题目内容
There are few more sobering online activities than entering data into college-tuition calculators and gasping as the Web spits back a six-figure sum. But economists say families about to go into debt to fund four years of partying, as well as studying, can console themselves with the knowledge that college is an investment that, unlike many bank stocks, should yield huge dividends.A 2008 study by two Harvard economists notes that the "labor-market premium to skill"--or the amount college graduates earned that’s greater than what high-school graduates earned--decreased for much of the 20th century, but has come back with a vengeance (报复性地) since the 1980s. In 2005, the typical full-time year-round U.S. worker with a four-year college degree earned $ 50,900,62% more than the $ 31,500 earned by a worker with only a high-school diploma.There’s no question that going to college is a smart economic choice. But a look at the strange variations in tuition reveals that the choice about which college to attend doesn’t come down merely to dollars and cents. Does going to Columbia University (tuition, room and board $ 49,260 in 2007-08) yield a 40% greater return than attending the University of Colorado at Boulder as an out-of-state student ($ 35,542) Probably not. Does being an out-of-state student at the University of Colorado at Boulder yield twice the amount of income as being an in-state student ($17,380) there Not likely.No, in this consumerist age, most buyers aren’t evaluating college as an investment, but rather as a consumer product--like a car or clothes or a house. And with such purchases, price is only one of many crucial factors to consider.As with automobiles, consumers in today’s college marketplace have vast choices, and people search for the one that gives them the most comfort and satisfaction in line with their budgets. This accounts for the willingness of people to pay more for different types of experiences (such as attending a private liberal-arts college or going to an out-of-state public school that has a great marine-biology program). And just as two auto purchasers might spend an equal amount of money on very different cars, college students (or, more accurately, their parents) often show a willingness to pay essentially the same price for vastly different products. So which is it Is college an investment product like a stock or a consumer product like a car In keeping with the automotive world’s hottest consumer trend, maybe it’s best to characterize it as a hybrid (混合动力汽车): an expensive consumer product that, over time, will pay rich dividends. The two Harvard economists note in their study that, for much of the 20th century, （）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
When Andrew Chadwick-Jones, a management consultant with Oliver Wyman in London, went to a private-equity(私募股权) firm late last year, he expected the usual: about 20 minutes and an unfriendly attitude. He was surprised to find the private-equity people instead explaining their strategy, offering introductions to senior staff and being more open and friendly. "Now that money and deals are lack, they’ve got to be nicer to all the people they interact with, and they might help bring business in future," he says.Rudeness is out, and politeness is the new rule in an uncertain world. The former kings of rude behavior -- Masters of the Universe bankers, private-equity chiefs -- have been humbled. On Wall Street, says a hanker, "it’s now all about charm and openness and taking time with people." Proud young things straight out of the best business schools have stopped letting interview appointments pass, and there is much less looking over people’s shoulders at drinks parties, reports one veteran (经验丰富的人). Many people, fearful for their jobs, are trying to smooth their contacts at other firms.The change in tone also reflects changes in the balance of power between companies. Before the crisis, says Michel Péreité, head of investment banking at Soeeit6 G6n6rale in Paris, he would go and see a senior chief executive with a mergers-and-acquisitions (并购)idea, get in for a short while and, on the way out, walk past a line of all his competitors. Now, he says, "You’re lead in, you get an hour with the CEO and he walks you to your car. "As the representative of a bank with money to lend, Mr. P6reti6 is now the chief executive’s potential savior. "During this crisis, when there is so much uncertainty about who will end up having power, the best strategy is to be polite to everyone," says Adam Galinsky of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University.People have more time to be friendly when business is slow. Some reckon the new sincerity reflects a feeling that everyone is in the same boat: when some firms have to fire good performers as well as bad, no one is safe. But if people at different firms are being nicer to each other, things may not be getting any nicer inside companies. At many, stress and in-fighting are on the rise because of the threat of job cuts. And as soon as things turn up again, all agree, the extra niceness will disappear. Which of the following best describes the uncertain situation now（）
