单选题{{B}}TEXT D{{/B}} One of the most interesting paradoxes in America today is that Harvard University, the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States, is now engaged in a serious debate about what a university should be, and whether it is measuring up. Like the Roman Catholic church and other ancient institutions, it is asking-still in private rather than in public whether its past assumptions about faculty, authority, admission, courses of study, are really relevant to the problems of the 1990' s. Should Harvard--or any other university--be an intellectual sanctuary, apart from the political and social revolution of the age, or should it be a laboratory for experimentation with these political and social revolutions; or even an engine of the revolution? This is what is being discussed privately in the big clapboard houses of faculty members around the Harvard Yard. Walter Lip Mann, a distinguished Harvard graduate, defined the issue several years ago. "If the universities axe to do their work." he said," they must be independent and they must be disinterested... They are places to which men can turn for judgments which are unbiased by partisanship and special interest. Obviously, the moment the universities fall under political control, or under the control of private interest, or the moment they themselves take a hand in politics and the leadership of government, their value as independent and disinterested sources of judgment is impaired ..." This is part of the argument that is going on at Harvard today. Another part is the argument of the militant and even many moderate students: that a university is the keeper of our ideals and morals, and should not be "disinterested" but activist in bringing the nation' s ideals and actions together. Harvard' s men of today seem more trebled and less sure about personal, political and academic purpose than they did at the beginning. They are not even clear about how they should debate and resolve their problems but they are struggling with privately, and how they come out is bound to influence American university and political life in the 1990' s.

单选题{{B}}TEXT C{{/B}} Marriage may be about love, but divorce is a business. For global couples--born in different countries, married in a third, now working somewhere else and with children, pensions and other assets sprinkled over the world--a contested divorce is bliss for lawyers and a nightmare for others. Divorce laws vary wildly, from countries (such as Malta) that still forbid it to Islamic states where for the husband, at least--it may be obtained in minutes. Rules on the division of property and future financial obligations vary hugely too. France expects the poorer party, usually the wife, to start fending for herself almost immediately; England and some American states insist on lifelong support. Some systems look only at the "acquest"; others count the lot. A few, like Austria, still link cash to blame. Japan offers a temptingly quick cheap break, but--for foreigners--little or no enforceable contact with the kids thereafter, notes Jeremy Morley, a New York-based "international divorce strategist". Other places may be mum-friendly when it comes to money but dad-friendly on child custody. The European Union is trying to tidy up its divorce laws. A reform in 2001 called Brussels II tried to stop forum shopping, in which each party sought the most favourable jurisdiction, by ruling that the first court to be approached decides the divorce. That worked--but at the cost of encouraging trigger-happy spouses to kill troubled marriages quickly, rather than trying to patch them up. This, says David Hodson, a specialist in international divorce law, favours the "wealthier, more aggressive, more unscrupulous party". It goes against the general trend towards counselling, mediation and out-of-court settlement. An EU measure called Rome Ⅲ, now under negotiation and pencilled in to come into force in 2008, tries to ensure that the marriage is ended by the law that has governed it most closely. It may be easy for a Dutch court to apply Belgian law when dealing with the uncontested divorce of a Belgian couple, but less so for a Spanish court to apply Polish rules, let alone Iranian or Indonesian, and especially not when the divorce is contested. Such snags make Rome Ⅲ "laughably idiotic--a recipe for increasing costs", according to John Cornwell, a London lawyer. Britain and Ireland say they will opt out. That, says Mr. Hodson, will give a further edge to London. Since a judgment in 2000 entrenched the principle of "equality" in division of marital, assets, England, home to hundreds of thousands of expatriates, has become a "Mecca for wives", says Louise Spitz of Manches, a London law firm. David Truex, who runs a specialist international divorce outfit, reckons that at least a fifth of divorce cases registered in London's higher courts now have an international element. For the typical global couple, such high-profile, big-money cases matter less than the three basic (and deeply unromantic factors) in marriage planning. According to Mr. Truex, a rich man should choose his bride from a country with a stingy divorce law, such as Sweden or France, and marry her there. Second, he should draw up a pre-nuptial agreement. These are binding in many countries and have begun to count even in England. Third, once divorce looms, a wife may want to move to England or America (but should avoid no-alimony states such as Florida) I for husbands, staying in continental Europe is wise. Outside Europe, the country--or American State--deemed the most "appropriate" in terms of the couple's family and business connections will normally get to hear the case. But here too unilateral action may be decisive. When Earl Spencer, brother of Princess Diana, divorced his first wife he surprised her by issuing proceedings in South Africa where they were then living. In England, where they had been domiciled, she might have got a better deal. She ended up suing her lawyers. The lesson for couples? How you live may determine the length and happiness of your marriage. Where you live is likely to determine how it ends.

