考研时文阅读.doc

考研时文阅读（1）FEW ideas in education are more controversial than vouchers-letting parents choose to educate their children wherever they wish at the taxpayers expense. First suggested by Milton Friedman, an economist, in 1955, the principle is compelling simple. The state pays; parents choose; schools compete; standards rise; everybody gains. Simple, perhaps, but it has aroused predictable-and often fatal-opposition from the educational establishment. Letting parents choose where to educate their children is a silly idea; professionals know best. Cooperation, not competition, is the way to improve education for all. Vouchers would increase inequality because children who are hardest to teach would be left behind. But these arguments are now succumbing to sheer weight of evidence. Voucher schemes are running in several different countries without ill-effects for social cohesion; those that use a lottery to hand out vouchers offer proof that recipients get a better education than those that do not. Harry Patrinos, an education economist at the World Bank, cites a Colombian program to broaden access to secondary schooling, known as PACES, a 1990s initiative that provided over 125,000 poor children with vouchers worth around half the cost of private secondary school. Crucially, there were more applicants than vouchers. The programme, which selected children by lottery, provided researchers with an almost perfect experiment, akin to the “pill-placebo” studies used to judge the efficacy of new medicines. The subsequent results show that the children who received vouchers were 1520% more likely to finish secondary education, five percentage points less likely to repeat a grade, scorced a bit better on scholastic tests and were much more likely to take college entrance exams. Vouchers programmes in several American states have been run along similar lines. Greg Forster, a statistician at the Friedman Foundation, a charity advocating universal vouchers, says there have been eight similar studies in America: seven showed statistically significant positive results but was not designed well enough to count. The voucher pupils did better even though the sate spent less than it would have done had the children been educated in normal state schools. American voucher schemes typically offer private schools around half of what the sate would spend if the pupils stayed in public schools. The Colombian programme did not even set out to offer better schooling than was available in the state sector; the aim was simply to raise enrollment rates as quickly and cheaply as possible. These results are important because they strip out other influences. Home, neighborhood and natural ability all affect results more than which school a child attends. If the pupils who received vouchers differ from those who dont-perhaps simply by coming from the sort of go-getting family that elbows its way to the front of every queue-any effect might simply be the result of any number of other factors. But assigning the vouchers randomly guarded against this risk. Opponents still argue that those who exercise choice will be the most able and committed, and by clustering themselves together in better schools they will abandon the weak and voiceless to languish in rotten ones. Some cite the example of Chile, where a universal voucher scheme that allows schools to charge top-up fees seems to have improved the education of the best-off most. The strongest evidence against this criticism comes from Sweden, where parents are freer than those in almost any other country to spend as they wish the money the government allocates to educating their children. Sweeping education reforms in 