题目内容
Questions 4 to 6 are based on the following conversation. At the end of the conversation, you will be given 15 seconds to answer the questions. Now, listen to the conversation. Paula and her roommate are planning to
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
A conventional teacher’s license usually requires a university degree in education plus an unpaid term of practice teaching. This has never made much sense. It excludes bright students who take degrees in other subjects, and might teach those subjects; it is costly and time-consuming for career-switchers, who must wait a year or more before they can enter a classroom; it is so rigid that private-school teachers or university professors with years of experience have to jump through hoops before they can start teaching in a state school. And there is virtually no evidence that it creates better teachers. For all that, it is strongly backed by schools of education, which have a monopoly of teacher-training, and by teachers’ unions, whose members make more money when it is artificially hard for others to get into the profession. Now, some 45 states and the Districts of Columbia offer an "alternative route" to a teacher’s license, up from only a handful in the 1980s. Alternative certification (AC) generally allows individuals with a university degree to begin teaching immediately after passing an entrance examination. These recruits, watched over by a mentor teach the subject they studied at university, and take education courses at a sponsoring university while drawing their salaries. The traditional sort of American teacher is likely to be young, white and female. Alternative certification attracts more men and more non-whites. In Texas, for instance, roughly 90% of public-school teachers are white, but 40% of those who have joined through alternative certification are non-whites. The AC route also draws teachers willing to go where they are most needed. A survey of Troops to Teachers, a program that turns exsoldiers into public-school teachers ("Proud to serve again"), found that 39% of those taking part are willing to teach in inner-city schools, and 68% in rural areas. Are they good teachers Officialdom is reluctant to release the details which might answer that question for certain. But anecdotal evidence suggests they do well. In New Jersey, which has been running this sort of program since 1984, rich districts, which can afford to be choosy, consistently hire more AC teachers than poor districts do. In Houston, Texas, where the Teach of America program (TFA) puts recent university graduates into poor communities as teachers, the most effective teachers are generally the TFA ones. "School principals are our biggest fans," Wendy Kopp, TFA’s president, says proudly. So why not scrap the cumbersome teacher-licensing laws Frederick Hess, a professor at the University of Virginia, has written a paper for the Progressive Policy Institute arguing that teacher-licensing ought to be stripped to the bare essentials. Prospective teachers should be required only to hold. a college degree, pass a test of essential skills, and be checked to make sure they do not have a criminal background. Other training is important, argues Mr. Hess, but the market, not state legislators, should decide what that training looks like. This notion of "competitive certification" has drawn favorable attention from the Bush administration. By calling for "competitive certification" (Line 6, Par
Large animals that inhabit the desert have evolved a number of adaptations for reducing the effects of extreme heat. (31) adaptation is to be light in color, and to (32) rather than absorb the sun’s rays. Desert mammals also depart from the normal mammalian practice of maintaining a (33) body temperature. (34) trying to keep down the body temperature deep inside the body, (35) would involve the expenditure of water and energy, desert mammals allow their temperatures to rise to what would normally be fever (36) , and temperatures as high as 46 degrees Celsius have been measured in gazelles (瞪羚羊). Another strategy (37) large desert animals is to tolerate the loss of body water to a point (38) would be fatal for non-adapted animals. The camel can lose up to 30 percent of its body weight (39) water without harm to itseff, (40) human beings die after losing only 12 to 13 percent oftheir body weight. An equally important adaptation is the ability to (41) this water loss (42) onedrink. Desert animals can drink prodigious volumes in a short time, and camels have been known to (43) over 100 liters in a few minutes. A very dehydrated person, (44) , cannot drink enoughwater to rehydrate at one (45) , because the human stomach is not sufficiently big and because a toorapid (46) of the body fluids causes death from water intoxication. The (47) of water loss is ofobvious advantage in the desert, as animals do not have to remain (48) a water hole but can obtain food from gazing sparse and far-flung pastures. Desert-adapted mammals have the (49) ability to feednormally when extremely dehydrated; it is a common experience in people that appetite is lost even (50) conditions of moderate thirst.
在下列各句横线处，依次填入最恰当的词语，正确的一项是( )。 (1)记者的不断追问，使他陷入十分尴尬的______。 (2)自出生以来，他第一次在北京______一个愉快的春节。 (3)画上熙熙攘攘的人群中，______着几个衣衫褴褛的人。
It seems that our society favors a kind of ritualized aggression. Everywhere you look, in newspapers and on television, issues are presented using the terminology of war and conflict. We hear of battles, duels and disputes. We see things in terms of winners and losers, victors and victims. The problem is society’s unquestioning belief in the advantages of the debate as a way of solving disagreements, even proving fight from wrong. Our brainwashing begins early, at school, when the brightest pupils are co-opted onto the debating team. The training in this adversarial approach continues at our tertiary institutions. The standard way to present an academic paper, for instance, is to take up an opposing argument to something expressed by another academic. The paper must set out to prove the other person wrong. This is not at all the same thing as reading the original paper with an open mind and discovering that you disagree with it. The reverence for the adversarial approach spills over into all areas of life. Instead of answering their critics, politicians learn to sidestep negative comments and turn the point around to an attack on their accusers. Defense lawyers argue the case for their clients even when they suspect they may be guilty. And ordinary people use the same tactics—just listen to your teenager next time you pull him up for coming home late. You can be sure a stream of abuse will flow about your own time-keeping, your irritating habits, and your history of bad parenting. Unfortunately, the smarter your kid, the better his or her argument against you will be. You’ll be upset, sure, but you’ll comfort yourself that those teenage monsters of yours will one day turn into mature, tough adults who can look after themselves—by which you mean, of course, they will be able to argue their way out of sticky situations. It’s not that you should never use angry words, or take up a position in opposition to someone or something. There are certainly times when one should take a stand, and in such cases strong words are quite appropriate: if you witness injustice, for instance, or feel passionately about another’s folly. Mockery—so creel when practiced on the innocent—can be very useful in such situations. There is no better way to bring down a tyrant than to mock him mercilessly. What I dislike is the automatic assumption most people have when it comes to disagreements: they should attack, abuse, and preferably over power their opponent, at whatever the cost. But just think how easy it can be to persuade a "difficult" person to be considerate of you or your wishes when you are pleasant to them, and unthreatening. Give them a way out of a potentially aggressive situation without losing face, and they will oblige you willingly. The author’s tone in this passage can be best described as
微信支付 
支付宝支付