题目内容
Anthropology is the study of human beings as creatures of society. It (1) its attention upon those. physical characteristics and industrial techniques, those conventions and values, which (2) one community from all others that belong to a different tradition.The distinguishing mark of anthropology among the social sciences is that it includes for serious study other societies (3) our own. For its purposes any social (4) of mating and reproduction is as significant as our own. To the anthropologist our customs and those of a New Guinea tribe are two possible social schemes for (5) a common problem, and in so far as he remains an anthropologist he is (6) to avoid any weighting of one (7) the other. He is interested in human behavior, not as it is shaped by one tradition, our own, but as it has been shaped by any tradition (8) He is interested in a wide (9) of custom that is found in various cultures, and his object is to understand the way in which these cultures change and (10) , the different forms through which they express themselves and the (11) in which the customs of any peoples function in the lives of the (12) .Now custom has not been commonly regarded as a (13) of any great moment. The inner workings of our own brains we feel to be uniquely (14) of investigation, but custom, we have a way of thinking, is behavior at its most commonplace. (15) , it is the other way round. Traditional custom is a mass of detailed behavior more astonishing than (16) any one person can ever evolve in individual actions. Yet that is a rather (17) aspect of the matter. The fact (18) first rate importance is the predominant role that custom (19) in experience and belief, and the very great varieties it may (20) 6（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Directions:Read the following Chinese text and write an abstract of it in 80～100 English words教育的社会责任教育与老百姓的生存发展息息相关。无论是国家民族，还是人民大众，对教育的重视都达到了一个空前的高度。在这种情形之下，教育尤其应当肩负起应有的社会责任，对国家和民族负责，对人民大众负责。教育的对象是人，“人只有通过教育才能成为人”。因此，教育首先必须对人负责，对受教育者负责。教育是人学，教育要对受教育者负责，就是首先要把学生作为人来对待，应当充满人性关怀，始终闪耀人性光辉。教育对人负责，就是应当关注人的能力培养，开启学生的智力，培养学生的能力，发展学生的潜力，“传道授业解惑也”。但是，决不能把学生当作盛装知识的容器，当作考试做题的工具。一切为了分数，一切为了考试，一切为了升学，揠苗助长、削足适履，这些做法，都是对人的极端不负责任。人民教育家陶行知先生深恶痛绝的，就是那种“教育等于读书，读书等于赶考”的“消灭民族生存力”的恶行。有教无类，因材施教，循循善诱，诲人不倦……先哲的这些金玉之言，不仅道出了教育的真谛，更体现了对人性的尊重。真正的教育，是“照料人的心魄”，是“促进人的灵魂的转向”，是“使心灵的和谐达到完善的境地”。因此，教育对人负责，应当更多地关注人的灵魂塑造。真正的教育，应当是爱的濡染，是美的熏陶，是善的弘扬，是真的追求。陶行知先生曾说：“千教万教教人求真，千学万学学做真人。”这句话，不仅指明了育人的方向，更阐释了教育的责任所在。所以，成功的教育，首先体现在走出校门的教育对象，应当是对社会、对民族、对集体、对家庭，有积极性而无消极性、有建设性而无破坏性、有促进性而无倒逆性的人。教育，应当是向善的，应当是向上的，应当是向好的。有偿家教，违规补课，甚至教师教学生作弊，还向学生兜售高考作弊器，这种种行为，是对学生也是对社会的严重不负责任。所以，为人师者，不仅要学高为师，更应身正为范，“捧着一颗心来，不带半根草去”，“为一大事来，做一大事去”。人的生命是鲜活的。真正的教育，不应是压抑生命、禁锢生命，而应是珍惜生命、滋养生命、激扬生命、舒展生命，让生命更加灿烂、更加生龙活虎、更加朝气蓬勃。宋代程颐说“有文采以养其目，声音以养其耳，威仪以养其四体，歌舞以养其血气，义理以养其心”。苏霍姆林斯基也曾说“美是道德纯洁、精神丰富和体魄健全的有力源泉”，“教育，如果没有美，没有艺术，那是不可思议的”。因为忽视体育锻炼，学生学业负担过重，体质普遍下降；因为忽视心理呵护，学生心理疾患日渐增多；因为忽视人文熏陶，学生的内心冷漠。所以，学校的教育活动，应当坚持健康第一，要通过体育教学，“让学生掌握一至两种伴随终生的体育技能”，提振学生的精气神，“养乎吾身，乐乎吾心”，健康生活一辈子。学校的教育活动，应当具有浓郁的美育氛围，要通过音乐、美术、书法等教学活动，教育和培养青少年拥有完美的人格、健康的情感、美好的心灵。教育是社会意志的体现者，肩负着按照社会要求塑造人的使命。教育对社会负责，就必须体现社会意志，必须为社会发展服务。这既是教育的根本宗旨，也是教育的根本任务。毋庸讳言，在当前经济社会快速发展的进程中，教育存在着许多值得反思的现象，出现了过分功利化的倾向，忽视了必要的社会价值追求。比如，对学校发展的商业化运作，学校之间的不正当竞争，办学效果评价的简单化，师生关系的物质化，这些功利化的做法不仅影响了人才培养的质量，更为危险的是给社会埋下了一个又一个毒瘤。始终坚守社会核心价值，成为社会伦理的向导、人类良知的灯塔，充分发挥教育的引领和示范作用，这不仅是教育的责任，也是教育的良知。为社会发展与变革服务，为社会进步与繁荣作贡献，是教育义不容辞的责任。维护社会和谐稳定，减少愚昧与迷信，消除贫困与落后，减少犯罪，消除不平等不公正，是教育不可替代的重要功能。教育公平是社会公平的重要基础，教育对社会负责，就是要以教育的公平公正促进社会的公平公正，教育不公必然祸及土会。教育的效果既具有现实性更具有未来性，教育对社会负责，就是要通过对人的培养从而实现为社会现实与长远利益服务，不能一味追求眼前效果，急功近利，而忽视未来效果。当前，切实解决教育的热点难点问题．如促进城乡教育均衡发展，提高教育质量，促进大学毕业生就业等等，都是教育对社会尽责的重要内容。“优先发展教育，建设人力资源强国”是党的十七大提出的重大战略目标。教育唯有肩负责任，方能不辱使命。
