高级英语视听说教程_第二册__听力文本
高级英语视听说教程第二册听力文本
Book 2 Chapter 1 The PopulationToday we’re going to talk about population in the United States. According to the most recent government census, the population is 281,421,906 people. Now this represents an increase of almost 33 million people since the 1990 census. A population of over 281 million makes the United States the third most populous country in the whole world. As you probably know, the People’s Republic of China is the most populous country in the world. But do you know which is the second most populous? Well, if you thought India, you were right. The fourth, fifth, and sixth most populous countries are Indonesia, Brazil, and Pakistan. Now let’s get back to the United States. Let’s look at the total U. S. population figure of 281 million in three different ways. The first way is by race and origin; the second is by geographical distribution, or by where people live; and the third way is by the age and sex of the population.First of all, let’s take a look at the population by race and origin. The latest U. S. census reports that percent of the population is white, whereas percent is black. Three percent are of Asian origin, and 1 percent is Native American. percent of the population is a mixture of two or more races, and percent report themselves as “of some other race”. Let’s make sure your figures are right: OK, white, percent; black, percent; Asian, 3 percent; Native American, 1 percent; a mixture of two or more races, percent; and of some other race, percent. Hispanics, whose origins lie in Spanish-speaking countries, comprise whites, blacks, and Native Americans, so they are already included in the above figures. It is important to note that Hispanics make up percent of the present U.S. population, however. Finally, the census tells us that 31 million people in the United States were born in another country. Of the 31 million foreign born, the largest part, percent are from Mexico. The next largest group, from the Philippines, number percent.Another way of looking at the population is by geographical distribution. Do you have any idea which states are the five most populous in the United States? Well, I’ll help you out there. The five most populous states, with population figures, are California, with almost 34 million; New York, with 21 million; Texas, with 19 million; and Florida, with 16 million; and Illinois with million people. Did you get all those figures down? Well, if not, I’ll give you a chance later to check your figures. Well, then, let’s move on. All told, over half, or some 58 percent of the population, lives inthe South and in the West of the United States. This figure, 58 percent, is surprising to many people. It is surprising because the East is more densely populated. Nevertheless, there are more people all together in the South and West. To understand this seeming contradiction, one need only consider the relatively larger size of many southern and western states, so although there are more people, they are distributed over a larger area. To finish up this section on geographical distribution, consider that more than three-quarters of the people live in metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Houston. That means that only 20 percent, or 2 out of 10 people, live in rural areas. An interesting side note is that some 3,800,000 U.S. citizens live abroad, that is, in foreign countries.Before we finish today, I want to discuss the distribution of the U.S. population in terms of age and sex. Just for interest, would you say there are more men or more women in the United States? Well, according to the 2000 census, there are more women. In fact, there are more than five million more women than men in the U.S. population. If we consider that more males than females are born each year, how can this difference be explained? Well, for a variety of complicated reasons that we can’t go into here, there is a progressively higher death rate for males as they get older. This is seen in 2003 life expectancy figures: the life expectancy for women is years whereas for men it is only years. I don’t know how these life expectancy figures compare to those in your countries, but statistically women generally live longer than men worldwide. Now, to finish up, let’s look at the average age of the whole population. Overall, the average age of the population is increasing: from years in 1990 to years in 2000. The average age has been slowly, but steadily, increasing over the past several decades. This trend toward a higher average age can be explained by a decreasing birth rate and an increasing life expectancy for the population as a whole. Well, I’d like to investigate these two subjects further, but I see our time is up, so we’ll have to call it quits for today. You may want to pursue the topic of the aging U.S. population further, so there are some suggestions at the end of the lesson to help you do so. Thank you.Chapter Two Immigration: Past and PresentThe act of immigrating, or coming to a new country to live, is certainly nothing new. Throughout history, people have immigrated, or moved to new countries, for many different reasons. Sometimes these reasons were economic or political. Other people moved because of natural disasters such as droughts or famines. And some people movedto escape religious or political persecution. No matter what the reason, most people do not want to leave their native land and do so only under great pressure of some sort, but a few people seem quite adventuresome and restless by nature and like to move a lot. It seems both kinds of people came to America to live. The subject of immigration is quite fascinating to most Americans, as they view themselves as a nation of immigrants. However, the early Britons who came to what is today the United States considered themselves “settlers” or “colonists,” rather than immigrants. These people did not exactly think they were moving to a new country but were merely settling new land for the “mother country.” There were also large numbers of Dutch, French, German, and Scotch-Irish settlers, as well as large numbers of blacks brought from Africa as slaves. At the time of independence from Britain in 1776, about 40 percent of people living in what is now the United States were non-British. The majority of people, however, spoke English, and the traditions that formed the basis of life were mainly British traditions. This period we have just been discussing is usually referred to as the Colonial Period. Today, we’re a little more interested in actual immigration after this period. Let’s first look at what is often called the Great Immigration, which began about 1830 and ended in 1930. Then let’s consider the reasons for this so-called Great Immigration and the reasons it ended. Finally, let’s talk about the immigration situation in the United States today,As I said, we’ll begin our discussion today with the period of history called the Great Immigration, which lasted from approximately 1830 to 1930. It will be easier if we look at the Great Immigration in terms of three major stages, or time periods. The first stage was from approximate1y 1830 to 1860. Now, before this time, the number of immigrants coming to the United States was comparatively small, only about 10,000 a year. However, the rate began to climb in the 1830s when about 600,000 immigrants arrived. The rate continued to climb during the 1840s with a tota1 of 1,700,000 people arriving in that decade. The rate continued to climb, and during the 1850s 2,600,000 immigrants arrived. During this first stage of the Great Immigration, that is, between the years 1830 and 1860, the majority of immigrants came from Germany, Great Britain, and Ireland. Now let’s consider the second stage of the Great Immigration. The second stage was from l860 to 1890, during which time another 10,000,000 people arrived. Between l860 and 1890 the majority of immigrants continued to be from Germany, Ireland, and Great Britain. However, during the second stage, a smaller but significant number of immigrants came from the Scandinavian nations of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The third stage of the Great Immigration, which lasted from 1890 to 1930, was the eraof heaviest immigration. Between the years l890 and l930, almost 22 million immigrants arrived in the United States. Most of these new arrivals came from the Southern European countries of Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain and the Eastern European countries of Poland and Russia.Now that we know something about the numbers and origins of immigrants who came to the States during the Great Immigration, let’s consider the reasons why most of these people immigrated to the United States. Why did such large numbers of Europeans leave their homes for life in an unknown country? It would be impossible to discuss all the complex political and economic reasons in any depth today, but we can touch on a few interesting facts that might help to clarify the situation for you. First of all, one of the most important reasons was that the population of Europe doubled between the years 1750 and 1850. At the same time that the population was growing so rapidly, the Industrial Revolution in Europe was causing widespread unemployment. The combination of increased population and the demand for land by industry also meant that farmland was becoming increasingly scarce in Europe. The scarcity of farmland in Europe meant that the abundance of available land in the growing country of the United States was a great attraction. During these years, the United States was an expanding country and it seemed that there was no end to land. In fact, in 1862, the government offered public land free to citizens and to immigrants who were planning to become citizens. In addition to available farmland, there were also plentiful jobs during these years of great economic growth. Other attractions were freedom from religious or political persecution. Some other groups also came to the United States as the direct results of natural disasters that left them in desperate situations. For example, the frequent failure of the potato crop in Ireland between the years 1845 and 1849 led to widespread starvation in that country, and people were driven to immigrate. Another factor that affected the number of immigrants coming to the United States was improved ocean transport beginning in the 1840s. At that time, ships large enough to carry large numbers of people began to make regular trips across the ocean. Now let’s summarize the reasons for the high rate of immigration to the United States during the years we discussed: first, the doubling of the population in Europe between 1750 and 1850; second, the unemployment caused by the Industrial Revolution; and third, the land scarcity in Europe, followed by religious and political persecution and natural disaster. These reasons combined with improved transportation probably account for the largest number of immigrants.I would now like to talk briefly about the period of time following the Great Immigration and the reasons for the decline in the rate of immigration. Although immigration continues today, immigration numbers have never again reached the levels that we discussed previously. There are several reasons for this decline. This decline was in part due to various laws whose aim was to limit the number of immigrants coming from different parts of the world to the United States. The first such law that limited the number of immigrants coming from a certain part of the world was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This law was followed by many other laws that also tried to limit the numbers of people immigrating from various countries or parts of the world. In addition to such laws, certainly economic and geopolitical events as important as the Great Depression starting in 1929 and World War II also contributed to the decline in immigration.Let’s conclude our talk by discussing the current situation with respect to immigration, which is quite different from that in the past. To understand some of the changes, it’s important to note that in 1965 strict quotas based on nationality were eliminated. Let’s see how different things are today from the past. As I noted, the greatest number of immigrants to the United States have historically been European. According to . Census figures, in 1860, the percentage of immigrants that were European was 92 percent. But by 1960, the percentage of European immigrants had dropped to percent, and by the year 2002, it had dropped to 14 percent! In 2002, percent of immigrants came from Latin America, that is, from the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. Mexico is ordinarily considered part of North America, but the . Census Bureau considers Mexico as a Central American country in terms of immigration statistics, and estimates that more than one-third of the total of all immigrants to the United States in 2002 came from Mexico or another Central American country. The next largest percentage, percent, of immigrants came from Asia, mainly from the Philippines, China, and India.Although immigration dropped sharply when the United States entered World War I and remained low throughout the Depression and World War II years, at the end of the l940s, immigration began to increase again and has, in general, risen steadily since then. It might surprise you to know that the actual number of immigrants coming yearly to the States in recent years is about the same as the numbers coming yearly between 1900 and 1910. Keep in mind, though, that the population of the United States is much larger now than at the turn of the century, so that while the yearly numbers may be similar, thepercentage of the population that is foreign-born is considerably smaller today than it was a century ago.It might be interesting to speculate on immigration in the future. Will the trend continue for non-Europeans to immigrate to the United States? The answer is probably yes for the foreseeable future. Do these non-European people come to the United States for the same reasons that Europeans came? Well, land is no longer plentiful and cheap. Industry no longer requires large numbers of unskilled workers. In fact, the government usually tries to restrict immigration to those people who already have the skills to be successful in U.S. society. Still, people come for politica1 and economic reasons and probably will continue to do so.Chapter 3 Americans at WorkWhether you love it or hate it, work is a major part of most people’s lives everywhere in the world. Americans are no exception. Americans might complain about “blue Monday,” when they have to go back to work after the weekend, but most people put a lot of importance on their job, not only in terms of money but also in terms of identity. In fact, when Americans are introduced to a new person, they almost always ask each other, “What do you do?” They are asking, what is your job or profession. Today, however, we won’t look at work in terms of what work means socially or psychologically. Rather, we’re going to take a look at work in the United States today from two perspectives. First, we’ll take a historical look at work in America. We’ll do that by looking at how things changed for the American worker from the beginning to the end of the twentieth century, that is, from the year 1900 to the year 1999. Then we’ll look at how . workers are doing today.As we look at the changes over the last century, we’re going to use a lot of statistics to describe these changes. You will need to write down a lot of numbers in today’s lecture. First, let’s consider how the type of work people were involved in changed. At the beginning of the twentieth century, about 38 percent of the workforce was involved in agriculture; that is, they worked on a farm. By the end of the century, only 3 percent still worked on farms. There was also a large decrease in the number of people working in mining, manufacturing, and construction. The number of workers in mining, manufacturing, and construction went down from 31 percent to 19 percent.While the number of people in these goods producing industries went down, the number of people in the service industries went up. As you may know, a service industry is one that provides a service, rather than goods or products. A few examples include transportation, tourism, banking, advertising, health care, and legal services. I’m sure you can think of more. The service industry workforce jumped from 31 percent of the workforce at the turn of the century to 78 percent in 1999.Let’s recap the numbers: in 1900, 38 percent in agriculture; 31 percent in mining, manufacturing, and construction; and 31 percent in the service industries. That should add up to 100 percent. In 1999, 3 percent in agriculture; 19 percent in mining, manufacturing, and construction; and 78 percent in the service industries. Again, that should add up to 100 percent.The labor force changed in other important ways. For example, child labor was not unusual at the beginning of the twentieth century. In 1900 there were 1, 750, 000 children aged ten to fifteen working full-time in the labor force. This was 6 percent of the labor force. Over the years, child labor laws became much stricter and by 1999, it was illegal for anyone under sixteen to work full-time in any of the fifty states. While the number of children in the workforce went down, the number of women went up dramatically. In 1900, only 19 percent of women were employed; in 1999, 60 percent of women were holding down jobs.Let’s see what has happened to wages and salaries. All the numbers I will give you are in terms of 1999 dollars. Let me explain. In 1900 the average per capita income was $4,200 a year. That does not mean that the average worker in 1900 earned $4,200, a year, but that what he or she earned was equal to $4, 200 in 1999. That is, the amount of money the average worker earned in 1900 was worth the same as $4,200 in 1999. The average per capita income in 1999 was $33, 700. Not only did people earn a lot more money at the end of the century, they also received a lot more in benefits than at the beginning of the century. One of the important benefits most workers received later in the century was health insurance. Whereas wages and salaries rose over the century, the average workweek dropped. That is, workers, in general, did not work as long hours in 1999 as they did in 1900.The last area that I’d like to give you a few statistics about is workplace safety. Most of us who go to work every day don’t think a lot about whether we are safe or not, but in 1900 it was a real concernfor a lot of workers. There aren’t many statistics available, but the . government does have statistics on two industries that will give you some idea of the differences today. In 1900 almost 1,500 workers were killed in coal-mining accidents; in 1999, the number was 35. 