1992 not only relaxed enrolment rules in state sector, allowing students to attend schools outside their own municipality, but also let them take their state funding to private schools, including religious ones and those operating for profit. The only real restrictions imposed on private schools were that they must run their admissions on a first-come-first-served basis and promise not to charge top-up fees(most American voucher schemes impose similar conditions). The result has been burgeoning variety and a breakneck expansion of the private sector. At the time of the reforms only around 1% of Swedish students were educated privately; now 10% are, and growth in private schooling continues unabated. Anders Hultin of Kunskapsskolan, a chain of 26 Swedish schools founded by a venture capitalist in 1999 and now running at a profit, says its schools only rarely have to invoke the first-come-first-served rule-the chain has responded to demand by expanding so fast that parents keen to send their children to its schools usually get a place. So the private sector, by increasing the total number of places available, can ease the mad scramble for the best schools in the state sector(bureaucrats, by contrast, dislike paying for extra places in popular schools if there are vacancies in bad ones). More evidence that choice can raise standards for all comes from Caroline Hoxby, an economist at Harvard University, who has shown that when American public schools must compete for their students with schools that accept vouchers, their performance improves. Swedish researchers say the same. It seems that those who work in state schools are just like everybody else: they do better when confronted by a bit of competition. 没有什么教育观念比学券更容易引发争议。所谓学券，就是让父母花纳税人的钱随意为孩子选择去哪里上学。经济学家Milton Friedman 1955年首次提出这一概念，其原则十分简单，但令人信服：即国家出钱；父母选择；学校竞争，标准提升；各方受益。 这一原则虽然简单，但引发了教育机构的反对。这是预料之中的，但常常是致命的。让父母为孩子选择在何处接受教育的想法很荒唐；专业人士才是最懂行的。合作而非竞争才是提高所有学生教育水平的方式。学券会增加不平等，因为最难教的孩子将会被甩在后面。 但是这些说法在强有力的证据面前正败下阵来。一些不同的国家正在实行学券计划，但并没有对社会疑聚力造成负面影响；用抽签方式发放学券的国家也证明：接受学券者比不接受学券者获得了更好的教育。 世界银行的教育经济学家Harry Patrinos列举了20世纪90年代启动、被称做“PACES”的哥伦比亚项目。该项目旨在增加学生上中学的机会。它为12。5 万名贫困孩子提供了学券，其价值约为私立中学教育收费的一半。但关键问题是，申请人比学券多。该项目以抽签方式挑选学生，为研究人员提供了几乎完美无缺的实验，类似于用来判定新药疗效的“安慰剂”研究。后来的研究结果表明，接受学券的孩子完成中学学业的可能性要高出15%至20%，留级的可能性低5个百分点，在学术能力测试中的得分高些，也更有可能参加大学入学考试。 美国也有几个州在类似方式实施学券计划。主张全面推广学券计划的慈善组织弗里德曼基金会的统计学家Greg Forster说，美国有8项类似的研究，其中7项研究的统计数据显示，学券对于那些幸运的获得者们具有明显的积极作用；第8项研究也显示了正面结果，但由于设计不佳不予考虑。 尽管在与普通公立学校接受教育的学生相比，政府的支出要少，但接受学券的学生成绩却更好。美国的学券计划通常提供给私立学校费用为政府在公立学校学生身上投入的一半。哥伦比亚项目甚至没有把提供比公立学校更好的教育作为目标；其目标仅仅是尽快提高入学率，并提供尽可能便宜的教育。 这些研究结果非常重要，因为他们完全排除了其它因素的影响。家庭背景、居住社区环境和天赋都比孩子在哪个学校就读更能影响结果。如果说拿到学券的学生与未能拿到学券的学生之间存在差异-或许仅仅由于前者来自那种事事争先，志在必得的家庭-任何差可能仅仅是其他多种因素作用的结果。但随机分配学券避免了这种风险。 反对学券制者认为，那些择校的人能力最强、最执着，如果让他们在好学校扎堆儿，会将那些处于弱势地位、没有代言人的学生留在烂校长期受煎熬。有人举智利为例，该国普及了允许学校收取附加学费的学券计划，但似乎只最大程度地提高了最富裕学生的教育水平。 反击这一批评的最有力的证据来自瑞典。瑞典的父母比几乎任何其它国家的人都自由，可随意支配政府分配的子女教育费用。1992年开始的全面改革不仅放宽了公立学校的入学要求，允许学生到他们所居住的城市以外的地方上学，而且也允许学生将国家的资助转到私立学校，包括宗教学校以及盈利性学校。对私立学校唯一真正的限制就是必须按“先来先得”的原则招收学生，并且要承诺不收取附加费（大多数美国学券计划也附加类似条件）。 这样做的结果是办学形式越来越多样化，私立学校飞速增加。启动改革时，瑞典只有大约1%的学生在私立学校接受教育，现在达到了10%，而且在私立学校就读学生比例增长的趋势依然不减。 一位风险资本家在1999年创办的Kunskapsskolan是一家拥有26所瑞典学校的连锁学校，现在正处于赢利状态。该校的Anders Hultin 说，各分校几乎没有用过“先来先得”的规则-为满足需求，连锁学校增加得非常快，愿意送孩子来该校读书的家长一般都能如愿。所以，通过增加学校数量，私立学校这一领域能够缓解公立学校领域疯狂争抢进入最好学校的压力（对比之下，如果劣等学校还有招生空间，政府官员就不愿意为增加名校招生拨款）。 哈佛大学的经济学家Caroline Hoxby为择校能够提高所有学生水平提供了更多的证据。他已经证明，当美国的公立学校必须同接受学券的学校竞争生源时，它们的业绩就有进步。瑞典的研究人员也坚持同样的观点。看来，在公立学校工作的人就像其他人一样：面对一点竞争时，他们会做得更好。