题目内容
"Until recently, I thought that there would never again be an opportunity to be involved with an industry as socially destructive as the subprime mortgage industry," said Steve Eisman, a hedge-fund manager who made a lot of money during the financial crisis by shorting bank shares, to Congress in June. "I was wrong. The for-profit education industry has proven equal to the task." America’s for-profit colleges are under fire, and the Obama administration is preparing tough new regulations for them. Although recent scandals suggest higher education needs to be better regulated, discriminating against the for-profit sector could do wider damage. The notion that profit is too dirty a motive to be allowed in a business as fine as education is pervasive. Even Britain’s Conservatives, determined though they are to introduce radical educational reforms, have drawn the line at allowing for-profit schools to get state funding. America has generally been more liberal; and, with the state and non-profit colleges cutting back, the for-profit sector has been doing startlingly well. In 2008-2009, some 3,000 for-profit colleges educated 3.2m students—59% more than three years earlier, and 11.7% of all students. Yet recent government reports suggest that some of these colleges have a troublingly familiar business model: selling a low-grade product to people who are paying with subsidized government loans. The Department of Education reported that most students at many of these universities were defaulting on their loans. Similarly, an investigation by the Government Accountability Office found that even leading for-profit colleges such as Kaplan and the University of Phoenix had engaged in cunning practices to recruit students and encourage them to borrow large sums to pay for their courses. Among the most controversial of the new rules due to be introduced on November 1st is a "gainful employment" requirement that would make a course eligible (合格的) for government loans only if enough current or past students are repaying their loans. The for-profit colleges maintain that they have high drop-out rates because their students are poorer than those in the state and non-profit sector, and that the gainful-employment rule will simply reduce access to higher education for poorer people. Don Graham, boss of the Washington Post Company, which owns Kaplan, has suggested that private colleges should be required to refund all lees if a student decides to drop out during his first term in order to "drive out all the bad actors" from the industry. Constructive suggestions are rare in a debate that has mixed a lot of rhetorical cant with a big principle. The cant is more obvious. The American right cites Barack Obama’s proposals as another sign that he hates capitalism. Yet not only abuses plainly occurred but for-profit colleges are hardly poster children for free enterprise: they are already heavily regulated, not least because most of the loans to students are provided by the government. The left, from its non-profit redoubts, claims that these are big businesses exploiting the little guy. The principle Concentrate on the quality of the education, not the ownership. All sorts of colleges seem to have been guilty of shabby marketing. They should be treated the same. Good rules—such as Mr. Graham’s one—should apply to non-profit and for-profit colleges alike. Singling out for-profits for special attention risks depriving students, and America at large, of the full benefits in innovation and cost-effectiveness that the profit motive has generally brought to higher education. That really would be "socially destructive". According to the passage, the principle of education should be ______.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
"Until recently, I thought that there would never again be an opportunity to be involved with an industry as socially destructive as the subprime mortgage industry," said Steve Eisman, a hedge-fund manager who made a lot of money during the financial crisis by shorting bank shares, to Congress in June. "I was wrong. The for-profit education industry has proven equal to the task." America’s for-profit colleges are under fire, and the Obama administration is preparing tough new regulations for them. Although recent scandals suggest higher education needs to be better regulated, discriminating against the for-profit sector could do wider damage. The notion that profit is too dirty a motive to be allowed in a business as fine as education is pervasive. Even Britain’s Conservatives, determined though they are to introduce radical educational reforms, have drawn the line at allowing for-profit schools to get state funding. America has generally been more liberal; and, with the state and non-profit colleges cutting back, the for-profit sector has been doing startlingly well. In 2008-2009, some 3,000 for-profit colleges educated 3.2m students—59% more than three years earlier, and 11.7% of all students. Yet recent government reports suggest that some of these colleges have a troublingly familiar business model: selling a low-grade product to people who are paying with subsidized government loans. The Department of Education reported that most students at many of these universities were defaulting on their loans. Similarly, an investigation by the Government Accountability Office found that even leading for-profit colleges such as Kaplan and the University of Phoenix had engaged in cunning practices to recruit students and encourage them to borrow large sums to pay for their courses. Among the most controversial of the new rules due to be introduced on November 1st is a "gainful employment" requirement that would make a course eligible (合格的) for government loans only if enough current or past students are repaying their loans. The for-profit colleges maintain that they have high drop-out rates because their students are poorer than those in the state and non-profit sector, and that the gainful-employment rule will simply reduce access to higher education for poorer people. Don Graham, boss of the Washington Post Company, which owns Kaplan, has suggested that private colleges should be required to refund all lees if a student decides to drop out during his first term in order to "drive out all the bad actors" from the industry. Constructive suggestions are rare in a debate that has mixed a lot of rhetorical cant with a big principle. The cant is more obvious. The American right cites Barack Obama’s proposals as another sign that he hates capitalism. Yet not only abuses plainly occurred but for-profit colleges are hardly poster children for free enterprise: they are already heavily regulated, not least because most of the loans to students are provided by the government. The left, from its non-profit redoubts, claims that these are big businesses exploiting the little guy. The principle Concentrate on the quality of the education, not the ownership. All sorts of colleges seem to have been guilty of shabby marketing. They should be treated the same. Good rules—such as Mr. Graham’s one—should apply to non-profit and for-profit colleges alike. Singling out for-profits for special attention risks depriving students, and America at large, of the full benefits in innovation and cost-effectiveness that the profit motive has generally brought to higher education. That really would be "socially destructive". What does the word "that" refer to in the last sentence in Paragraph 6