2,555 railroad workers were killed in 1900, compared to 56 in 1999.People often tend to romanticize the past and talk about “the good old days,” but I think it’s fair to say that by the end of the twentieth century, . workers in general made more money, they enjoyed more benefits, and their working conditions had improved greatly.Now let’s turn our attention to the current situation for . workers. The picture is not so rosy as the one drawn by comparing U.S. workers at the beginning and the end of the twentieth century. I’m going to focus on the current situation in terms of productivity, working hours, and wages and salaries.First let’s consider the number of hours worked. According to a 2003 study released by the United Nations International Labor Organization, U.S. workers are the most productive in the world among industrialized nations, but they work longer hours than European workers to achieve this productivity. Europeans typically have four to six weeks of vacation a year, whereas the average American worker has only about two weeks. This study points out that the longer working hours in the United States is a rising trend, while the trend in other industrialized countries is the opposite.Workers in some European countries actually outproduce American workers per hour of work. It has been suggested that this higher rate of productivity might be because European workers are less stressed than U.S. workers.At any rate, there seems to be general agreement that U.S. productivity has greatly increased over the last thirty years. However, workers have not seen their wages rise at the same rate. A group of sociologists in their book Inequality by Design point out that there is a growing gap between rich Americans and everyone else in the United States. They write that between 1949 and 1974, increases in productivity were matched by increases in wages for workers in both manufacturing and the service industries, but since 1974, productivity increased 68 percent in manufacturing and 50 percent in services, but real wages stagnated. That is, wages moved up little or not at all. So, where does all the money generated by the increased productivity go then? According to the authors of this book, the moneygoes to the salaries for CEOs, to the stock market, and to corporate profits. Workers play a great role in increasing productivity, but no longer see their wages connected to increased productivity. In other words, CEOs’ salaries, the stock market, and the corporate profits go up as work productivity goes up, but workers’ wages don’t.What are the reasons why . workers, who are the most productive in the world, have to work longer hours, have fewer vacation days, and see their wages stagnate and not rising at the same rate as productivity? The answer to this question is complex and controversial, but there are two reasons most people who speak or write about these issues mention: The first is that labor unions in the United States have lost great power since the beginning of the 1980s, and the second is that the government has passed laws that favor the rich and weaken the rights of the workers.I see our time is up. So, I’ll see you next time.Chapter 4 Family in the United StatesA hundred years ago, one heard the same kind of comments about the American family that one hears today --- in short, that the American family is disintegrating. Proof of this disintegration at the end of the nineteenth century included three points: the declining birth rate, a rising divorce rate, and evidence that women were not completely content with their domestic role. It’s a little surprising to me that the same claim about the family is being made today --- that it is disintegrating. And often the same points are mentioned as proof: declining birth rates, increasing divorce rates, and discontent of women with domestic roles. Now, in no way do I mean to imply that cultural, demographic, and economic conditions are the same now as they were 100 years ago. On the contrary, the very nature of the family has changed drastically in the last 50 years, not to mention the last 100 years. But I don’t think the average person’s concept of the family has changed very much over the years. A lot of people have on fixed idea of the family: a married couple where Mother stays home to care for the children and Father works. But this idea is challenged by what we see every day in U.S. society. To be sure, the family is a very sensitive barometer for what is happening in the society, the culture, and the economy of the United States. To make this point clearer, we’ll take a look at how the American family has changed in the last 50 years by looking at three different time periods: there are the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s; the mid-60sto the mid-80s; and finally the present. Sociologist Barbara Dafoe Whitehead labels these three periods: the period of traditional familism, the period of individualism, and the period of the new familism. I will try for each period to show how economic, demographic, and cultural elements interact and, in turn, affect the family.Well, let’s proceed in chronological order and start with traditional familism. We’re talking here of the twenty years from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s. This was the period after World War II, a period characterized by a very strong economy. This gave the United States a rising standard of living and a growing middle class. Demographically, the predominant configuration of the family from these years was the traditional one: a married couple with children. Some women worked, but divorce rates were low, and birth rates were high. I guess you could say that the country idealized the family in these years. And what I mean is, there was a commitment to the family from its members and a reverence for it from society. TV programs of the era depicted the family in the classical configuration: working father, housewife, and children. Culturally, three characteristics stand out in this period: conformity to social norms, greater male domination of the family than in the later periods, and clear-cut gender roles, that is, clear and separate roles for men and women at home and at work. Well, things changed quite a bit after this period.Let’s move on to the second period, the period of individualism. This period is from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s. Now, because individualism is so often mentioned in our discussion of U.S. culture and people, I should make a little detour here before we discuss it. Individualism brings to mind two other words: independence and self-reliance. Individualism conveys the idea that one should think and act for himself or herself, according to what one feels is right. Individualism is easily confused with egotism or selfishness, but in its best sense, it is much more. Individualism implies that one has the freedom to decide what is best rather than allowing that decision to be made by a group such as the community or society. Individualism does, of course, conflict with the concept of community, which implies that the group shares in making decisions. And this conflict between the individual and the community is one that comes up again and again in our lecture series about the United States. All right, let’s get back to our discussion about the family.The second period, the period of individualism, saw three important social and political movements. Do you have any idea which movements I might be talking about? Keep in mind that these decadeswere characterized by a lack of conformity to social norms. Well, the movements have in mind are the sexual revolution, in which sex was clearly no longer reserved for marriage; the women’s liberation movement; and the movement against the war in Vietnam. All three movements---the sexual revolution, woman’s liberation, and the antiwar movement --- were typical of the nonconforming nature of these decades. Now, culturally, it is in this period where we see two important developments: one the idealization of one’s career and work and, two, the drive for self-expression and self-fulfillment. In this period, the feminist movement challenged traditional gender roles and male domination of society. Women began to enter professions previously closed to them like medicine, law, and management. Men, for their part, began at least to consider a more active role in raising their children.These cultural changes occurred during a time of economic changes, too. This was a time of rapidly rising cost of living. Together, these forces changed the demographics of the family. The former picture of the family had only one configuration: a married couple with children where Mother stayed home. The new picture of the family had to include new configurations, like families in which the husband and wife both worked, families of single parents with children, and families of cohabiting couples with or without children. With more women pursuing careers and making money, there was less economic pressure for them to stay in an unsuitable marriage. Therefore, divorce rates doubled in a decade. Rising divorce rates and more financial independence for women made marriage a less attractive arrangement for many women. Consequently, the number of single-parent households tripled. Less conformity to social norms paved the way for cohabitation. So the number of unmarried couples living together in this period quadrupled. Can you see how economic, cultural, and demographic aspects of the society interact with each other? I hope so. Well, let’s continue with our agenda.The third period, the new familism, is harder to see because we are living in this period now. And because we are constantly informed by the media about the deteriorating American family, it’s hard to get an objective view of the state of the family. I think that today most people applaud the social changes that came about in the second period of individualism. They are not willing to give up gender equality, the freedom to leave an unsuitable marriage, or the self-fulfillment of an interesting job. At the same time, most experts, if not most people, admit that children paid a high price for the social changes that took place in the second period. It was the。
高级英语视听说教程_第二册__听力文本
Book 2 Chapter 1 The PopulationToday we’re going to talk about population in the United States. According to the most recent government census, the population is 281,421,906 people. Now this represents an increase of almost 33 million people since the 1990 census. A population of over 281 million makes the United States the third most populous country in the whole world. As you probably know, the People’s Republic of China is the most populous country in the world. But do you know which is the second most populous? Well, if you thought India, you were right. The fourth, fifth, and sixth most populous countries are Indonesia, Brazil, and Pakistan. Now let’s get back to the United States. Let’s look at the total U. S. population figure of 281 million in three different ways. The first way is by race and origin; the second is by geographical distribution, or by where people live; and the third way is by the age and sex of the population.First of all, let’s take a look at the population by race and origin. The latest U. S. census reports that 75.1 percent of the population is white, whereas 12.3 percent is black. Three percent are of Asian origin, and 1 percent is Native American. 2.4 percent of the population is a mixture of two or more races, and 5.5 percent report themselves as “of some other race”. Let’s make sure your figures are right: OK, white, 75.1 percent; black, 12.3 percent; Asian, 3 percent; Native American, 1 percent; a mixture of two or more races, 2.4 percent; and of some other race, 5.5 percent. Hispanics, whose origins lie in Spanish-speaking countries, comprise whites, blacks, and Native Americans, so they are already included in the above figures. It is important to note that Hispanics make up 12.5 percent of the present U.S. population, however. Finally, the census tells us that 31 million people in the United States were born in another country. Of the 31 million foreign born, the largest part, 27.6 percent are from Mexico. The next largest group, from the Philippines, number 4.3 percent.Another way of looking at the population is by geographical distribution. Do you have any idea which states are the five most populous in the United States? Well, I’ll help you out there. The five most populous states, with population figures, are California, with almost 34 million; New York, with 21 million; Texas, with 19 million; and Florida, with 16 million; and Illinois with 12.5 million people. Did you get all those figures down? Well, if not, I’ll give you a chance later to check your figures. Well, then, let’s move on. All told, over half, or some 58 percent of the population, lives in the South and in the West of the United States. This figure, 58 percent, is surprising to many people. It is surprising because the East is more densely populated. Nevertheless, there are more people alltogether in the South and West. To understand this seeming contradiction, one need only consider the relatively larger size of many southern and western states, so although there are more people, they are distributed over a larger area. To finish up this section on geographical distribution, consider that more than three-quarters of the people live in metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Houston. That means that only 20 percent, or 2 out of 10 people, live in rural areas. An interesting side note is that some 3,800,000 U.S. citizens live abroad, that is, in foreign countries.Before we finish today, I want to discuss the distribution of the U.S. population in terms of age and sex. Just for interest, would you say there are more men or more women in the United States? Well, according to the 2000 census, there are more women. In fact, there are more than five million more women than men in the U.S. population. If we consider that more males than females are born each year, how can this difference be explained? Well, for a variety of complicated reasons that we can’t go into here, there is a progressively higher death rate for males as they get older. This is seen in 2003 life expectancy figures: the life expectancy for women is 80.4 years whereas for men it is only 74.5 years. I don’t know how these life expectancy figures compare to those in your countries, but statistically women generally live longer than men worldwide. Now, to finish up, let’s look at the