单选题[此试题无题干]

单选题It is a big day for the "expert baby." A minivan bearing an official University of Washington seal picks up the 14-month-old boy and his mother and takes them to a Seattle day-care center. Once inside, he is placed at the head of a table surrounded by his "students," a bevy of babies his age. Researchers from the university's psychology department observe and take notes. The miniprofessor begins his lesson: Whaaack! He smacks the top of a special camping cup with his palm, and it collapses. His pupils look at one another, wide-eyed. Then he deftly pulls apart a puzzle and puts it back together. As a finale, he hits a hidden button on a box, which produces a buzzing sound. A delighted squeal rises from the audience. Wunderkind is then whisked away. Two days later, a researcher visits the houses of each of the young pupils, unpacking a black bag to reveal the little professor's toys. The infants grin in recognition and repeat the tricks they observed. Like the expert baby before them, they have mastered these routines. But when the researchers visit babies who haven't been primed, the results are decidedly different. Those babies bang the cup on the table, but never collapse it. They chew on the puzzle, but don't assemble it. They rub the box, but fail to find the secret button. The expert baby and his cohorts are part of a revolution in how scientists view very young children. For most of this century, infants were regarded as gurgling blobs, soaking up sights and sounds but unable to make much use of them. But it turns out that babies are reasoning beings even in their very first months. "Before they have the ability to use language, infants can think, draw conclusions, make predictions, look for explanations, and even do miniexperiments." says Andrew Meltzoff, head of developmental psychology at the University of Washington and coauthor of The Scientist in the Crib, published this week.

单选题Which of the following is NOT a tragedy by Shakespeare?A. The Twelfth NightB. OthelloC. The TempestD. King Lear

单选题According to the passage, who wrote the tragedy Doctor Faustus ?______

单选题Who modified and improved the design of the steam engine in 1765?

单选题AccordingtoJanet,thefactorthatwouldmostaffectnegotiationsis______.A.EnglishlanguageproficiencyB.differentculturalpracticesC.differentnegotiationtasksD.theinternationalAmericanizedstyle