Dave Walsh, web editor on board the Rainbow Warrior again this year, gave the following account of the 2004 expedition that followed the activities of seven ships as they trawled seamounts for target species of orange roughly. "We watched them raising tons of fish, corals—and even rocks from the ocean floor! Dozens of species of ’unwanted’ deep sea life, snapped from habitat 1000kin below us, were turfed over the side of the bottom trawlers, internal organs blown apart from the violent change in pressure. Hundreds of albatross—a bird usually considered a loner, drifting at the mercy of the winds—squabbled over the dead or dying fish. " Among the huge amounts of bottom dwelling marine life including fish, sea stars, squid, sea urchins and ghost sharks that were hauled up and discarded, was a delicate branch of endangered black coral, a species listed on the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) for over 20 years. Black coral is also protected in adjacent New Zealand waters. Corals are the foundation of unique deep-sea communities and their destruction affects everything else living in or near them on the sea floor. Speaking at a press conference on board the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour to launch the current expedition, oceans campaigner Carmen Gravatt said "Bottom trawling is the most destructive fishing practice in the world. The deep sea is the largest pool of undiscovered life on Earth. Bottom trawling these unknown worlds is like blowing up Mars before we get there. " Recently, in collaboration with the Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS), we also concluded the exploration of a little-known coral reef complex off the west of Scotland. Using remotely operated vehicles (small, unmanned submarines), scientists studied and documented the reef, its cold water corals and the numerous species it is thought to host. Previous surveys of the reef conducted by SAMS found that parts of the coral formation are 3,800 years old and the base may be over 10,000 years old. Next week, our political advisor Karen Sack will speak at a UN meeting on Oceans. Will the Rainbow Warrior once again unearth crucial evidence so the UN can see with their own eyes that a moratorium is needed "Each day bottom trawling continues, more deep sea life gets wiped out and the situation becomes more critical," said Gravatt. "A moratorium on bottom trawling in international waters is urgently needed to protect life in the deep sea.\ What is the best title for the passage
SQL中提供了安全性的机制有哪些？
To many visitors to a country the word "city" means the capital city. And that in its turn means what would be taken in by a group of tourists who had set out to see the sights. To many visitors to Britain, London is where it’s all going on. The man who is tired of London is tired of life, Doctor Johnson said in 1750. Or as an updated version has it, London is where the action is. Well, that’s now it’s put down in the guide books anyway. Of course to Londoners the word city means "the City" with a capital C, that square mile eventually marked out and walled in by the Romans after they had set up their original camp by the Thames about 50 AD. Some Londoners still live there, but most Londoners are not Londoners and do not live in the London they work in. Their home is in one of the many large villages that make up London as it began spilling over and pushing out in the late 18th and 19th centuries. They live either in the inner suburbs of the Metropolitan area or the outer suburbs of the Greater London area. It’s all very expensive and overcrowded and yet more and more people are piling in and looking for a nest. For everyone who finds it too expensive and moves out, at least three are waiting to move in. Where does Britain really begin In London Well, does France begin in Paris Only a Parisian or a Londoner would make this claim and Londoners are scarcer than Parisians these days. What! With nine million inhabitants You might ask in astonishment. But what is meant by that is that these days in London if you’re in a roomful of people the chances of coming across a second-generation Londoner are about one in a hundred. And a third-generation Londoner is something to make people’s eyes pop. The old Londoners have died off, or moved out of a London they could no longer put up or identify with. Equally, the new Londoners cannot identify with something that for them has no identity as such. For London is not England, let alone Britain, neither in its inner nor outer suburbs. Any other city stands for its region in a way capital never can. The needs for a centre for commerce, finance and government have conspired to set up these artificial growths, and London like most capitals is a huge, tension-filled, problem-filled, necessary anomaly. For all that, London is still growing though it’s much slower external growth today, not like a tree putting on a new ring each year or a middle-aged waistline suddenly expanding. Outside, beyond the limits where the city runs out and agriculture and nature begin, is still for many people the beginning of reality. For them the real roots still lie in the land they have "got away from" or at heart want to get back to, or if they are true city-dwellers, imagine they want to go to throw off the artificial life. But no one is ever completely satisfied. The trouble about cities is that they can grow on one in true love-hate fashion and while the grass always looks greener in the next village it usually turns out not to be. The author suggests that the middle-aged can suddenly ______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付