average age of the whole population. Overall, the average age of the population is increasing: from 33.1 years in 1990 to 35.3 years in 2000. The average age has been slowly, but steadily, increasing over the past several decades. This trend toward a higher average age can be explained by a decreasing birth rate and an increasing life expectancy for the population as a whole. Well, I’d like to investigate these two subjects further, but I see our time is up, so we’ll have to call it quits for today. You may want to pursue the topic of the aging U.S. population further, so there are some suggestions at the end of the lesson to help you do so. Thank you.Chapter Two Immigration: Past and PresentThe act of immigrating, or coming to a new country to live, is certainly nothing new. Throughout history, people have immigrated, or moved to new countries, for many different reasons. Sometimes these reasons were economic or political. Other people moved because of natural disasters such as droughts or famines. And some people moved to escape religious or political persecution. No matter what the reason, most people do not want to leave their native land and do so only under great pressure of some sort, but a few people seem quite adventuresome and restless by nature and like to move a lot. It seems both kinds of people came to America to live. The subject ofimmigration is quite fascinating to most Americans, as they view themselves as a nation of immigrants. However, the early Britons who came to what is today the United States considered themselves “settlers” or “colonists,” rather than immigrants. These people did not exactly think they were moving to a new country but were merely settling new land for the “mother country.” There were also large numbers of Dutch, French, German, and Scotch-Irish settlers, as well as large numbers of blacks brought from Africa as slaves. At the time of independence from Britain in 1776, about 40 percent of people living in what is now the United States were non-British. The majority of people, however, spoke English, and the traditions that formed the basis of life were mainly British traditions. This period we have just been discussing is usually referred to as the Colonial Period. Today, we’re a little more interested in actual immigration after this period. Let’s first look at what is often called the Great Immigration, which began about 1830 and ended in 1930. Then let’s consider the reasons for this so-called Great Immigration and the reasons it ended. Finally, let’s talk about the immigration situation in the United States today,As I said, we’ll begin our discussion today with the period of history called the Great Immigration, which lasted from approximately 1830 to 1930. It will be easier if we look at the Great Immigration in terms of three major stages, or time periods. The first stage was from approximate1y 1830 to 1860. Now, before this time, the number of immigrants coming to the United States was comparatively small, only about 10,000 a year. However, the rate began to climb in the 1830s when about 600,000 immigrants arrived. The rate continued to climb during the 1840s with a tota1 of 1,700,000 people arriving in that decade. The rate continued to climb, and during the 1850s 2,600,000 immigrants arrived. During this first stage of the Great Immigration, that is, between the years 1830 and 1860, the majority of immigrants came from Germany, Great Britain, and Ireland. Now let’s consider the second stage of the Great Immigration. The second stage was from l860 to 1890, during which time another 10,000,000 people arrived. Between l860 and 1890 the majority of immigrants continued to be from Germany, Ireland, and Great Britain. However, during the second stage, a smaller but significant number of immigrants came from the Scandinavian nations of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The third stage of the Great Immigration, which lasted from 1890 to 1930, was the era of heaviest immigration. Between the years l890 and l930, almost 22 million immigrants arrived in the United States. Most of these new arrivals came from the Southern European countries of Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain and the Eastern European countries of Poland and Russia.Now that we know something about the numbers and origins of immigrants who came to the States during the Great Immigration, let’s consider the reasons why most of these people immigrated to the United States. Why did such large numbers of Europeans leave their homes for life in an unknown country? It would be impossible to discuss all the complex political and economic reasons in any depth today, but we can touch on a few interesting facts that might help to clarify the situation for you. First of all, one of the most important reasons was that the population of Europe doubled between the years 1750 and 1850. At the same time that the population was growing so rapidly, the Industrial Revolution in Europe was causing widespread unemployment. The combination of increased population and the demand for land by industry also meant that farmland was becoming increasingly scarce in Europe. The scarcity of farmland in Europe meant that the abundance of available land in the growing country of the United States was a great attraction. During these years, the United States was an expanding country and it seemed that there was no end to land. In fact, in 1862, the government offered public land free to citizens and to immigrants who were planning to become citizens. In addition to available farmland, there were also plentiful jobs during these years of great economic growth. Other attractions were freedom from religious or political persecution. Some other groups also came to the United States as the direct results of natural disasters that left them in desperate situations. For example, the frequent failure of the potato crop in Ireland between the years 1845 and 1849 led to widespread starvation in that country, and people were driven to immigrate. Another factor that affected the number of immigrants coming to the United States was improved ocean transport beginning in the 1840s. At that time, ships large enough to carry large numbers of people began to make regular trips across the ocean. Now let’s summarize the reasons for the high rate of immigration to the United States during the years we discussed: first, the doubling of the population in Europe between 1750 and 1850; second, the unemployment caused by the Industrial Revolution; and third, the land scarcity in Europe, followed by religious and political persecution and natural disaster. These reasons combined with improved transportation probably account for the largest number of immigrants.I would now like to talk briefly about the period of time following the Great Immigration and the reasons for the decline in the rate of immigration. Although immigration continues today, immigration numbers have never again reached the levels that we discussed previously. There are several reasons for this decline. This decline was in part due to various laws whose aim was to limit the number ofimmigrants coming from different parts of the world to the United States. The first such law that limited the number of immigrants coming from a certain part of the world was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This law was followed by many other laws that also tried to limit the numbers of people immigrating from various countries or parts of the world. In addition to such laws, certainly economic and geopolitical events as important as the Great Depression starting in 1929 and World War II also contributed to the decline in immigration.Let’s conclude our talk by discussing the current situation with respect to immigration, which is quite different from that in the past. To understand some of the changes, it’s important to note that in 1965 strict quotas based on nationality were eliminated. Let’s see how different things are today from the past. As I noted, the greatest number of immigrants to the United States have historically been European. According to U.S. Census figures, in 1860, the percentage of immigrants that were European was 92 percent. But by 1960, the percentage of European immigrants had dropped to 74.5 percent, and by the year 2002, it had dropped to 14 percent! In 2002, 52.2 percent of immigrants came from Latin America, that is, from the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. Mexico is ordinarily considered part of North America, but the U.S. Census Bureau considers Mexico as a Central American country in terms of immigration statistics, and estimates that more than one-third of the total of all immigrants to the United States in 2002 came from Mexico or another Central American country. The next largest percentage, 25.5 percent, of immigrants came from Asia, mainly from the Philippines, China, and India.Although immigration dropped sharply when the United States entered World War I and remained low throughout the Depression and World War II years, at the end of the l940s, immigration began to increase again and has, in general, risen steadily since then. It might surprise you to know that the actual number of immigrants coming yearly to the States in recent years is about the same as the numbers coming yearly between 1900 and 1910. Keep in mind, though, that the population of the United States is much larger now than at the turn of the century, so that while the yearly numbers may be similar, the percentage of the population that is foreign-born is considerably smaller today than it was a century ago.It might be interesting to speculate on immigration in the future. Will the trend continue for non-Europeans to immigrate to the United States? The answer is probably yes for the foreseeable future. Do these non-European people come to the United States for the same reasons that Europeans came? Well, land is no longer plentiful and cheap. Industry no longer requires large numbers of unskilled workers. In fact, the government usually tries to restrict immigration to thosepeople who already have the skills to be successful in U.S. society. Still, people come for politica1 and economic reasons and probably will continue to do so.Chapter 3 Americans at WorkWhether you love it or hate it, work is a major part of most people’s lives everywhere in the world. Americans are no exception. Americans might complain about “blue Monday,” when they have to go back to work after the weekend, but most people put a lot of importance on their job, not only in terms of money but also in terms of identity. In fact, when Americans are introduced to a new person, they almost always ask each other, “What do you do?” They are asking, what is your job or profession. Today, however, we won’t look at work in terms of what work means socially or psychologically. Rather, we’re going to take a look at work in the United States today from two perspectives. First, we’ll take a historical look at work in America. We’ll do that by looking at how things changed for the American worker from the beginning to the end of the twentieth century, that is, from the year 1900 to the year 1999. Then we’ll look at how U.S. workers are doing today.As we look at the changes over the last century, we’re going to use a lot of statistics to describe these changes. You will need to write down a lot of numbers in today’s lecture. First, let’s consider how the type of work people were involved in changed. At the beginning of the twentieth century, about 38 percent of the workforce was involved in agriculture; that is, they worked on a farm. By the end of the century, only 3 percent still worked on farms. There was also a large decrease in the number of people working in mining, manufacturing, and construction. The number of workers in mining, manufacturing, and construction went down from 31 percent to 19 percent.While the number of people in these goods producing industries went down, the number of people in the service industries went up. As you may know, a service industry is one that provides a service, rather than goods or products. A few examples include transportation, tourism, banking, advertising, health care, and legal services. I’m sure you can think of more. The service industry workforce jumped from 31 percent of the workforce at the turn of the century to 78 percent in 1999.Let’s recap the numbers: in 1900, 38 percent in agriculture; 31 percent in mining, manufacturing, and construction; and 31 percent in the service industries. That should add up to 100 percent. In 1999, 3 percent in agriculture; 19 percent in mining, manufacturing, and construction; and 78 percent in the service industries. Again, that should add up to 100 percent.The labor force changed in other important ways. For example, child labor was not unusual at the beginning of the twentieth century. In 1900 there were 1, 750, 000 children aged ten to fifteen working full-time in the labor force. This was 6 percent of the labor force. Over the years, child labor laws became much stricter and by 1999, it was illegal for anyone under sixteen to work full-time in any of the fifty states. While the number of children in the workforce went down, the number of women went up dramatically. In 1900, only 19 percent of women were employed; in 1999, 60 percent of women were holding down jobs.Let’s see what has happened to wages and salaries. All the numbers I will give you are in terms of 1999 dollars. Let me explain. In 1900 the average per capita income was $4,200 a year. That does not mean that the average worker in 1900 earned $4,200, a year, but that what he or she earned was equal to $4, 200 in 1999. That is, the amount of money the average worker earned in 1900 was worth the same as $4,200 in 1999. The average per capita income in 1999 was $33, 700. Not only did people earn a lot more money at the end of the century, they also received a lot more in benefits than at the beginning of the century. One of the important benefits most workers received later in the century was health insurance. Whereas wages and salaries rose over the century, the average workweek dropped. That is, workers, in general, did not work as long hours in 1999 as they did in 1900.The last area that I’d like to give you a few statistics about is workplace safety. Most of us who go to work every day don’t think a lot about whether we are safe or not, but in 1900 it was a real concern for a lot of workers. There aren’t many statistics available, but the U.S. government does have statistics on two industries that will give you some idea of the differences today. In 1900 almost 1,500 workers were killed in coal-mining accidents; in 1999, the number was 35. 