单选题 When the summer sun shines down on the "dreaming spires" and elegant architecture of top universities Oxford and Cambridge, it's almost possible to forget they are more than just picturesque tourist magnets. Alumni from the two ancient seats of learning still dominate Britain's cultural and political establishments, making up more than 80 percent of the judiciary, nearly half of top journalists, and 34 percent of senior government ministers. That preeminence of "Oxbridge" graduates is widely accepted. But the thorny issue of the disproportionate representation on campus of students from advantaged backgrounds has again been stirring, prompting calls to ensure that Britain's leading universities reach out to a far broader range of top-notch students. A leading education think tank has called on Oxford and Cambridge to emulate the Ivy League's recruitment of poorer students, while the government has thrown its weight behind new targets that will promote changes it says are overdue, It has urged universities to take pupils' school and family backgrounds into account, and to set targets for the recruitment of more young people from underprivileged backgrounds. The government also signaled interest in a future system where grades alone will also not be enough to win places at leading universities. Fifty-seven percent of Oxbridge students come from government-funded state schools, even though they educate 90 percent of Britons. Privately run fee-charging independent schools make up the remaining bulk of Oxbridge's intake, despite educating just 7 percent of the population. "There is no evidence that Oxford and Cambridge are socially discriminatory when it comes to admissions, " says Bahram Bekhradnia, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), who says their social profiles are largely the result of their demand for high grades and the performance Of pupils attending the different types of schools, In response, Oxbridge highlights its scrupulously meritocratic approach to admissions, and suggests that the real problem lies with the inequities of the secondary school system. The idea of targets for students from particular backgrounds also meets with opposition, even among students who have made it to Oxbridge from state schools. Benjamin Storrs, a graduate of a comprehensive (state) school in Manchester, said he detected no sense of elitism after arriving at Oxford to study PPE (Philosophy, Politics, and Economics). Mr. Storrs is providing home tutoring to pupils from Oxford city schools as part of a student-run charity aimed at children from refugee families and those seeking asylum. Such work means the "enduring need" to demystify Oxford is heading in the right direction, according to Jonny Medland, the student union's access officer, who works alongside university officials to ensure prospective students receive information and support. Oxford University alone spent ~ 2.8 million on outreach activities in 2008-2009, in addition to providing almost ￡ 5 million a year for bursarics. Cambridge provides similar amounts, while both institutions have teamed up for initiatives such as open days for students from a variety of backgrounds at venues like the London stadium of the Premier League soccer team Arsenal. At these, academics and students attempt to debunk whatever myths may hold back some kids from applying. But more must be done, according to the government, which is growing impatient with the selection of students on exam results alone. "We hope that all universities will consider incorporating contextual data into their admissions processes better to assess the aptitude and potential of those from disadvantaged backgrounds, "said by Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, as he launched a new 10-year strategy for higher education in Parliament. Responding, the Conservative opposition warned the government against engaging in "crudc class warfare, " while teachers from private schools also spoke out against the prospect of state intervention to force universities to accept more pupils from poorer backgrounds. The nub of the problem, say many, is woefully declining educational standards at government-run schools. Further complicating the picture are the record increases in students winning high grades and the rise in applications to Britain's top two universities, leading Oxford to introduce more prc-interview aptitude tests for applicants. Without them, it would be impossible to differentiate potential interviewees between "the very best and the very good, " it says. Although the conference argues the tests are not ones of knowledge or prior learning, their use has reportedly led to a rise of a"prep industry'providing private tutors who help teenagers negotiate the admissions process. Both Oxford and Cambridge also insist the tests have little in common with older entrance exams that were scrapped in the past decade under pressure from state schools, which alleged they discriminated in favor of private-sector pupils. Yet suggestions that entrance tests put applicants from state schools at a disadvantage were rejected by William Smith, a former state school pupil studying modern languages at Cambridge.

