomes the driving strategic force. At its extreme, competition can overtake more traditional academic values. However, the downside of pursing market goals without appropriately balancing them against the public good is ... is that institutions will no longer be able to fulfill their social responsibility to produce well-educated citizens and face the threat of losing their privileged place in society as they resemble more closely other market-driven organizations.　　[11] Now, let’s move on to the second challenge facing U.S. higher education, that is, the tension between competition and equality in admissions decisions. [12] Since World War II, U.S. higher education has been engaged in a process of "massification," that is, expanding to serve students from all walks of life. Motivating this effort is a widespread belief in the power of education to create social and economic mobility and a belief in the morality and social value of making higher education accessible to everyone. Research data bear out public perceptions: When young people from low-income backgrounds complete a bachelor’s degree, their income and employment characteristics after graduation are equivalent to their peers from more affluent backgrounds. So, education can truly be "the great equalizer." Although there is widespread public faith in the value of higher education, the progress of massification has been slow and uneven. And why is it slow and uneven? [13-1] Well, one, higher education did not admit significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities until after the civil rights of the 1960s forced change. Second, despite significant expenditures on financial aid, minority and low-income individuals are still less likely to attend college than whites or students from middle- and upper-income families— although access gaps have nowadays narrowed somewhat, large gaps remain between completion rates. [14] Low-income students come to college less prepared, and must balance academic demands with work and family responsibilities. [13-2] Finding ways to increase the enrollment rates of low-income students and encourage their success once enrolled are two of the most important problems facing American higher education. One of the challenges to meet these goals is that they can conflict with the other central tenets of American higher education, that is, market competition and resistance to government control, as I said before. For example, institutional competition for the most academically talented students is likely to encourage increased use of tuition discounting for students who have no financial need, and this could divert resources away from low-income students who need financial aid. Similarly, institutions may seek to distinguish themselves in the academic marketplace by becoming more selective in admissions decisions, thus reducing the number of low-income students admitted. [15] However, a primary role of government is to mediate the potentially negative effects of competition by insisting that institutions adhere to their missions, and that institutions provide need-based financial assistance to students. So, a constant preoccupation of American higher education is this tension between the competitive, ambitious nature of institutions and the interests of government in promoting important public goals, primary among them broad access and widespread success for all students.　　OK. For today’s lecture, we have briefly discussed some of the major challenges facing U. S. higher education, such as the impact of the marketplace on institutions and the tension between competition and promoting public goals.细节推断题。由句[14]可知，即使那些低收入家庭的学生入了学，他们也很难毕业，毕业率有很大的差异。原因在于他们在入学前准备相对不充分，而且需要花精力平衡学业、工作和家庭责任。且下文指出，如何提升低收入学生的入学率及入学后为其创造有利条件顺利毕业是目前美国高等教育面临的两个重要问题。由此可以推断，第二点原因为低收入学生无法顺利完成学业。因此，答案为complete high education。

【正确答案】promote public goals

【答案解析】原文： Current Challenges Confronting U.S. Higher Education　　Good morning, everyone. In our last lecture, we discussed challenges that face universities and colleges worldwide. Today, we’ll take a special look at U.S. higher education and see what challenges U.S. higher education is facing. OK. Let’s get started. 　　The first challenge we’re examining in today’s lecture is the force of the marketplace on higher education. [1] Many people believe that the marketplace has overtaken state government as the dominant external force shaping and reshaping American higher education, even for public colleges and universities. You may ask, "Why is It so?" [2] Well, as is always the case, government support is not keeping pace with educational expenditures. So in many ways, the market is having more bearing on higher education than government. [3] In order to create more flexibility, many public colleges and universities are now asking for less government regulation and supervision. In some instances, they are even asking for less state money in return for more autonomy. And their argument is that the current structures and accountability requirements have hindered their capacity to be effective and efficient. [4] The ability to set their own tuition fees and secure freedom from state policies and regulations in areas such as purchasing and building represent just some of the additional autonomy that public institutions are seeking. And many are pressing for new legislation to provide this freedom through a range of innovations, including public corporations, charter colleges, state enterprise status, and performance contracts.　　