2,555 railroad workers were killed in 1900, compared to 56 in 1999.People often tend to romanticize the past and talk about “the good old days,” but I think it’s fair to say that by the end of the twentieth century, U.S. workers in general made more money, they enjoyed more benefits, and their working conditions had improved greatly.Now let’s turn our attention to the current situation for U.S. workers. The picture is not so rosy as the one drawn by comparing U.S. workers at the beginning and the end of the twentieth century. I’m going to focus on the current situation in terms of productivity, working hours, and wages and salaries.First let’s consider the number of hours worked. According to a 2003 study released by the United Nations International Labor Organization, U.S. workers are the most productive in the world amongindustrialized nations, but they work longer hours than European workers to achieve this productivity. Europeans typically have four to six weeks of vacation a year, whereas the average American worker has only about two weeks. This study points out that the longer working hours in the United States is a rising trend, while the trend in other industrialized countries is the opposite.Workers in some European countries actually outproduce American workers per hour of work. It has been suggested that this higher rate of productivity might be because European workers are less stressed than U.S. workers.At any rate, there seems to be general agreement that U.S. productivity has greatly increased over the last thirty years. However, workers have not seen their wages rise at the same rate. A group of sociologists in their book Inequality by Design point out that there is a growing gap between rich Americans and everyone else in the United States. They write that between 1949 and 1974, increases in productivity were matched by increases in wages for workers in both manufacturing and the service industries, but since 1974, productivity increased 68 percent in manufacturing and 50 percent in services, but real wages stagnated. That is, wages moved up little or not at all. So, where does all the money generated by the increased productivity go then? According to the authors of this book, the money goes to the salaries for CEOs, to the stock market, and to corporate profits. Workers play a great role in increasing productivity, but no longer see their wages connected to increased productivity. In other words, CEOs’ salaries, the stock market, and the corporate profits go up as work productivity goes up, but workers’ wages don’t.What are the reasons why U.S. workers, who are the most productive in the world, have to work longer hours, have fewer vacation days, and see their wages stagnate and not rising at the same rate as productivity? The answer to this question is complex and controversial, but there are two reasons most people who speak or write about these issues mention: The first is that labor unions in the United States have lost great power since the beginning of the 1980s, and the second is that the government has passed laws that favor the rich and weaken the rights of the workers.I see our time is up. So, I’ll see you next time.Chapter 4 Family in the United StatesA hundred years ago, one heard the same kind of comments about the American family that one hears today --- in short, that the American family is disintegrating. Proof of this disintegration at the end of the nineteenth century included three points: the declining birth rate, a rising divorce rate, and evidence that women were not completely content with their domestic role. It’s a littlesurprising to me that the same claim about the family is being made today --- that it is disintegrating. And often the same points are mentioned as proof: declining birth rates, increasing divorce rates, and discontent of women with domestic roles. Now, in no way do I mean to imply that cultural, demographic, and economic conditions are the same now as they were 100 years ago. On the contrary, the very nature of the family has changed drastically in the last 50 years, not to mention the last 100 years. But I don’t think the average person’s concept of the family has changed very much over the years. A lot of people have on fixed idea of the family: a married couple where Mother stays home to care for the children and Father works. But this idea is challenged by what we see every day in U.S. society. To be sure, the family is a very sensitive barometer for what is happening in the society, the culture, and the economy of the United States. To make this point clearer, we’ll take a look at how the American family has changed in the last 50 years by looking at three different time periods: there are the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s; the mid-60s to the mid-80s; and finally the present. Sociologist Barbara Dafoe Whitehead labels these three periods: the period of traditional familism, the period of individualism, and the period of the new familism. I will try for each period to show how economic, demographic, and cultural elements interact and, in turn, affect the family.Well, let’s proceed in chronological order and start with traditional familism. We’re talking here of the twenty years from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s. This was the period after World War II, a period characterized by a very strong economy. This gave the United States a rising standard of living and a growing middle class. Demographically, the predominant configuration of the family from these years was the traditional one: a married couple with children. Some women worked, but divorce rates were low, and birth rates were high. I guess you could say that the country idealized the family in these years. And what I mean is, there was a commitment to the family from its members and a reverence for it from society. TV programs of the era depicted the family in the classical configuration: working father, housewife, and children. Culturally, three characteristics stand out in this period: conformity to social norms, greater male domination of the family than in the later periods, and clear-cut gender roles, that is, clear and separate roles for men and women at home and at work. Well, things changed quite a bit after this period.Let’s move on to the second period, the period of individualism. This period is from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s. Now, because individualism is so often mentioned in our discussion of U.S. culture and people, I should make a little detour here before we discuss it. Individualism brings to mind two other words: independence andself-reliance. Individualism conveys the idea that one should think and act for himself or herself, according to what one feels is right. Individualism is easily confused with egotism or selfishness, but in its best sense, it is much more. Individualism implies that one has the freedom to decide what is best rather than allowing that decision to be made by a group such as the community or society. Individualism does, of course, conflict with the concept of community, which implies that the group shares in making decisions. And this conflict between the individual and the community is one that comes up again and again in our lecture series about the United States. All right, let’s get back to our discussion about the family.The second period, the period of individualism, saw three important social and political movements. Do you have any idea which movements I might be talking about? Keep in mind that these decades were characterized by a lack of conformity to social norms. Well, the movements have in mind are the sexual revolution, in which sex was clearly no longer reserved for marriage; the women’s liberation movement; and the movement against the war in Vietnam. All three movements---the sexual revolution, woman’s liberation, and the antiwar movement --- were typical of the nonconforming nature of these decades. Now, culturally, it is in this period where we see two important developments: one the idealization of one’s career and work and, two, the drive for self-expression and self-fulfillment. In this period, the feminist movement challenged traditional gender roles and male domination of society. Women began to enter professions previously closed to them like medicine, law, and management. Men, for their part, began at least to consider a more active role in raising their children.These cultural changes occurred during a time of economic changes, too. This was a time of rapidly rising cost of living. Together, these forces changed the demographics of the family. The former picture of the family had only one configuration: a married couple with children where Mother stayed home. The new picture of the family had to include new configurations, like families in which the husband and wife both worked, families of single parents with children, and families of cohabiting couples with or without children. With more women pursuing careers and making money, there was less economic pressure for them to stay in an unsuitable marriage. Therefore, divorce rates doubled in a decade. Rising divorce rates and more financial independence for women made marriage a less attractive arrangement for many women. Consequently, the number of single-parent households tripled. Less conformity to social norms paved the way for cohabitation. So the number of unmarried couples living together in this period quadrupled. Can you see how economic, cultural, and demographic aspects of the。
英语高级视听说听力原文unit2thenewspace
英语高级视听说听力原文U n i t2 T h e n e w s p a c e r a c e(总5页)--本页仅作为文档封面，使用时请直接删除即可----内页可以根据需求调整合适字体及大小--Unit 2 The new space raceA plan to build the world's first airport for launching commercial spacecraft in New Mexico is the latest development in the new space race, a race among private companies and billionaire entrepreneurs to carry paying passengers into space and to kick-start a new industry, astro tourism.The man who is leading the race may not be familiar to you, but to astronauts, pilots, and aeronautical engineers – basically to anyone who knows anything about aircraft design –Burt Rutan is a legend, an aeronautical engineer whose latest aircraft is the world's first private spaceship. As he told 60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley when he first met him a little over a year ago, if his idea flies, someday space travel may be cheap enough and safe enough for ordinary people to go where only astronauts have gone before.The White Knight is a rather unusual looking aircraft, built just for the purpose of carrying a rocket plane called SpaceShipOne, the first spacecraft built by private enterprise.White Knight and SpaceShipOne are the latest creations of Burt Rutan. They're part of his dream to develop a commercial travel business in space."There will be a new industry. And we are just now in a beginning. I will predict that in 12 or 15 years, there will be tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people that fly, and see that black sky," says Rutan.On June 21, 2004, White Knight took off from an airstrip in Mojave, Calif., carrying Rutan's spaceship. It took 63 minutes to reach the launch altitude of 47,000 feet. Once there, the White Knight crew prepared to release the spaceship one.The fierce acceleration slammed Mike Melvill, the pilot, back in his seat. He put SpaceShipOne into a near vertical trajectory, until, as planned, the fuel ran out.Still climbing like a spent bullet, Melvill hoped to gain as much altitude as possible to reach space before the ship began falling back to earth.By the time the spaceship one reached the end of its climb, it was 22 miles off course. But it had, just barely, reached an altitude of just over 62 miles — the internationally recognized boundary of space.It was the news Rutan had been waiting for. Falling back to Earth from an altitude of 62 miles, SpaceShipOne's tilting wing, a revolutionary innovation called the feather, caused the rocket plane to position itself for a relatively benign re-entry and turned the spaceship into a glider.SpaceShipOne glided to a flawless landing before a crowd ofthousands."After that June flight, I felt like I was floating around and just once in a while touching the ground," remembers Rutan. "We had an operable space plane."Rutan's "operable space plane" was built by a company with only 130 employees at a cost of just $25 million. He believes his success has ended the government's monopoly on space travel, and opened it up to the ordinary citizen."I concluded that for affordable travel to happen, the little guy had to do it because he had the incentive for a business," says Rutan.Does Rutan view this as a business venture or a technological challenge?"It's a technological challenge first. And it's a dream I had when I was 12," he says.Rutan started building model airplanes when he was seven years old, in Dyenuba, Calif., where he grew up."I was fascinated by putting balsa wood together and see how it would fly," he remembers. "And when I started having the capability to do contests and actually win a trophy by making a better model, then I was hooked."He's been hooked ever since. He designed his first airplane in 1968 and flew it four years later. Since then his airplanes have become known for their stunning looks, innovative design and technological sophistication.Rutan began designing a spaceship nearly a decade ago, after setting up set up his own aeronautical research and design firm. By the year 2000, he had turned his designs into models and was testing them outside his office."When I got to the point that I knew that I could make a safe spaceship that would fly a manned space mission -- when I say, 'I,' not the government, our little team -- I told Paul Allen, 'I think we can do this.' And he immediately said, 'Go with it.'"Paul Allen co-founded Microsoft and is one of the richest men in the world. His decision to pump $25 million into Rutan's company, Scaled Composites, was the vote of confidence that his engineers needed to proceed."That was a heck of a challenge to put in front of some people like us, where we're told,'Well, you can't do that. You wanna seeWe can do this," says Pete Sebold.Work on White Knight and SpaceShipOne started four years ago in secret. Both aircraft were custom made from scratch by a team of 12 engineers using layers of tough carbon fabric glued together with epoxy. Designed to be light-weight, SpaceShipOne can withstand thestress of re-entry because of the radical way it comes back into the atmosphere, like a badminton shuttlecock or a birdie.He showed 60 Minutes how it works."Feathering the wing is kind of a dramatic thing, in that it changes the whole configuration of the airplane," he explains. "And this is done in space, okayIt's done after you fly into space.""We have done six reentries. Three of them from space and three of them from lower altitudes. And some of them have even come down upside down. And the airplane by itself straightens itself right up," Rutan explainsBy September 2004, Rutan was ready for his next challenge: an attempt to win a $10 million prize to be the first to fly a privately funded spacecraft into space, and do it twice in two weeks."After we had flown the June flight, and we had reached the goal of our program, then the most important thing was to win that prize," says Rutan.That prize was the Ansari X Prize – an extraordinary competition created in 1996 to stimulate private investment in space.The first of the two flights was piloted, once again, by Mike Melvill.September's flight put Melville's skill and training to the test. As he was climbing out of the atmosphere, the spacecraft suddenly went into a series of rolls.How concerned was he"Well, I thought I could work it out. I'm very confident when I'm flying a plane when I've got the controls in my hand. I always believed I can fix this no matter how bad it gets," says Melville.SpaceShipOne rolled 29 times before he regained control. The remainder of the flight was without incident, and Melvill made the 20-minute glide back to the Mojave airport. The landing on that September afternoon was flawless.Because Rutan wanted to attempt the second required flight just four days later, the engineers had little time to find out what had gone wrong. Working 12-hour shifts, they discovered they didn't need to fix the spacecraft, just the way in which the pilots flew it. For the second flight, it was test pilot Brian Binnie's turn to fly SpaceShipOne.The spaceship flew upward on a perfect trajectory, breaking through to space.Rutan's SpaceShipOne had flown to space twice in two weeks, captured the X Prize worth $10 million, and won bragging rights over the space establishment."You know I was wondering what they are feeling, 'They' being that other space agency," Rutan says laughing. "You know, quite frankly, I think the big guys, the Boeings, the Lockheeds, the nay-say people at Houston, I think they're looking at each other now and saying 'We're screwed!' Because, I'll tell you something, I have a hell of a lot bigger goal than they do!""The astronauts say that the most exciting experience is floating around in a space suit," says Rutan, showing off his own plans. "But I don't agree. A space suit is an awful thing. It constrains you and it has noisy fans running. Now look over here. It's quiet. And you're out here watching the world go by in what you might call a 'spiritual dome.' Well, that, to me, is better than a space suit because you're not constrained."He also has a vision for a resort hotel in space, and says it all could be accomplished in the foreseeable future. Rutan believes it is the dawn of a new era.He explains, "I think we've proven now that the small guys can build a space ship and go to space. And not only that, we've convinced a rich guy, a very rich guy, to come to this country and build a space program to take everyday people to space."That "rich guy" is Richard Branson, the English billionaire who owns Virgin Atlantic Airlines. Branson has signed a $120 million deal with Rutan to build five spaceships for paying customers. Named "Virgin Galactic," it will be the world's first "spaceline." Flights are expected to begin in 2008."We believe by flying tens of thousands of people to space, and making that a profitable business, that that will lead into affordable orbital travel," says Rutan.Rutan thinks there "absolutely" is a market for this.With tickets initially going for $200,000, the market is limited. Nevertheless, Virgin Galactic says 38,000 people have put down a deposit for a seat, and 90 of those have paid the full $200,000.But Rutan has another vision. "The goal is affordable travel above low-Earth orbit. In other words, affordable travel for us to go to the moon. Affordable travel. That means not just NASA astronauts, but thousands of people being able to go to the moon," he says. "I'd like to go. Wouldn't you"。