单选题{{B}}TEXT D{{/B}} Two half-brothers, Sir Humphrey Gilbert and Sir Walter Raleigh, were the first Englishmen to undertake serious ventures in America. Gilbert, one of the more earnest seekers of the Northwest Passage, went to Newfoundland in 1578 and again in 1583 but failed to colonize the territory either time and lost his life on the re. mm voyage to England after the second attempt. Raleigh, in turn, was granted the right to settle in "Virginia" and to have control of the land within a radius of 200 leagues from any colonists to the new continent. The first landed on the island of Roanoke off the coast of what is now North Carolina and stayed less than a year; anything but enthusiastic about their new home, these first colonists returned to England with Sir Francis Drake in the summer of 1586. Undaunted, Raleigh solicited the financial aid of a group of wealthy Londoners and, in the following year, sent a second contingent of 150 people under the leadership of Governor John White. Raleigh had given explicit instructions that this colony was to be planted somewhere on the Chesapeake Bay, but Govemor White disregarded the order and landed at Roanoke. White went back to England for supplies; when he returned after much delay in 1590, the settlers had vanished. Not a single member of the famed "lost colony" was ever found, not even a tooth. After a long war between England and Spain from 1588 to 1603, England renewed attempts to colonize North America. In 1606, two charters were granted—one to a group of Londoners, the other to merchants of Plymouth and other western port town. The London Company was given the right to settle the southern part of the English territory in America; the Plymouth Company was given jurisdiction over the northern part. So two widely separated colonies were established in 1607: one at Sagadahoc, near the mouth of the Kennebec River, in Maine; the other in modern Virginia. Those who survived the winter in the northern colony gave up and went home, and the colony established at Jamestown won the hard-earned honor of being the first permanent English settlement in America. Hard-earned indeed! When the London Company landed three tiny vessels at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay in 1607, 105 people disembarked to found the Jamestown Colony. Easily distracted by futile "get rich quick" schemes, they actually sent shiploads of mica and yellow ore back to England in 1607 and 1608. Before the news reached their ears that their treasure was worthless "fool's gold," disease, starvation, and misadventure had taken a heavy toll: 67 of the original 105 Jamestown settlers died in the first year. The few remaining survivors (one of whom was convicted of cannibalism) were joined in 1609 by 800 new arrivals, sent over by the reorganized and renamed Virginia Company. By the following spring, frontier hardships had cut the number of settlers from 838 to 60. That summer, those who remained were round fleeing down river to return home to England by new settlers with fresh supplies, who encouraged them to reconsider. This was Virginia's "starving time”. Inadequately supplied and untutored in the art of colonization, the earliest frontier pioneers routinely suffered and died. In 1623, a royal investigation of the Virginia experience was launched in the wake of an Indian attack that took the lives of 500 settlers. The investigation reported that of the 6,000 who had migrated to Virginia since 1607, 4,000 had died. The life expectancy of these hardy settlers upon arriving was two years. The heavy human costs of first settlement were accompanied by substantial capital losses. Without exception, the earliest colonial ventures were unprofitable. Indeed, they were financial disasters. Neither the principal nor the interest on the Virginia Company's accumulated investment of more than ￡200,000 was ever repaid (approximately $20,000,000 in today's values). The investments in New England were less disappointing, but overall, English capitalists were heavy losers in their quest to tame the frontier.

单选题Which of the following is NOT true about Charlie's work?

单选题The passage implies that human beings ______.

单选题France, US and Canada have all taken which of the following steps to discourage age discrimination?

单选题Thomas Hardy wrote the following novels EXCEPT

单选题Question 9 to 10 are based on the following news. At the end of the news item. you will be given 20 seconds to answer the questions.Now listen to the news.

单选题{{B}}TEXT B{{/B}} In his essay "The Parable of the Tapeworm," Mario Vargas Llosa argues that at the heart of the writer's will to write is rebellion, a "rejection and criticism of life as it is." Moreover, he speculates, it is even possible that good literature may inspire actual acts of rebellion when the reader compares the better world of the book to the relative junk heap of real life. Whether or not this is universally true, it's an attractive idea, and, in its way, a comforting one. Language is a lever that might move the enormous weight of the fickle, war-torn world we live in. It's free, universal and highly portable: better than plastic bomb and difficult to govern. Vargas Llosa's idea is also, of course, a writerly sort of realpolitik, a wish that a good novel—or story or poem—can literally remake history. When Luis Alberto Urrea began his epic novel, "The Hummingbird' s Daughter," 20 years ago, the United States was in the first phase of a conservative backlash, the culture wars were gathering steam, and the left felt itself to be under a dark cloud. Two decades later, the situation seems even graver: the culture wars are more intense and the left feels under not a cloud but an anvil. With the election of a new, deeply conservative pope, Urrea's timing couldn't be better: his main character, Teresita, is a saint as envisioned not in the marble reaches of the Vatican but in the populist pueblos of liberation theology, a Mexican saint of dust and blood, with lice in her hair and dirt under her fingernails. Poor, illegitimate, illiterate and despised, Teresita is the embodiment of the dictum that the last shall be first, and her ascension over the course of 500 pages is a myth that is also a charmingly written manifesto. Urrea, who was born in Tijuana to an American mother and a Mexican father, is the author of 10 previous books of nonfiction, fiction and poetry; the best known of these are probably "The Devil's Highway" and "Across the Wire," nonfiction accounts of hardscrabble lives on the Mexican-United States border. For "The Hummingbird's Daughter," he reached back into his own family history, or what he calls "a family folk tale." Teresa Urrea, known in the novel as Teresita, was a distant relative and, as Urrea discovered, the subject of some earlier scholarship, an "influential" series of newspaper articles in the 1930' s and at least one other novel. Urrea's book re-imagines her story on a grand scale, as a mix of leftist hagiography, mystical bildungsroman and melancholic national anthem. The half-Indian child of a wealthy Mexican landowner, Teresita, born in 1873 with a red triangle on her forehead, is also possessed of a supernatural gift for healing that becomes much stronger as she grows up, and stronger still after suffering a terrible assault that kills her. She rises from the dead and begins to perform miracles. The sick, the halt and the dying gather around her, and so do Mexican revolutionaries. "Everything the government does," Teresita preaches to them, "is morally wrong." This democratic groundswell inevitably results in a show-down with the Mexican authorities. Teresita's endurance—and survival—are literally and spiritually linked to the struggles of Mexico itself, a struggle that Urrea sees firmly from the bottom up. "God is a worker, like us," Huila, an aged curandera, instructs the young Teresita. "He made the world—he didn't hire poor Indios to build it for him! God has worker's hands. Just remember—angels carry no harps. Angels carry hammers."