考研时文阅读（2）Altruism（利他主义）, according to the text books, has two forms. One is known technically as kin selection, and familiarly as nepotism. This spreads an individuals genes collaterally, rather than directly, but is otherwise similar to his helping his own offspring. The second form is reciprocal altruism, or “you scratch my back and Ill scratch yours”. It relies on trust, and a good memory for favours given and received, but is otherwise not much different from simultaneous collaboration (such as a wolf pack hunting) in that the benefit exceeds the cost for all parties involved. Humans, however, show a third sort of altruismone that has no obvious pay-off. This is altruism towards strangers, for example, charity. That may enhance reputation. But how does an enhanced reputation weigh in the Darwinian balance? To investigate this question, the researchers made an interesting link. At first sight, helping charities looks to be at the opposite end of the selfishness spectrum from conspicuous consumption. Yet they have something in common: both involve the profligate deployment of resources. That is characteristic of the consequences of sexual selection. An individual shows he (or she) has resources to burnwhether those are biochemical reserves, time or, in the human instance, moneyby using them to make costly signals. That demonstrates underlying fitness of the sort favoured by evolution. Viewed this way, both conspicuous consumption and what the researchers call “blatant benevolence” are costly signals. And since they are behaviours rather than structures, and thus controlled by the brain, they may be part of the mating mind. Researchers divided a bunch of volunteers into two groups. Those in one were put into what the researchers hoped would be a “romantic mindset” by being shown pictures of attractive members of the opposite sex. They were each asked to write a description of a perfect date with one of these people. The unlucky members of the other group were shown pictures of buildings and told to write about the weather. The participants were then asked two things. The first was to imagine they had $5,000 in the bank. They could spend part or all of it on various luxury items such as a new car, a dinner party at a restaurant or a holiday in Europe. They were also asked what fraction of a hypothetical 60 hours of leisure time during the course of a month they would devote to volunteer work. The results were just what the researchers hoped for. In the romantically primed group, the men went wild with the Monopoly money. Conversely, the women volunteered their lives away. Those women continued, however, to be skinflints, and the men remained callously indifferent to those less fortunate than themselves. Meanwhile, in the other group there was little inclination either to profligate spending or to good works. Based on this result, it looks as though the sexes do, indeed, have different strategies for showing off. Moreover, they do not waste their resources by behaving like that all the time. Only when it counts sexually are men profligate and women helpful. （选自Economist, 08/02/2007） 参考译文根据教科书，利他主义有两种表现形式：一种就是所谓的血缘选择，即家庭亲戚关系。这种利他主义是通过一个人的基因间接传播的，而不是直接的，但是另一方面也就像一个人会无私地帮助自己的孩子一样。第二种形式是互惠的利他主义，或者说“你帮我搓背我也帮你搓背”。这种利他主义的基础在于信任，并对自己得到和付出过的帮助保持较好的记忆，但是除此以外，这种利他主义和物种天然的合作关系（比如狼群共同寻找猎物）没有什么大的区别，因为对于所有的参与者来说，他们合作的所得远远超过其付出。但是人类却表现出了第三种利他主义一种不会有什么赢利的利他主义。这是一种对陌生人的利他主义，比如说慈善业，从而能够增进人们的名誉。但是名誉的增加如何在达尔文平衡中找到其位置呢？为了探讨这一问题，研究者们找到了一个有趣的关系。乍一看，从自私角度来说参与慈善事业好像是炫耀性消费的相反面。但是他们有一点是相同的，即二者都包含了对资源的大规模调度。这是性别选择结果的一个特点。一个人想要显示他（或者她）拥有的可以挥霍的资源无论是生化储备、时间、还是对于人类来说的金钱通过使用这些东西来发出一些昂贵的信号。这也是进化过程中帮助物种生存下来的适切性。如果从这个角度来看问题的话，那么炫耀性消费和研究者们所称的“炫耀性善行”都是昂贵信号。而且它们都是行为而不是结构，因此是由大脑控制的，也许还是寻偶想法的一部分。研究者将一群志愿者分成了两组。他们向第一组的成员展示了一组相反性别的长得很漂亮或很帅的人们的照片，从而希望使志愿者们变得浮想联翩。接着研究者要求他们写一个关于自己和照片上的人的一次完美约会。而另一组的志愿者就没有这么幸运了，他们看到的是一组高楼大厦的图片，并要写一个关于天气的报告。然后研究人员要求参与者们做两件事情。第一件事情是要求他们想象自己在银行有5千美元。