听力教程第二册unit4听力原文
听力教程第二册u n i t4听力原文(总17页)--本页仅作为文档封面，使用时请直接删除即可----内页可以根据需求调整合适字体及大小--Unit4Section One Tactics for ListeningPart 1 Phonetics-Stress, Intonation and Accent1 . A: Excuse me. Could you tell me where the secretary's office is pleaseB: Yes. It's up the stairs, then turn left, ... ↗2. A: Excuse me. Can you tell me where the toilets areB: Yes, they're at the top of the stairs.↘3. A: What did you do after work yesterdayB: Ah, well, I went for a drink in the pub opposite the car-park. ↘4. A: What did you do after work yesterdayB: Oh, I ran into Jane and Tom ..... ↗5. A: Excuse me, can you tell me how the machine worksB: Certainly. Erm, first of all you adjust the height of the stool, and then put four 10 pence pieces there, ...↗6．A：Excuse me, can you tell me how the machine worksB：Yes. You put 30 pence in the slot and take the ticket out here. ↘Exercise:Part2 Listening and Note-takingFrog legsPeople want frogs mostly for food. Many Asian cultures have included frog legs in their diets for centuries -- or at least until they have run out of frogs. But the most famous frog-eaters, and the people who inspired frog-eating in Europe and the United States are the French. By 1977 the French government, so concerned about the scarcity of its native frog, banned commercial hunting of its own amphibians. So the French turned to India and Bangladesh for frogs.As happened in France, American frog-leg fanciers and restaurants also turned increasingly to frozen imports. According to figures collected from government agencies, the United States imported more than million pounds of frozen frog meat each year between 1981 and 1984.So many frozen frog legs were exported from India to Europe and the United States. One of the attractions of Indian frogs, apart from the fact that they have bigger legs than French frogs, was the price. In London, a pound of frozen frog's legs from India cost about ￡, compared with ￡ for the French variety.Indian scientists have described as "disastrous" the rate at which frogs are disappearing from the rice fields and wetlands, where they protect crops by devouring damagingsince the India and Bangladesh frog-export bans, Indonesia has becomethe major exporter of frog legs to the United States and Europe. But no matter what country the legs come from, one thing is usually constant: The legs once belonged to frogs are taken from the wild, not from farms. Frogs are nearly impossible to farm economically in the countries where frogs are commercially harvested from the wild.Exercise A:1.Many Asian cultures have included frog legs in their diets for centuries.2.By 1977 the French government banned commercial hunting of its ownamphibians.3.Indian scientists have described as "disastrous" the rate at which frogsare disappearing from the rice fields and wetlands.4.The United States imported more than million pounds of frozen frog meateach year between 1981 and 1984.5.One of the attractions of Indian frogs was the price.Exercise B:Frog legsPeople want frogs mostly for food. Many Asian cultures have included frog legs in their diets for centuries, The most famous frog-eaters, and the people who inspired frog-eating in Europe and the United States are the French. By 1977 the French government banned commercial hunting of its own amphibians. So the French turned to India and Bangladesh for flogs. And the United States imported more than million pounds of frozen frog meat each year between 1981 and 1984. One of the attractions of Indian frogs was the price.Indian scientists have described as "disastrous" the rate at which frogs are disappearing from the rice fields and wetlands, where they protect crops by devouring damaging insects.Since the India and Bangladesh frog-export bans, Indonesia has become the major exporter of frog legs to the United States and Europe. But no matter what country the legs come from, one thing is usually constant: The legs once belonged to frogs that are taken from the wild, not from farms.Section Two Listening ComprehensionPart 1 DialoguesDialogue 1 Health ClubInterviewer: Lorna, you and your husband opened this health club here last summer. Can you tell me something about the club Lama: Yes, well we offer a choice of facilities -- gym, sunbed*, sauna* andJacuzzi* -- that's also from Scandinavia -- as well as our regularfitness classes, that is. And there's a wholefood bar for refreshmentsafterwardsInterviewer: And does it cost a lot I mean, most people think health clubs are reallyexpensive.Lama: Actually our rates are really quite competitive. Since we only startedlast July, we' ve kept them down to attract customers. It's only ￡30 ayear to join. Then an hour in the gym costs ￡ -- the same as halfan hour on the sunbed. Sauna and Jacuzzi are both ~ for half an hour.Interviewer: And is the club doing wellLama: Well, so far, yes, it's doing really well. I had no idea it was going to be such a success, actually. We're both very pleased.The sunbed's so popular, especially with the over 65s, thatwe're getting another one in August.Interviewer: What kind of people join the clubLama: We have people of all ages here, from small children to old-age pensioners, though of course the majority, about three-quartersof our members, are in their 20s and 30s. They come in theirlunch hour, to use the gym, mostly, or after work, while theYoungsters come when school finishes, around half past three orfour. The Jacuzzi's very popular with the little ones. Interviewer: What about the old-age pensionersLoma: They're usually around in the mornings, when we offer them special reduced rates for the Jacuzzi or sauna, plus sunbed,it's only ￡2, which is half price, actually. It doesn't affectour profits really -- only about 5% of our members are retired.Dialogue 2 skiingSimon: This one shows the view from the top of the mountain. Sally: Oh, it's lovely!Teresa: That's me with the red bobble hat.Sally: Is itTeresa: Yet, it looks kind of silly, doesn't itSally: Yes, it does rather.Teresa: Oh, don't worry. I know it looks ridiculous. Simon: Look. That's our instructor, Werner.Teresa: Yeah, we were in the beginners' class.Sally: Well, everyone has to start somewhere.Simon: Ah, now, this is a good one.Sally: What on earth is thatSimon: Can't you guessSally: Well, it looks like a pile of people. You know, sort of on top of each other.Teresa: It is!Sally: How did that happenSimon: Well, you see we were all pretty hopeless at first. Every day Werner used to take us to the nursery slope* to practise, and to get to thetop you had to go up on a ski lift.Teresa: Which wasn't really very easy.Simon: No, and if you fell off you'd start sliding down the slope, right into all the people coming up!Sally- Mmm.Simon: Well, on that day we were all going up on the ski lift, you know, we were just getting used to it, and, you see there was this one womanin our class who never got the hang of* it. She didn't have any sortof control over her skis and whenever she started sliding, she wouldsort of stick her ski sticks out in front of her, you know, likeswords or something.Teresa: I always tried to avoid her, but on that day I was right behind her on the ski lift* and just as she was getting to the top, sheslipped and started sliding down the slope.Sally: Did she ~Simon: Mmm, with her ski sticks waving around in front of her!Teresa: So of course everyone sort of let go and tried to jump off the ski lift to get out of the way.Simon: And that's how they all ended up in a pile at the bottom of the slope -- it was lucky I had my camera with me.Sally: I bet that woman was popular!Simon oh,yes. everybody's favourite!Exercise A:1. They are looking at some pictures.2. A ski class for beginners.3. Two.Exercise B:Everyday the coach took them to a nursery slope. They got to the top on a ski lift. In their class there was one woman who could never learn how to ski. She couldn't control her skis and whenever she started sliding, she would stick her ski sticks out in front of her. People always tried to avoid her.One day as she was getting to the top, she slipped and started sliding down the slope. Everyone let go and tried to jump off the ski lift to get out of the way and they all ended up in a pile at the bottom of the slope.Passage 2 The Truth about the French!Skiing in France is heaven on Earth for a dedicated skier. There are resorts where you can access skiing terrain that is larger than all the ski resorts in Utah* and Colorado* combined.The larger resorts have an adequate number of restaurants and discos. It is a good idea to eat a good lunch because the mountain restaurants are normally much better than the restaurants in the ski stations.French resorts are mostly government owned and operated. The social system puts a high percentage of money back into the areas. This provides state-of-the-art* lifts, snow making and snow grooming. In general, an intermediate skier who can read a lift map will easily be able to ski all day avoiding lift lines and crowds, even during the busiest season.The French school systems have a staggered* two-week winter vacation period. When the snow is good, nearly all of France migrates to the mountains for this period. The break usually covers the last two weeks of February and the first week of March. The time to absolutely avoid is the "Paris school holiday week" which will always be in the middle period of the vacation time but alternates starting the first or second week of the break. No one has a more undeserved* reputation about his or her character than the French. The French are not generally arrogant and rude. Tree, in large tourist centers there are unpleasant people and if you're looking for or expecting rudeness, you may just provoke* it. Generally the French, especially in the countryside, are as kind as you wish and you will find warmth and acceptance. The most fractious* Frenchman is easily disarmed by a little sincerity*.When greeting someone or saying good-bye, always shake hands. Don't use a firm, pumping handshake, but a quick, slight pressure one. When you enter a room or a shop you should greet everyone there. If you meet a person you know very well use their first name and kiss both cheeks. Men don't usually kiss unless they are relatives. Good topics of conversation include food, sports, hobbies and where you come from. Topics to avoid are prices, where items were bought, what someone does for a living, income and age. Questions about personal and family life are considered private. Expect to find the French well-informed about the history, culture and politics of other countries. To gain their respect, be prepared to show some knowledge of the history and politics of France.France is generally a very safe country to visit. Pickpockets, however, are not unheard of. In large cities particularly, take precautions againsttheft. Always secure your vehicles, leave nothing of value visible and don't carry your wallet in your back pocket. Beware of begging children!Exercise A:Exercise B:2. A3. A4. A5. B6. C7. D8. D Exercise C:1.Because there are resorts where you can access skiing terrain that islarger than all the ski resorts in Utah and Colorado combined.2.Because an intermediate skier who can read a lift map will easily be ableto ski all day avoiding lift lines and crowds, even during the busiest season.3.This staggered two-week winter vacation period usually covers the last twoweeks of February and the first week of March.4.The French are not generally arrogant and rude. Generally they are as kindas you wish.5.In large cities in France, always secure your vehicles, leave nothing ofvalue visible and don’t carry your wallet in your back pocket. Beware of begging children.Part 3 NewsNews Item 1France's busiest airport will reopen part of a terminal that was not damaged when a segment of the roof collapsed in May, killing four people.The Transport Minister Gilles de Robien said a segment of the three-building 2E terminal at Charles de Gaulle airport would return to service on July 15. In the May 23 disaster, failing glass, steel and masonry* killed four travelers -- two Chinese,one Czech* and one Lebanese*. Three others were injured.A preliminary report by experts said Tuesday that a weakness in the concrete that formed the futuristic terminal's vaulted roof may have contributed to the collapse.Officials are still unsure about what exactly caused it to collapse. Exercise A:This news item is about the new information Of France Charles de Gaulle airport where a segment of the roof collapsed in May.Exercise B:News Item 2An Antonov 26 plane crashed in northwestern Congo shortly after take-off on Saturday, killing all 22 Congolese passengers and the crew.It was not known how many crew members were on the plane when it crashed near the town of Boende, more than 600 km northeast of the capital Kinshasa. The cause of the crash was unknown.A string of accidents this week has underlined the parlous* state of Democratic Republic of Congo's transport infrastructure* after five years of war and decades of misrule.More than 160 people drowned when a ferry sank during a storm on LakeMai-Ndombe, north east of Kinshasa, on Tuesday.On Saturday, 18 people were killed or injured when a small truck experienced brake trouble and crashed near the eastern town of Goma.Exercise A:This news item is about a string of accidents this week in Congo.Exercise B:A String of Accidents This WeekNews Item 3In the United States lawyers for Raed jarrar, an airline passenger forced to cover his T-shirt because it displayed an Arabic script, say he has been awarded a total of $240,000 in compensation.Lawyers representing Raed Jarrar say the payout* is a victory for free speech and a blow to the practice of racial profiling*. Back in 2006 Mr Jarrar was waiting to board a flight at New York's JFK airport wearing a T-shirt that read 'We Will Not Be Silent" in English and Arabic. His lawyers claim he was ordered to remove the item of clothing by staff who said other passengers felt uncomfortable with the Arabic slogan. He eventually agreed to cover the shirt and boarded the plane, but says he was made to sit at the back.Exercise A:This news item is about the practice of racial profiling in the United States.Exercise B:Raed Jarrar, an airline passenger, has recently been awarded a total of $ 240,000 in compensation.Back in 2006 Mr Jarrar was waiting to board a flight at New York’s JFK airport wearing a T-shirt that read “ We Will Not Be Silent” in Englishand Arabic. Later he was ordered to remove the printed words on his T-shirtby staff who said other passengers felt uncomfortable with the Arabic slogan. He eventually agreed to cover the shirt and boarded the plane, but he was made to sit at the back.Lawyers representing Raed Jarrar say the payout is a victory for free speech and a blow to the practice of racial profilingSeetion three oral workRetellingThere is a street called "The Strand" in Galveston, where hundreds of thousands of touristsvisit today. This street was Mama's stomping* ground as a kid. Before Mama died, we took a streetcar around Galveston to see all the lovely, restored homes. What a great day. She knew morethan the tour guide. As we sat enjoying the sights, Mama said, "Liz, do you know why my nose is a little crooked*" (I thought, "Where did that come from") "No, Mama, you haven't ever mentioned it," I replied."Well," said mother, "one day I followed my brothers to The Strand, and a streetcar ran overme. I put myself flat down between the rails and pushed my face in theground so hard, I broke mynose! It sure caused a lot of chaos*. People screamed, the police came, andI just crawled out,brushed myself off and went home. The only thing 1 ever noticed differentabout me was a crookedI just looked at her nose and looked at Mama in utter disbelief!Section Four Supplementary ExercisesBabies and IntelligenceSome people thought babies were not able to learn things until theywere five or six months old. Yet doctors in the United States say babiesbegin learning on their first day of life.Research scientists at the National Institute of Child Health and Development note that babies are strongly influenced by their environment.They say a baby will smile if her mother does something the baby likes. Ababy learns to get the best care possible by smiling to please her mother or other caregiver. This is how babies learn to connect and communicate withother humans. This ability to learn exists in a baby even before birth. Theysay newborn babies can recognize and understand sounds they heard while they were still developing inside their mothers.The Finnish researchers used devices to measures the babies' brainactivity. The researchersplayed recordings of spoken sounds for up to one hour while the babies