单选题Who made the distinction between Langue and Parole? A. Leech. B. Chomsky. C. Halliday. D. Saussure.

单选题{{I}} Question 10 is based on the following news. At the end of the news item ,you will be given 10 seconds to answer the question. Now listen to the news.{{/I}}

单选题[此试题无题干]

单选题Margaret Spellings, the secretary of education, announced a pilot reform to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), George Bush's education law, which was passed in 2002. Up to ten states, she said, would be allowed to target their resources at the most severely struggling schools, rather than at the vast number needing improvement. The change drew a predictable mix of praise and censure. Above all, though, it was a reminder of utter inaction elsewhere. Congress, which was supposed to re-authorize the law last year, has made little progress. On the campaign trail, concerns over Iraq and the economy have made education a minor issue. Contrary to appearances, the law's main tenets are unlikely to be abandoned completely. But for the Democratic candidates in particular, a proper debate on NCLB is to be avoided like political quicksand. Most politicians agree that the law has the fight goals--to raise educational standards and hold schools accountable for meeting them. NCLB requires states to test pupils on math and reading from third to eighth grade (that is, from the ages of eight to 13), and once in high school. Some science testing is being added. Schools that do not make "adequate yearly progress" towards meeting state standards face sanctions. Pupils in failing schools can supposedly transfer to a better one or get tutoring. Most also agree that NCLB has big flaws that must be fixed. Few pupils in bad schools actually transfer--less than 1% of those eligible did so in the 2003-04 school year. Teachers' unions say the tests are focused too narrowly on math and reading, fail to measure progress over time and encourage "teaching to the test". They also complain that the law lacks proper funding. The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a conservative policy group, has exposed wide gaps in state standards. Test-data reflect this. In Mississippi 90% of fourth-graders were labeled "proficient" or better in the state reading test in 2006-07. Only 19% reached that level in a national test. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, offers NCLB tepid support but fails to elaborate. At Democratic rallies, NCLB is little more than a whipping-boy. Hillary Clinton proclaims that she will "end the unfunded mandate known as No Child Left Behind". But though she and Barack Obama deride NCLB publicly, each endorses the idea of accountability. They favor using more sophisticated "assessments" in place of tests, want to value a broader range of skills, punish schools less and support them more. How these ideas would be implemented remains unclear. Not surprisingly, more controversial proposals can be found among those not running for president. Chester Finn of Fordham thinks the federal government needs greater power to set standards, while states should have more leeway in meeting them. A bipartisan commission on NCLB has issued a slew of proposals. Particularly contentious is a plan to use pupils' test scores to help identify ineffective teachers as in need of retraining. Of course, standards alone do not improve education. Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama propose a host of new programs for schools, described on their websites if rarely on campaign. But accountability is likely to remain a big part of school reform. Last April a group of philanthropists announced a $60m effort to make education the top domestic issue of 2008. So far, it looks like money ill spent.