So, what is the result of these efforts? [5/6] Well, the result is that activities and research in certain fields and disciplines, for example, engineering, applied natural science, and agricultural science, become higher institutional priorities because they have stronger market value than other programs, such as humanities, do. So, what has happened is that institutions create new programs, alter academic calendars, and　　pursue different financial aid policies to capture more and better students, in particular, those who can afford to pay high tuition. [7] For instance, executive MBA programs are increasingly popular. Also, institutions seek contracts and partnership agreements, and enhance research programs with practical applications that have large financial payouts. In order to do so, they are changing their institutional structures. And how do they do it? Let me tell you. [8] Institutions would add new units that focus on generating external grants and bringing new technology to market. [9] They would build conference centers and create for-profit subsidiaries. All these are done to generate more revenue for institutions. What are the implications of this? [10] Well, the implications are that academic research is increasingly focused on marketable knowledge, entrepreneurial priorities are taking precedence, services are being outsourced, and students are carrying an increasing burden to pay higher tuition fees for their education.　　Then, how do university administrators view this trend? That is, the marketplace is showing stronger impact on how institutions are run. In fact, university administrators see little option except to respond to the marketplace. The reason is, if their institution does not react effectively, it will not have the necessary resources to offer high-quality and diverse academic programs. Institutions unable to compete may face hard circumstances because government support continues to fall, students become better-informed consumers, and advances in technology also widen the number and reach of competitors. In turn, the ability to compete—for students, resources, faculty, and prestige—becomes the driving strategic force. At its extreme, competition can overtake more traditional academic values. However, the downside of pursing market goals without appropriately balancing them against the public good is ... is that institutions will no longer be able to fulfill their social responsibility to produce well-educated citizens and face the threat of losing their privileged place in society as they resemble more closely other market-driven organizations.　　[11] Now, let’s move on to the second challenge facing U.S. higher education, that is, the tension between competition and equality in admissions decisions. [12] Since World War II, U.S. higher education has been engaged in a process of "massification," that is, expanding to serve students from all walks of life. Motivating this effort is a widespread belief in the power of education to create social and economic mobility and a belief in the morality and social value of making higher education accessible to everyone. Research data bear out public perceptions: When young people from low-income backgrounds complete a bachelor’s degree, their income and employment characteristics after graduation are equivalent to their peers from more affluent backgrounds. So, education can truly be "the great equalizer." Although there is widespread public faith in the value of higher education, the progress of massification has been slow and uneven. And why is it slow and uneven? [13-1] Well, one, higher education did not admit significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities until after the civil rights of the 1960s forced change. Second, despite significant expenditures on financial aid, minority and low-income individuals are still less likely to attend college than whites or students from middle- and upper-income families— although access gaps have nowadays narrowed somewhat, large gaps remain between completion rates. [14] Low-income students come to college less prepared, and must balance academic demands with work and family responsibilities. [13-2] Finding ways to increase the enrollment rates of low-income students and encourage their success once enrolled are two of the most important problems facing American higher education. One of the challenges to meet these goals is that they can conflict with the other central tenets of American higher education, that is, market competition and resistance to government control, as I said before. For example, institutional competition for the most academically talented students is likely to encourage increased use of tuition discounting for students who have no financial need, and this could divert resources away from low-income students who need financial aid. Similarly, institutions may seek to distinguish themselves in the academic marketplace by becoming more selective in admissions decisions, thus reducing the number of low-income students admitted. [15] However, a primary role of government is to mediate the potentially negative effects of competition by insisting that institutions adhere to their missions, and that institutions provide need-based financial assistance to students. So, a constant preoccupation of American higher education is this tension between the competitive, ambitious nature of institutions and the interests of government in promoting important public goals, primary among them broad access and widespread success for all students.　　OK. For today’s lecture, we have briefly discussed some of the major challenges facing U. S. higher education, such as the impact of the marketplace on institutions and the tension between competition and promoting public goals.细节归纳题。讲座中提到，为应对这些挑战和问题，政府应该想办法减少竞争带来的负面影响。接下来还提到，高等教育需要解决的是教育机构相互竞争的本质和政府希望实现公众目标的愿望之间的矛盾。综合这两点考虑，政府的角色在于减少竞争的负面影响，促进公众目标的实现。因此，本题答案为promote public goals。