slept.The head of the study believes that babies can learn while asleepbecause the part of their brains called the cerebral cortex* remains activeat night. The cortex is very important for learning. This part of the brainis not active in adults while they sleep.Many experts say the first years of a child's life are important forall later development. AnAmerican study shows how mothers can strongly influence social developmentand language skills in their children. The study involved more than 1,200 mothers and children. Researchers studied the children from the age of onemonth to three years. They observed the mothers playing with their childrenfour times during this period.The researchers attempted to measure the sensitivity of the mothers.The women were considered sensitive if they supported their children'sactivities and did not interfere unnecessarily. They tested the children for thinking and language development when they were three years old.The children of depressed women did not do as well on tests as the children of women who did not suffer from depression. The children of depressed women did poorly on tests of language skills and understandingwhat they hear. These children also were less cooperative and had more problems dealing with other people.Another study suggests that babies who are bigger at birth generallyare more intelligent later in life. It found that the intelligence of achild at seven years of age is directly linked to his or her weight at birth. Study organizers say this is probably because heavier babies received more nutrition* during important periods of brain development before they were born.The study involved almost 3,500 children. Researchers in New York City used traditional tests to measure intelligence. Brothers and sisters were tested so that the effects of birth weight alone could be separated from the effects of diet or other considerations.The researchers found that children with higher birth weights generally did better on the intelligence tests. Also, the link between birth weightand intelligence later in life was stronger for boys than for girls.Exercise A:1. Some people thought babies were able to learn things when they were fiveor six months old.2. Doctors think babies begin learning things on their first day of life.3. Babies communicate with other people by smiling.4. They can recognize and understand sounds they heard while they were stilldeveloping inside their mothers.5. Babies can learn while asleep.6. They are important for a child's all later development.Exercise:BStudy 1Exercise C:Your opinionDirections: Listen to the passage again and give your opinion on the following topics,"Many experts say the first years of a child's life are important for all later development."1. What should mothers do in the first year of a child's life2. What might affect a child if his parents get divorced in his first year of lifeFatigueFatigue is a feeling of weariness, tiredness, or lack of energy.Fatigue is different from drowsiness. In general, drowsiness is feeling the need to sleep, while fatigue is a lack of energy and motivation. Drowsiness and apathy (a feeling of indifference or not caring about what happens) can be symptoms of fatigue.Fatigue can be a normal and important response to physical exertion, emotional stress, boredom, or lack of sleep. However, it can also be a nonspecific sign of a more serious psychological or , physical disorder. Fatigue that is not relieved by enough sleep, good nutrition, or a low-stress environment should be evaluated by your doctor. Because fatigue is a common complaint, sometimes a potentially serious cause may be overlooked.The pattern of fatigue may help your doctor determine its underlying cause. For example, if you wake up in the morning rested but rapidly develop fatigue with activity, you may have an ongoing pysical condition like an underactive thyroid*. On the other hand, if you wake up with a low level of energy and have fatigue that lasts throughout the day, you may be depressed. Here are some tips for reducing fatigue:Get adequate, regular, and consistent amounts of sleep each night.Eat a healthy, well-balanced diet and drink plenty of water throughout the day.Exercise regularly.Learn better ways to relax. Try yoga* or meditation*.Maintain a reasonable work and personal schedule.Change your stressful circumstances, if possible. For example, switchjobs, take a vacation, and deal directly with problems in a relationship.Take a multivitamin. Talk to your doctor about what you need and what is best for you.Avoid alcohol, nicotine*, and drag use.If you have chronic* pain or depression, treating either often helps address the fatigue. However, some antidepressant* medications may cause or worsen fatigue. Your medication may have to be adjusted to avoid this problem. Do not stop or change any medications without instruction from your doctor.Stimulants* (including caffeine) are not effective treatments for fatigue, and can actually make the problem worse when the drugs are discontinued. Sedatives* also tend to intensify fatigue in the long run. Exercise A:Fatigue is a feeling of weariness, tiredness, or lack of energy. Fatigue is different from drowsiness. In general, drowsiness is feeling the need to sleep, while fatigue is a lack of energy and motivation. Drowsiness and apathy can be symptoms of fatigue.Exercise B:1. D2. A3. B4. D5. A6. B7. C8. C Exercise C:1. Fatigue is a normal and important response to physical exertion,emotional stress, boredom, or lack of sleep.2. Drowsiness and apathy can be symptoms of fatigue.3. Enough sleep, good nutrition, or a low-stress environment can usuallyrelieve fatigue.4. Treatment for chronic pain or depression often helps address fatigue.。
视听说2级听力原文unit4-unit13
UNIT4A: Hi, Dr. Banghart.B: Yes.A: I'm really not feeling well at all, and the medicine you gave me isn't doing any good at all.B: Oh, I'm really sorry to hear that. Remind me again of what your, your first symptoms were? A: Well, I have ... My chest hurts, and my throat is sore. And I kind of have a stuffy nose, and a little bit of an earache.B: I see, I see. Is it hard to breathe?A: It's not really hard to breathe, but it ... Whenever I breathe, I cough.B: You cough. Is there any pain associated with your breathing?A: Only in my chest, it hurts a little bit, yes.B: It does, it does. All right, well, I want you to continue to take the medication that I gave you. A: OK. Well, I've taken it for three days and it doesn't seem to be doing any good at all.B: Well, I understand. The literature suggests that four to seven days it may take to really do this if it's what we think it is.A: OK, OK, I see.B: So be sure to keep taking that medication. Uh, I'm thinking that you could also ... Do you have a humidifier in your house?A: Yes, I do.B: OK, because we want to make sure that the air isn't too dry in your house.A: OK, now it's a warm air humidifier. Is that all right?B: That would be the best. That's actually very good. That's very good. And that might give you some comfort until the medication really starts working. OK?A: OK, great. Thank you so much.B: And if it, if it still is bad in another day or two, better, better make an appointment and come in, and we will take some closer look.A: Great, I will do that.B: OK.A: Thank you very much.B: I'm sorry you are not feeling better but I'm sure you will soon.A: Thank you. OK. Bye.B: Bye.Unit5A: Well, it's really great to see you!B: I was just going to say it is so great to be here! I can't believe I finally got here!A: How do you like it? Do you like the area?B: It's wonderful. I love your house. (A: Thank you!) It's just... I can't believe how long it took me to actually get here.A: I know.B: But, I'm here now. And what I was thinking. I know you've got to go run some errands. Iwanted to just drive around a little bit, see what your neighborhood's like, (A: Great! Great!) Maybe I can cook the dinner tonight, 'cause... that's all.A: That's so maze. You want me to tell where some shopping is?B: Great, yeah!A: OK, there is a real close store, if you just go out of the neighborhood here, and then make a left, on Elmwood.B: As I wind around, that's the road I turned off to get here, OK?A: Yes, yes. You take all the way in and you will run into a big grocery store, and a mall, so you can go clothes shopping, too.B: Well.A: And if you really want some like specialty things, like some good breads, from the mall, you'll make a right, (B: OK) and that's Saginaw. You go down Saginaw, and on your left, will be a bakery.B: Oh, perfect.A: Has lots of good bread and cakes and all sorts of delicious things.B: I was thinking maybe salmon, you know, a big salad and some good bread, and there (A: That sounds wonderful) you go. Maybe pick up a little ... Something sweet for dessert.A: Yes, yeah, thank you. That would be really nice. So I have to run, OK?B: OK.A: So thank you so much.B: I will see you, I don't know what, an hour?A: Probably an hour and a half. OK?B: OK!Unit6A: Hello.B: Hi, I missed you at the party the other day.A: Oh, hey, I am sorry I couldn't make it; you know how I was sick all last weekend.B: Oh, total bummer.A: How was it?B: It was great. I was so surprised. I can't believe they'd do that for me. It was so great.A: Yeah, I hope you enjoyed it. I hope you had a happy birthday.B: Oh, I had a great birthday. It was really fun. Yeah, I got a karaoke machine!A: Oh, wow, that's great!B: So the rest of the party kind of ended up revolving around the karaoke machine, and a little bit too much alcohol, and you know, it was a good time.A: Oh, that sounds fun. So, who all was there?B: Well, let's see, Angie came, and Dave and Tom came, and Amy came all the way from Arizona. A: Wow, it must have been great to see her again.B: I haven't seen her in so long. It was wonderful.A: Wow, that sounds like a really fun party. I'm sorry I missed it. Yeah, I wish you'd been there. Well, I'll come to the next one. OK, I am sure there will be another one. Well, I'll talk to you later.B: OK, see you later.A: Bye.B: Bye.UNIT7A: I'm a little embarrassed, but um, so you know, I'm on my own for the first time, and my mom always did my grocery shopping for me, and I got some like major food shopping to do... any advice?B: Oh, you haven't really been shopping before on your own, hu ... OK, well, I can give you a few pointers I think. Um, you want to the big grocery store, right? And, um, what you'll need to do, before you go shopping, it's important to make a list. It's a mistake I make sometimes, is you don't make a list before you go and then you come back, and you didn't get everything you needed. So you want to make sure that you make your list, as far as what cooking you want to do, and other things you need and things like that. And then, try to organize the list in terms of parts of the store, so that you can, you know, do your shopping more efficiently, as you move around the store, you know, so you don't have to go back and forth across the store.A: The less walking the better.B: Exactly, exactly, and that way it's quicker and everything like that, so. That'll be good. Um, you want to make sure that you do some comparison when you're pricing. Compare prices and make sure that you're getting the best product for the value, so look at, you know, how much you're getting, and the quality and the price, and uh, you know the products that are similar are all there right next to each other, so it's easy for you to compare and make sure you're getting the best value for your money. And, um, I would get the cheapest brands usually, because usually ...A: Don't they taste worse or anything?B: No, not usually. They taste about the same, and uh, you're really just paying more for, you know, the packaging and things like that, so ...A: That's true.B: Um, so, yeah, and then afterwards you just bring it up, you, you know, they'll bring it up for you, and bag it for you, and then you just take your bags and bring it home.A: OK.B: So, and just make sure you put the cold things in the refrigerator right away, or else they'll spoil, so ...A: Right! Thank you.B: Well, good luck with that.A: Very helpful, thank you.UNIT8A: Hey, Abby, how is it going?B: Pretty good, how are you?A: Oh, I'm OK, I'm OK. I just called cause I need some advice. I just hung up the phone with mydad. And we kind of had an argument.B: What was it about?A: Well, I needed to borrow some more money from him. You know how it is, being a college student - always need more money.B: I understand.A: Yeah, but he doesn't like the way I spend my money. He thinks I've been pretty irresponsible. And so we kind of got into an argument about that. I'm feeling kind of bad. And I was wondering if you had any advice, or maybe what I should do.B: Well, I'm wondering how the conversation ended, it sort of ended badly, or you guys fighting when you hung up the phone?A: Yeah, yeah, it ended pretty badly, yeah.B: Well, you know, I would call him back. I think the more you talk, the better, the better it can get. You know, you are an adult, you live your own life, and I think how you spend your money is probably valid, and you just try to convince him of that.A: Hmm, it seems like a good idea. But, he's pretty, he's pretty set his way, I think he, I don't know if he'd really listen to that, or change his mind, I don't know if that would work.B: Can you go without the money?A: Hmm, I don't know, I really need it. I was hoping to, you know, go up to the city this weekend and have a good time, and I'm really just too broke to do that.B: Well, you may just have to give that up for one weekend to kind of stand up for yourself. Kind of win the fight.A: Yeah, maybe it's worth it. I guess maybe I have to adjust my life style a little bit.B: Maybe I can treat you to movie.A: Oh, that would be great. Maybe that'd make me feel better. So you think I should probably call him back?B: Yeah, call him back, just talk it over. It's always better have things settled.A: You know, I think you're right. That's what I will do. Well, thanks a lot, Abby.B: No problem.A: I'll see you later.B: Bye.A: Bye.UNIT9A: OK, I am going to tell you the worst travel experience I ever had.B: OK.A: OK. I am flying from the Bahamas to Florida, and we're in a little plane, that's got like ten seats in it. So, already I'm scared because I hate little planes. And we're flying toward Miami, and I look out the window, if I could look out of the window, because the plane is going like this, and bouncing up and down, and up and down, and we are being thrown back and forth. And I look out the window, and there is a tornado hitting the Miami airport. The one we're supposed to be flying into. So we circled around the ocean, and tried... Circled around the ocean again, we circled around the ocean again; I thought we were going to land in the ocean. So we ended up having toland in Fort Lauderdale, which is a long ways from Miami, and my plane was supposed to ... my connection is supposed to be in Miami. So we ended up having to spend the night in Fort Lauderdale, and my sister in law is praying and crying on the plane, I am holding Jeff's hand so tightly, that I think we are going to die, and he says, "don't worry, be calm, look at how calm the pilot is, he is so calm." We land the plane, I go up to the pilot and I say, were we OK, was everything safe? And he said, "I have never been so scared in my entire life." OK. Try to top that. B: No, I haven't got a chance.UNIT10A: Hello dad.B: Yes.A: Hi, how's it going?B: Oh, all right, how are you?A: I am pretty well, pretty well. I just wanted to call... You know how I was looking for an apartment.B: Yeah.A: Yeah. I just... I saw an ad in the paper that sounded good, I wanted to let you know about it. B: Well, I'd like to hear about it.A: Well, it's a two-bedroom, two-bedroom apartment, and it's on Lake Lansing, right on the lake. So that sounds nice. And it's got a lot of amenities, it's got air conditioning, washer and drier, dishwasher, so that's good ...B: And what's the rent?A: It's only 665 a month.B: Six hundred sixty five dollars a month, for rent right on Lake Lansing, that sounds really nice ... does that include utilities?A: I'm not sure, I'll have to call and ask about that, but I think either way it sounds like a good deal.B: Mmm.A: Another thing that is nice is it actually has a boat dock.B: A boat dock? Well, that sounds like fun, are you going to get a boat?A: Yeah, I think I might get a small boat, maybe go out on the lake with my friends or something. B: Well, that sounds good.A: Yeah. I think it sounds nice.B: Well, how about ... are you going to need any help with the security deposit?A: Actually, that's another great thing about it. It says no security deposit with approved credit. So, and my credit's pretty good, so I