Conventional wisdom says that it is better to be a large company than a small one when credit is tight. Bigger firms have more room for maneuver(机动):They have access to more types of funding, they have more fat to cut, and they have greater bargaining power with lenders. Even so, life is getting ever more uncomfortable for the bigger beasts of the corporate jungle.According to the Federal Reserve’s most recent lending survey, American banks are tightening terms more aggressively for bigger firms than for smaller ones. Lenders are more cautious than theyhave been at least since 1990. The story among European banks is similar. Lenders in emerging markets can be more suspicious of multinational firms than they are of locals. "We just don’t know what they’ve got on their balance-sheets back home," says one bank boss in Africa.Violent movements in exchange rates are causing additional headaches, says Andrew Balfour of Slaughter & May, a law firm. Calculations of financial ratios can be thrown out by wild currency movements, potentially triggering breaches of loan agreements. Companies with sterling-denominated credit lines may find that their facilities are not big enough as a result of the pound’s recent sharp fall, for instance.It is not panic stations yet. Most firms can survive for a while with the credit tap turned off. Analysis by Moody’s, a rating agency, shows that the vast majority of highly rated companies in America and Europe have enough headroom, in the form of cash and undrawn bank facilities, to be able to survive for 12 months without needing new financing. European corporate-debt markets have seen a rare flurry(惊慌) of issues in the past few days by opportunistic, highly rated firms.Governments are also working hard to prop up credit markets. The Fed’s program to buy commercial paper, a form of short-term company debt, had acquired almost ＄300 billion by November 26th. Banks on both sides of the Atlantic are issuing lots of government-backed bonds, which should encourage lending. What might be the consequential result of violent movements in exchange rates（）
The age at which young children begin to make moral discriminations about harmful actions committed against themselves or others has been the focus of recent research into the moral development of children. Until recently, child psychologists supported pioneer developmentalist Jean Piaget in his hypothesis that because of their immaturity, children under age seven do not take into account the intentions of a person committing accidental or deliberate harm, but rather simply assign punishment for transgressions on the basis of the magnitude of the negative con sequences caused. According to Piaget, children under age seven occupy the first stage of moral development, which is characterized by moral absolutism (rules made by authorities must be obeyed and imminent justice (if rules are broken, punishment will be meted out). Until young children mature, their moral judgments are based entirely on the effect rather than the cause of a transgression. However, in recent research, Keasey found that six-year-old children not only distinguish between accidental and intentional harm, but also judge intentional harm as naughtier, regardless of the amount of damage produced. Both of these findings seem to indicate that children, at an earlier age than Piaget claimed, advance into the second stage of moral development, moral autonomy, in which they accept social rules but view them as more arbitrary than do children in the first stage. Keasey’’s research raises two key questions for developmental psychologists about children under age seven: do they recognize justifications for harmful actions, and do they make distinctions between harmful acts that are preventable and those acts that have unforeseen harmful consequences Studies indicate that justifications excusing harmful actions might include public duty, self-defense, and provocation. For example, Nesdale and Rule concluded that children were capable of considering whether or not an aggressor’’s action was justified by public duty: five year olds reacted very differently to "Bonnie wrecks Ann’’s pretend house" depending on whether Bonnie did it "so somebody won’’t fall over it" or because Bonnie wanted "to make Ann feel bad". Thus, a child of five begins to understand that certain harmful actions, though intentional, can be justified; the constraints of moral absolutism no longer solely guide their judgments. Psychologists have determined that during kindergarten children learn to make subtle distinctions involving harm. Darley observed that among acts involving unintentional harm, six year-old children just entering kindergarten could not differentiate between foreseeable, and thus preventable harm and unforeseeable harm for which the perpetrator cannot be blamed. Seven months later, however. Darley found that these same children could make both distinctions, thus demonstrating that they become morally autonomous. According to the passage, Piaget and Keasey would have agreed on all the following points except ______.
I’m interested in the criminal justice system of our country. It seems to me that something has to be done, if we’re to (37) as a country. I certainly don’t know what the answers to our problems are. Things certainly get (38) in a hurry when you get into them, but I wonder if something couldn’t be done to deal with some of these problems. One thing I’m concerned about is our practice of putting (39) in jail who haven’t harmed anyone. Why not work out some system (40) they can pay back the debts they owe society instead of (41) another debt by going to prison and, of course, coming under the (42) of hardened criminals. I’m also concerned about the short prison sentences people are (43) for serious crimes. Of course one alternative to this is to (44) capital punishment, but I’m not sure I would be for that. I’m not sure it’s right to take an eye for eye． (45) . I also think we must do something about the insanity plea. In my opinion, anyone who takes another person’s life intentionally is insane, however， (46) It’s sad, of course, that a person may have to spend the rest of his life, or (47) . 38（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付