This weekend marks 25 years since the publication of the U.S. Department of Education’s explosive report "A Nation at Risk. " Its powerful indictment of American education launched the largest education-reform movement in the nation’s history, paving the way for strategies as different as charter schools and the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. But even after a vast political and financial investment spanning two and a half decades, we’re far from achieving the report’s ambitious aims. We’ve learned a lot about school reform in 25 years, lessons that suggest that it is possible, eventually, to achieve "A Nation at Risk’s" ambitious aims. We’ve learned that a lot of public schools require incentives to lift their sights for their students. The nation’s long tradition of letting local school boards set standards isn’t going to get us where we need to go educationally. If anything, NCLB’s requirement of statewide standards needs to be taken to its logical conclusion—rigorous national standards. Make them voluntary. Give states and school systems different ways of measuring their progress against the standards by sanctioning a number of different national examination boards. And reward educators for meeting the new standards (NCLB only punishes schools for not meeting state standards, which encourages states to keep standards low because they don’t want a lot of their schools labeled as failures). But improvement can’t merely be imposed on schools from the outside. Schools are complex social enterprises; their success depends on thousands of daily personal interactions. They are, in the end, only asgood as the people in them and the culture in which those people work. So it’s crucial to get everyone in a school community invested in a school’s mission. Ownership is key. That comes from giving schools autonomy—in staffing, budgeting and instruction. From giving families a chance to choose their public schools. And from school leadership that promotes a strong sense of school identity and clear expectations of success. Reform has to come from the inside-out as well as the outside-in. There’s a human side of school reform that we ignore at our peril. But if achieving "A Nation at Risk’s" vision is becoming increasingly difficult, the alternative is really no alternative. The American economy hasn’t collapsed in the absence of public-school reform because its success is driven mainly by the small segment of the workforce that is highly educated. But the plight of the middle class that the reform reports of the 1980s warned about has worsened as the wage gap between high-school graduates and the college-educated has widened, creating an increasingly two-tiered society—and an ever-greater need to arm every American with the high-quality education that "A Nation at Risk" envisioned. The author suggests that the aims of the education reform
There’s nothing simple about gun control, a tangle of legal, political and public-health issues complicated by cultural preferences and regional biases. Passions run high on all sides. Lifelong hunters whogrew up with firearms, urban victims of gun violence, Second Amendment scholars, NRA lobbyists, chiefs of police—they’ve all got cases to make and they make them well, often contentiously. For the past 15 years, much of the debate has centered on the effectiveness of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the federal gun-control bill that was passed in 1993. Critics say the focus on law-abiding gun buyers doesn’t address the real issue—bad guys who acquire their weapons illegally. Supporters say that the bill stops thousands of illegal gun purchases and deters crime and violence. Now medical research has come to the rescue, sifting through the data to figure out which legal measures work best to reduce firearm suicides and homicides. In a paper published in the May issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Steven Sumner, a third-year med student and Dr. Peter Layde, codirector of the Injury Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin, found that local background checks, which are optional and used by just a handful of states, were more effective than the federal background checks mandated by the Brady law. The report compared the homicide and suicide rates in states that perform only federal checks with states that do state-level checks and those that perform local-level checks. The local-level checks were associated with a 27 percent