think I should be able to do it without that.B: Oh, that's real good.A: So, yeah, I just wanted to let you know about that. Looks like ... Looks like my search for an apartment has come to an end.B: Well, that's good to hear. Well, thanks for calling and telling me about it.A: Sure, I'll keep you posted. Talk to you later.B: OK. Bye.UNIT11A: So where are you living now?B: I'm living at home right now. Trying to save some money while I'm in school.A: Sure, sure, that's good. How long have you been living at home?B: Well, I moved out for a while, and lived in an apartment, and then I came back. And so I've been living here for about a year.A: Oh, OK, great, so you are from around here originally?B: Yeah. Born and raised in Lansing.A: Oh, OK, great, wow. So, do you think you gonna live here for a while longer or do you think you're going to move somewhere else?B: Probably, for another year or so, so I can save some money, while I am going to school.A: Sure, sure.B: But ideally, ideally, ideally, I would like to live in New York City.A: Oh, wow.B: Yeah.A: Big city.B: I would love to live there, like right downtown, in an apartment, just so I could step outside and be in the city.A: Wow, that sounds great, be really close to everything, huh?B: I would love to, yes.A: So, you think in a few years you think you are going to try to move out there?B: In a few years, that's the plan, yeah.A: Wow, that sounds great.B: Look, I'll have to save up a lot of money, because, you know, that's expensive, very expensive to live there.A: It is expensive, in New York City, it's true.B: But you know, hopefully I could you know, pursue the theatre, and just...I live the dream.A: Sure, that sounds great, that sounds great. Well, I hope you make it.B: Thanks. I'll try.UNIT12A: So, Rick, what is the weirdest thing you've ever eaten?B: Hmm, now you might ... This might not seem so weird, but I once tried escargot.A: Hum. How were the snails?B: Well, they weren't as bad as I thought they'd be, but I don't know if I'd try them again.A: Yeah, I don't think I could do the snail thing.B: Uh uh.A: Do you usually like foods that are from, you know, other countries, foreign foods?B: Sure. I like to try different things; I like to try foods from Asia, and Europe, interesting things that I haven't tried before.A: I really like Middle Eastern cuisine.B: Oh, yeah, I think that's the best, yeah, absolutely.A: I am not a big meat eater, and they have a lot of really good like lentils and vegetable things. B: Sure, a lot of good vegetarian foods. Yeah, yeah, that's good stuff, that's good stuff. Would you say that's your favorite, do you think?A: I think Chinese food might be my favorite.B: Mm, yeah, Chinese food is pretty great.UNIT13A: So, I hear you're looking for a new job.B: Yeah, I just graduated, and so, I've got my certificate in massage therapy, and I'm looking for a job.A: Looking for a job as a massage therapist?B: Yeah, I was thinking maybe something in a spa, because it's a really nice relaxing environment. A: Yeah, that sounds like a good kind of environment to work in. How much do you think you'd be getting paid?B: I'm not sure, I think depending on how high class this spa is or how nice it is, I could probably get 30 dollars an hour, maybe more.A: Oh, wow, it's not too bad, yeah. You'd do pretty well that way.B: Give an hour massage, get 30 dollars.A: Mmm, that sounds great, that sounds great. So, are there any spas around here, or do you think you'd have to move? Have to relocate.B: Well, there's a really nice one called the "Yellow Strawberry" and it's downtown, and that might be really nice. Honestly, if I had to ... If I had to drive a long way, I don't think I'd ever go to work. So I am not willing to commute, so I would really like to find something around here.A: I see. So if you couldn't find something around here, and you don't want to commute, would you be willing to relocate, you think?B: Yeah, yeah, I would be willing to move, I am pretty open right now, so I could move.A: That sounds good. Well, I hope you find something. I'm sure ... I'm sure that they are looking for people, so good luck.B: Thank you.。
英语高级视听说听力原文 Unit 2 The new space
A plan to build the world's first airport for launching commercial spacecraft in New Mexico is the latest development in the new space race, a race among private companies and billionaire entrepreneurs to carry paying passengers into space and to kick-start a new industry, astro tourism.The man who is leading the race may not be familiar to you, but to astronauts, pilots, and aeronautical engineers – basically to anyone who knows anything about aircraft design –Burt Rutan is a legend, an aeronautical engineer whose latest aircraft is the world's first private spaceship. As he told 60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley when he first met him a little over a year ago, if his idea flies, someday space travel may be cheap enough and safe enough for ordinary people to go where only astronauts have gone before.The White Knight is a rather unusual looking aircraft, built just for the purpose of carrying a rocket plane called SpaceShipOne, the first spacecraft built by private enterprise.White Knight and SpaceShipOne are the latest creations of Burt Rutan. They're part of his dream to develop a commercial travel business in space."There will be a new industry. And we are just now in a beginning. I will predict that in 12 or 15 years, there will be tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people that fly, and see that black sky," says Rutan.On June 21, 2004, White Knight took off from an airstrip in Mojave, Calif., carrying Rutan's spaceship. It took 63 minutes to reach the launch altitude of 47,000 feet. Once there, the White Knight crew prepared to release the spaceship one.The fierce acceleration slammed Mike Melvill, the pilot, back in his seat. He put SpaceShipOne into a near vertical trajectory, until, as planned, the fuel ran out.Still climbing like a spent bullet, Melvill hoped to gain as much altitude as possible to reach space before the ship began falling back to earth.By the time the spaceship one reached the end of its climb, it was 22 miles off course. But it had, just barely, reached an altitude of just over 62 miles —the internationally recognized boundary of space.It was the news Rutan had been waiting for. Falling back to Earth from an altitude of 62 miles, SpaceShipOne's tilting wing, a revolutionary innovation called thefeather, caused the rocket plane to position itself for a relatively benign re-entry and turned the spaceship into a glider.SpaceShipOne glided to a flawless landing before a crowd of thousands."After that June flight, I felt like I was floating around and just once in a while touching the ground," remembers Rutan. "We had an operable space plane." Rutan's "operable space plane" was built by a company with only 130 employees at a cost of just $25 million. He believes his success has ended the government's monopoly on space travel, and opened it up to the ordinary citizen."I concluded that for affordable travel to happen, the little guy had to do it because he had the incentive for a business," says Rutan.Does Rutan view this as a business venture or a technological challenge"It's a technological challenge first. And it's a dream I had when I was 12," he says.Rutan started building model airplanes when he was seven years old, in Dyenuba, Calif., where he grew up."I was fascinated by putting balsa wood together and see how it would fly," he remembers. "And when I started having the capability to do contests and actually win a trophy by making a better model, then I was hooked."He's been hooked ever since. He designed his first airplane in 1968 and flew it four years later. Since then his airplanes have become known for their stunning looks, innovative design and technological sophistication.Rutan began designing a spaceship nearly a decade ago, after setting up set up his own aeronautical research and design firm. By the year 2000, he had turned his designs into models and was testing them outside his office."When I got to the point that I knew that I could make a safe spaceship that would fly a manned space mission -- when I say, 'I,' not the government, our little team -- I told Paul Allen, 'I think we can do this.' And he immediately said, 'Go with it.'"Paul Allen co-founded Microsoft and is one of the richest men in the world. His decision to pump $25 million into Rutan's company, Scaled Composites, was the vote of confidence that his engineers needed to proceed."That was a heck of a challenge to put in front of some people like us, wherewe're told, 'Well, you can't do that. You wanna see We can do this," says Pete Sebold.Work on White Knight and SpaceShipOne started four years ago in secret. Both aircraft were custom made from scratch by a team of 12 engineers using layers of tough carbon fabric glued together with epoxy. Designed to be light-weight, SpaceShipOne can withstand the stress of re-entry because of the radical way it comes back into the atmosphere, like a badminton shuttlecock or a birdie.He showed 60 Minutes how it works."Feathering the wing is kind of a dramatic thing, in that it changes the whole configuration of the airplane," he explains. "And this is done in space, okay It's done after you fly into space.""We have done six reentries. Three of them from space and three of them from lower altitudes. And some of them have even come down upside down. And the airplane by itself straightens itself right up," Rutan explainsBy September 2004, Rutan was ready for his next challenge: an attempt to win a $10 million prize to be the first to fly a privately funded spacecraft into space, and do it twice in two weeks."After we had flown the June flight, and we had reached the goal of our program, then the most important thing was to win that prize," says Rutan.That prize was the Ansari X Prize – an extraordinary competition created in 1996 to stimulate private investment in space.The first of the two flights was piloted, once again, by Mike Melvill.September's flight put Melville's skill and training to the test. As he was climbing out of the atmosphere, the spacecraft suddenly went into a series of rolls.How concerned was he"Well, I thought I could work it out. I'm very confident when I'm flying a plane when I've got the controls in my hand. I always believed I can fix this no matter how bad it gets," says Melville.SpaceShipOne rolled 29 times before he regained control. The remainder of the flight was without incident, and Melvill made the 20-minute glide back to the Mojave airport. The landing on that September afternoon was flawless.Because Rutan wanted to attempt the second required flight just four days later, the engineers had little time to find out what had gone wrong. Working 12-hour shifts, they discovered they didn't need to fix the spacecraft, just the way in which the pilots flew it.For the second flight, it was test pilot Brian Binnie's turn to fly SpaceShipOne.The spaceship flew upward on a perfect trajectory, breaking through to space.Rutan's SpaceShipOne had flown to space twice in two weeks, captured the X Prize worth $10 million, and won bragging rights over the space establishment."You know I was wondering what they are feeling, 'They' being that other space agency," Rutan says laughing. "You know, quite frankly, I think the big guys, the Boeings, the Lockheeds, the nay-say people at Houston, I think they're looking at each other now and saying 'We're screwed!' Because, I'll tell you something, I have a hell of a lot bigger goal than they do!""The astronauts say that the most exciting experience is floating around in a space suit," says Rutan, showing off his own plans. "But I don't agree. A space suit is an awful thing. It constrains you and it has noisy fans running. Now look over here. It's quiet. And you're out here watching the world go by in what you might call a 'spiritual dome.' Well, that, to me, is better than a space suit because you're not constrained."He also has a vision for a resort hotel in space, and says it all could be accomplished in the foreseeable future. Rutan believes it is the dawn of a new era.He explains, "I think we've proven now that the small guys can build a space ship and go to space. And not only that, we've convinced a rich guy, a very rich guy, to come to this country and build a space program to take everyday people to space."That "rich guy" is Richard Branson, the English billionaire who owns Virgin Atlantic Airlines. Branson has signed a $120 million deal with Rutan to build five spaceships for paying customers. Named "Virgin Galactic," it will be the world's first "spaceline." Flights are expected to begin in 2008."We believe by flying tens of thousands of people to space, and making that a profitable business, that that will lead into affordable orbital travel," says Rutan.Rutan thinks there "absolutely" is a market for this.With tickets initially going for $200,000, the market is limited. Nevertheless, Virgin Galactic says 38,000 people have put down a deposit for a seat, and 90 of those have paid the full $200,000.But Rutan has another vision. "The goal is affordable travel above low-Earth orbit. In other words, affordable travel for us to go to the moon. Affordable travel. That means not just NASA astronauts, but thousands of people being able to go to the moon," he says. "I'd like to go. Wouldn't you"。
高级英语视听说教程第二册听力文本精修订
高级英语视听说教程第二册听力文本SANY标准化小组 #QS8QHH-HHGX8Q8-GNHHJ8-HHMHGN#Book 2 Chapter 1 The PopulationToday we’re going to talk about population in the United States. According to the most recent government census, the population is 281,421,906 people. Now this represents an increase of almost 33 million people since the 1990 census. A population of over 281 million makes the United States the third most populous country in the whole world. As you probably know, the People’s Republic of China is the most populous country in the world. But do you know which is the second most populousWell, if you thought India, you were right. The fourth, fifth, and sixth most populous countries are Indonesia, Brazil, and Pakistan. Now let’s get back to the United States. Let’s look at the total U. S. population figure of 281 million in three different ways. The first way is by race and origin; the second is by geographical distribution, or by where people live; and the third way is by the age and sex of the population.First of all, let’s take a look at the population by race and origin. The latest U. S. census reports that 75.1 percent of the population is white, whereas 12.3 percent is black. Three percent are of Asian origin, and 1 percent is Native American. 