他们可以把其中一部分或者所有的钱花在各种奢侈品上，比如一辆新车、在餐馆的一次晚宴、或者去欧洲度假。第二件事情是，假设他们一周有60个小时的休闲时间，那么在一个月期间他们愿意花多少百分比的休闲时间在志愿者工作上。研究结果正如研究人员最初预料的那样。在充满浪漫气氛的第一组成员中，男人们疯狂地想完全占有金钱。相反，女人们则更愿意做志愿者工作。但是女人们却更加吝啬，而男人们却对财富的减少并不那么在意。同时，在另一组成员中，人们既不倾向于大肆挥霍、也没有认真工作的偏好。基于这一结果，看起来不同性别的人实际上对于炫耀有不同的策略。此外，他们不会总是把他们的资源浪费这些行为上。只有当吸引异性的时候，男人们才会花更多的钱、而女人们会更加乐于助人。考研时文阅读（3）Digital books start a new chapter导读：第一代电子书并没有取得预期的成功，然而随着技术的进步，新一代电子书产品逐渐浮出水面。继苹果公司取得巨大成功，令便携电子产品风行一时后，索尼公司利用“数字墨水”技术推出新款图书阅览器，将目光瞄准电子书市场。其它电子阅读器生产商也不甘落后，纷纷推出带有各自特色的产品。本文向读者介绍了电子阅读器产品的最新动态，以及出版商、作家和消费者对这种新生事物的态度。可以想象，电子书时代已经离我们不远了。（选自 Business Week, 2006） Richard D. Warren, a 58-year-old lawyer in California, is halfway through Ken Folletts novel Jackdaws. But he doesnt bother carrying around the book itself. Instead, he has a digital version of Follett he reads on his Palm Treo each morning as he communtes by train to San Francisco from his home in Berkeley. Hes a big fan of such digital books. Usually, there are around seven titles on his Treo, and he buys at least two new ones each month. “It is just so versatile , ” he says. “Ive tried to convert some friends to this, but they think its kind of geeky.” Geeky? For now, maybe, but not for much longer. Many experts are convinced that digital books, after plenty of false starts, are finally ready for takeoff. “Every other forms of media has gone digital-music, newspapers, movies, ”says Joni Evans, a top literary agent who just left the Willian Morris Agency to start her won company that will focus on books and technology. “Were the only industry that hasnt lived up to the pace of technology. A revolution is around the corner.” What developments have won over people like Evans? Portable devices are becoming lighter and more appealing. Books are being scanned into digital form by the thousands. The most important step forward may be in “digital ink,” the technology used for displaying letters on a screen. A small company called E Ink has created a method for arranging tiny black and white capsules into words and images with an electronic charge. Because no power is used unless the reader changes the page, devices with the technology could go as long as 20 books between battery charges. The text also looks just as sharp as ink on a printed page, since each capsule is the size and pigment of a grain of laser-jet toner. Sony is the first major player to take advantage of the technology. This spring, it will debut the Sony Reader, which uses E Ink and closely mimics the size, weight, and feel of a book. The Reader will sell for about $ 400. Sony also will offer roughly 10,000 book titles for download from its online store, along with news stories and blog items. Other pklayers sniff opportunity, too. At least two more companies are introducing digital readers this year. And scorces of companies, from Google to Random House Inc., are angling for other ways to profit from digital books. Chalk it up to the influence of Apple Computer Inc. With its Ipod, Apple has demonstrated that millions of people are willing to carry around digital devices with their favorite content. After music, why not novels and nonfiction? “The iPod led the way in getting people comfortable with a similar device for books,” says Jack Romanos, CEO of Simon & Schuster Inc. “These things are not only inevitable, but a good idea. ” 加利福尼亚州58岁的律师Richard D. Warren 已经把Ken Follett的小说寒鸦读了一半，但他不必将书天天带到身边。事实上，每天早晨在他乘火车从伯克利的家里赶往旧金山上班的途中，他可以用自己的Palm Treo阅读该小说的电子版。沃伦对电子书非常痴迷。他的Treo里通常存有大约7本书，每个月他至少会买两本新书。他说：“它的用途很多，我曾劝说一些朋友改看电子书，但他们觉得有点前卫。”前卫？也许吧，但只是现在，用不了多久这种情况就会改变。许多专家确信，在经历了多次不成功的尝试后，电子书终于可以大展身手了。琼斯埃文斯是一位资深的作者对外事物代理人，她刚刚离开威廉莫里斯经纪公司。她说：“所有其它内型的媒体-音乐、报纸、电影-都走向了数字化。我们是唯一未能赶上科技步伐的产业。变革指日可待。” 电子书有什么新进展，能够吸引像埃文斯这样的人？便携设备变得更轻便、更时尚。成千上万册图书正在被扫描