lower firearm suicide rate and a 22 percent lower homicide rate among adults 21 and older, the legal age to purchase a gun. Why are local checks so much better "We hypothesize that it’s due to access to additional information that’s not available at the federal checks," says Layde, "particularly related to mental-health issues and domestic-violence issues." All 50 states use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the minimum required under Brady, while 17 states also perform state-level checks and 12 do additional local-level checks. "This is the first study that’s looked at this issue," says Layde. "If the magnitude of impact we found were in fact to apply to all 50 states, you would expect a very substantial reduction in suicides and homicides linked to firearms, many thousands. " However, background checks can be both an administrative and a cost burden for strapped and stretched local authorities. There is another way to get the same results., improve the flow of local information to the NICS databases. "In an ideal world," says Layde, "you might not have to have the local agencies involved if you just reliably got all the data they had up to the federal level. \ In light of their findings, Layde proposes that
There’s nothing simple about gun control, a tangle of legal, political and public-health issues complicated by cultural preferences and regional biases. Passions run high on all sides. Lifelong hunters whogrew up with firearms, urban victims of gun violence, Second Amendment scholars, NRA lobbyists, chiefs of police—they’ve all got cases to make and they make them well, often contentiously. For the past 15 years, much of the debate has centered on the effectiveness of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the federal gun-control bill that was passed in 1993. Critics say the focus on law-abiding gun buyers doesn’t address the real issue—bad guys who acquire their weapons illegally. Supporters say that the bill stops thousands of illegal gun purchases and deters crime and violence. Now medical research has come to the rescue, sifting through the data to figure out which legal measures work best to reduce firearm suicides and homicides. In a paper published in the May issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Steven Sumner, a third-year med student and Dr. Peter Layde, codirector of the Injury Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin, found that local background checks, which are optional and used by just a handful of states, were more effective than the federal background checks mandated by the Brady law. The report compared the homicide and suicide rates in states that perform only federal checks with states that do state-level checks and those that perform local-level checks. The local-level checks were associated with a 27 percent lower firearm suicide rate and a 22 percent lower homicide rate among adults 21 and older, the legal age to purchase a gun. Why are local checks so much better "We hypothesize that it’s due to access to additional information that’s not available at the federal checks," says Layde, "particularly related to mental-health issues and domestic-violence issues." All 50 states use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the minimum required under Brady, while 17 states also perform state-level checks and 12 do additional local-level checks. "This is the first study that’s looked at this issue," says Layde. "If the magnitude of impact we found were in fact to apply to all 50 states, you would expect a very substantial reduction in suicides and homicides linked to firearms, many thousands. " However, background checks can be both an administrative and a cost burden for strapped and stretched local authorities. There is another way to get the same results., improve the flow of local information to the NICS databases. "In an ideal world," says Layde, "you might not have to have the local agencies involved if you just reliably got all the data they had up to the federal level. \ The Brady Act requires that
微信支付 
支付宝支付