2.4 percent of the population is a mixture of two or more races, and 5.5 percent report themselves as “of some other race”. Let’s make sure yourfigures are right: OK, white, 75.1 percent; black, 12.3 percent; Asian, 3 percent; Native American, 1 percent; a mixture of two or more races, 2.4 percent; and of some other race, 5.5 percent. Hispanics, whose origins lie in Spanish-speaking countries, comprise whites, blacks, and Native Americans, so they are already included in the above figures. It is important to note that Hispanics make up 12.5 percent of the present U.S. population, however. Finally, the census tells us that 31 million people in the United States were born in another country. Of the 31 million foreign born, the largest part, 27.6 percent are from Mexico. The next largest group, from the Philippines, number 4.3 percent.Another way of looking at the population is by geographical distribution. Do you have any idea which states are the five most populous in the United States Well, I’ll help you out there. The five most populous states, with population figures, are California, with almost 34 million; New York, with 21 million; Texas, with 19 million; and Florida, with 16 million; and Illinois with 12.5 million people. Did you get all those figures downWell, if not, I’ll give you a chance later to check your figures. Well, then, let’s move on. All told, over half, or some 58 percent of the population, lives in the South and in the West of the United States. This figure, 58 percent, is surprising to many people. It issurprising because the East is more densely populated. Nevertheless, there are more people all together in the South and West. To understand this seeming contradiction, one need only consider the relatively larger size of many southern and western states, so although there are more people, they are distributed over a larger area. To finish up this section on geographical distribution, consider that more than three-quarters of the people live in metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Houston. That means that only 20 percent, or 2 out of 10 people, live in rural areas. An interesting side note is that some 3,800,000 U.S. citizens live abroad, that is, in foreign countries.Before we finish today, I want to discuss the distribution of the U.S. population in terms of age and sex. Just for interest, would you say there are more men or more women in the United States Well, according to the 2000 census, there are more women. In fact, there are more than five million more women than men in the U.S. population. If we consider that more males than females are born each year, how can this difference be explainedWell, for a variety of complicated reasons that we can’t go into here, there is a progressively higher death rate for males as they get older. This is seen in 2003 life expectancy figures: the life expectancy for women is 80.4 years whereas for men it is only 74.5years. I don’t know how these life expectancy figures compare to those in your countries, but statistically women generally live longer than men worldwide. Now, to finish up, let’s look at the average age of the whole population. Overall, the average age of the population is increasing: from 33.1 years in 1990 to 35.3 years in 2000. The average age has been slowly, but steadily, increasing over the past several decades. This trend toward a higher average age can be explained by a decreasing birth rate and an increasing life expectancy for the population as a whole. Well, I’d like to investigate these two subjects further, but I see our time is up, so we’ll have to call it quits for today. You may want to pursue the topic of the aging U.S. population further, so there are some suggestions at the end of the lesson to help you do so. Thank you. Chapter Two Immigration: Past and PresentThe act of immigrating, or coming to a new country to live, is certainly nothing new. Throughout history, people have immigrated, or moved to new countries, for many different reasons. Sometimes these reasons were economic or political. Other people moved because of natural disasters such as droughts or famines. And some people moved to escape religious or political persecution. No matter what the reason, most people do not want to leave their native land and do so only under great pressure of some sort, but a few people seemquite adventuresome and restless by nature and like to move a lot. It seems both kinds of people came to America to live. The subject of immigration is quite fascinating to most Americans, as they view themselves as a nation of immigrants. However, the early Britons who came to what is today the United States considered themselves “settlers” or “colonists,” rather than immigrants. These people did not exactly think they were moving to a new country but were merely settling new land for the “mother country.” There were also large numbers of Dutch, French, German, and Scotch-Irish settlers, as well as large numbers of blacks brought from Africa as slaves. At the time of independence from Britain in 1776, about 40 percent of people living in what is now the United States were non-British. The majority of people, however, spoke English, and the traditions that formed the basis of life were mainly British traditions. This period we have just been discussing is usually referred to as the Colonial Period. Today, we’re a little more interested in actual immigration after this period. Let’s first look at what is often called the Great Immigration, which began about 1830 and ended in 1930. Then let’s consider the reasons for this so-called Great Immigration and the reasons it ended. Finally, let’s talk about the immigration situation in the United States today,As I said, we’ll begin our discussion today with the period ofhistory called the Great Immigration, which lasted from approximately 1830 to 1930. It will be easier if we look at the Great Immigration in terms of three major stages, or time periods. The first stage was from approximate1y 1830 to 1860. Now, before this time, the number of immigrants coming to the United States was comparatively small, only about 10,000 a year. However, the rate began to climb in the 1830s when about 600,000 immigrants arrived. The rate continued to climb during the 1840s with a tota1 of 1,700,000 people arriving in that decade. The rate continued to climb, and during the 1850s 2,600,000 immigrants arrived. During this first stage of the Great Immigration, that is, between the years 1830 and 1860, the majority of immigrants came from Germany, Great Britain, and Ireland. Now let’s consider the second stage of the Great Immigration. The second stage was from l860 to 1890, during which time another 10,000,000 people arrived. Between l860 and 1890 the majority of immigrants continued to be from Germany, Ireland, and Great Britain. However, during the second stage, a smaller but significant number of immigrants came from the Scandinavian nations of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The third stage of the Great Immigration, which lasted from 1890 to 1930, was the era of heaviest immigration. Between the years l890 and l930, almost 22 million immigrants arrived in the United States. Most of thesenew arrivals came from the Southern European countries of Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain and the Eastern European countries of Poland and Russia.Now that we know something about the numbers and origins of immigrants who came to the States during the Great Immigration, let’s consider the reasons why most of these people immigrated to the United States. Why did such large numbers of Europeans leave their homes for life in an unknown countryIt would be impossible to discuss all the complex political and economic reasons in any depth today, but we can touch on a few interesting facts that might help to clarify the situation for you. First of all, one of the most important reasons was that the population of Europe doubled between the years 1750 and 1850. At the same time that the population was growing so rapidly, the Industrial Revolution in Europe was causing widespread unemployment. The combination of increased population and the demand for land by industry also meant that farmland was becoming increasingly scarce in Europe. The scarcity of farmland in Europe meant that the abundance of available land in the growing country of the United States was a great attraction. During these years, the United States was an expanding country and it seemed that there was no end to land. In fact, in 1862, the government offered public land free tocitizens and to immigrants who were planning to become citizens. In addition to available farmland, there were also plentiful jobs during these years of great economic growth. Other attractions were freedom from religious or political persecution. Some other groups also came to the United States as the direct results of natural disasters that left them in desperate situations. For example, the frequent failure of the potato crop in Ireland between the years 1845 and 1849 led to widespread starvation in that country, and people were driven to immigrate. Another factor that affected the number of immigrants coming to the United States was improved ocean transport beginning in the 1840s. At that time, ships large enough to carry large numbers of people began to make regular trips across the ocean. Now let’s summarize the reasons for the high rate of immigration to the United States during the years we discussed: first, the doubling of the population in Europe between 1750 and 1850; second, the unemployment caused by the Industrial Revolution; and third, the land scarcity in Europe, followed by religious and political persecution and natural disaster. These reasons combined with improved transportation probably account for the largest number of immigrants.I would now like to talk briefly about the period of time following the Great Immigration and the reasons for the decline inthe rate of immigration. Although immigration continues today, immigration numbers have never again reached the levels that we discussed previously. There are several reasons for this decline. This decline was in part due to various laws whose aim was to limit the number of immigrants coming from different parts of the world to the United States. The first such law that limited the number of immigrants coming from a certain part of the world was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This law was followed by many other laws that also tried to limit the numbers of people immigrating from various countries or parts of the world. In addition to such laws, certainly economic and geopolitical events as important as the Great Depression starting in 1929 and World War II also contributed to the decline in immigration.Let’s conclude our talk by discussing the current situation with respect to immigration, which is quite different from that in the past. To understand some of the changes, it’s important to note that in 1965 strict quotas based on nationality were eliminated. Let’s see how different things are today from the past. As I noted, the greatest number of immigrants to the United States have historically been European. According to U.S. Census figures, in 1860, the percentage of immigrants that were European was 92 percent. But by 1960, the percentage of European immigrants had dropped to74.5 percent, and by the year 2002, it had dropped to 14 percent! In 2002, 52.2 percent of immigrants came from Latin America, that is, from the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. Mexico is ordinarily considered part of North America, but the U.S. Census Bureau considers Mexico as a Central American country in terms of immigration statistics, and estimates that more than one-third of the total of all immigrants to the United States in 2002 came from Mexico or another Central American country. The next largest percentage, 25.5 percent, of immigrants came from Asia, mainly from the Philippines, China, and India.Although immigration dropped sharply when the United States entered World War I and remained low throughout the Depression and World War II years, at the end of the l940s, immigration began to increase again and has, in general, risen steadily since then. It might surprise you to know that the actual number of immigrants coming yearly to the States in recent years is about the same as the numbers coming yearly between 1900 and 1910. Keep in mind, though, that the population of the United States is much larger now than at the turn of the century, so that while the yearly numbers may be similar, the percentage of the population that is foreign-born is considerably smaller today than it was a century ago.It might be interesting to speculate on immigration in thefuture. Will the trend continue for non-Europeans to immigrate to the United States The answer is probably yes for the foreseeable future. Do these non-European people come to the United States for the same reasons that Europeans cameWell, land is no longer plentiful and cheap. Industry no longer requires large numbers of unskilled workers. In fact, the government usually tries to restrict immigration to those people who already have the skills to be successful in U.S. society. Still, people come for politica1 and economic reasons and probably will continue to do so.Chapter 3 Americans at WorkWhether you love it or hate it, work is a major part of most people’s lives everywhere in the world. Americans are no exception. Americans might complain about “blue Monday,” when they have to go back to work after the weekend, but most people put a lot of importance on their job, not only in terms of money but also in terms of identity. In fact, when Americans are introduced to a new person, they almost always ask each other, “What do you do?” They are asking, what is your job or profession. Today, however, we won’t look at work in terms of what work means socially or psychologically. Rather, we’re going to take a look at work in the United States today from two perspectives. First, we’ll take ahistorical look at work in America. We’ll do that by looking at how things changed for the American worker from the beginning to the end of the twentieth century, that is, from the year 1900 to the year 1999. Then we’ll look at how U.S. workers are doing today.As we look at the changes over the last century, we’re going to use a lot of statistics to describe these changes. You will need to write down a lot of numbers in today’s lecture. First, let’s consider how the type of work people were involved in changed. At the beginning of the twentieth century, about 38 percent of the workforce was involved in agriculture; that is, they worked on a farm. By the end of the century, only 3 percent still worked on farms. There was also a large decrease in the number of people working in mining, manufacturing, and construction. The number of workers in mining, manufacturing, and construction went down from 31 percent to 19 percent.While the number of people in these goods producing industries went down, the number of people in the service industries went up. As you may know, a service industry is one that provides a service, rather than goods or products. A few examples include transportation, tourism, banking, advertising, health care, and legal services. I’m sure you can think of more. The service industry workforce jumped from 31 percent of the workforce at the turn of the century to 78percent in 1999.Let’s recap the numbers: in 1900, 38 percent in agriculture; 31 percent in mining, manufacturing, and construction; and 31 percent in the service industries. That should add up to 100 percent. In 1999, 3 percent in agriculture; 19 percent in mining, manufacturing, and construction; and 78 percent in the service industries. Again, that should add up to 100 percent.The labor force changed in other important ways. For example, child labor was not unusual at the beginning of the twentieth century. In 1900 there were 1, 750, 000 children aged ten to fifteen working full-time in the labor force. This was 6 percent of the labor force. Over the years, child labor laws became much stricter and by 1999, it was illegal for anyone under sixteen to work full-time in any of the fifty states. While the number of children in the workforce went down, the number of women went up dramatically. In 1900, only 19 percent of women were employed; in 1999, 60 percent of women were holding down jobs.Let’s see what has happened to wages and salaries. All the numbers I will give you are in terms of 1999 dollars. Let me explain. In 1900 the average per capita income was $4,200 a year. That does not mean that the average worker in 1900 earned $4,200, a year, but that what he or she earned was equal to $4, 200 in 1999. That is,the amount of money the average worker earned in 1900 was worth the same as $4,200 in 1999. The average per capita income in 1999 was $33, 700. Not only did people earn a lot more money at the end of the century, they also received a lot more in benefits than at the beginning of the century. One of the important benefits most workers received later in the century was health insurance. Whereas wages and salaries rose over the century, the average workweek dropped. That is, workers, in general, did not work as long hours in 1999 as they did in 1900.The last area that I’d like to give you a few statistics about is workplace safety. Most of us who go to work every day don’t think a lot about whether we are safe or not, but in 1900 it was a real concern for a lot of workers. There aren’t many statistics available, but the U.S. government does have statistics on two industries that will give you some idea of the differences today. In 1900 almost 1,500 workers were killed in coal-mining accidents; in 1999, the number was 35. 2,555 railroad workers were killed in 1900, compared to 56 in 1999.People often tend to romanticize the past and talk about “the good old days,”but I think it’s fair to say that by the end of the twentieth century, U.S. workers in general made more money, they enjoyed more benefits, and their working conditions had improvedgreatly.Now let’s turn our attention to the current situation for U.S. workers. The picture is not so rosy as the one drawn by comparing U.S. workers at the beginning and the end of the twentieth century. I’m going to focus on the current situation in terms of productivity, working hours, and wages and salaries.First let’s consider the number of hours worked. According to a 2003 study released by the United Nations International Labor Organization, U.S. workers are the most productive in the world among industrialized nations, but they work longer hours than European workers to achieve this productivity. Europeans typically have four to six weeks of vacation a year, whereas the average American worker has only about two weeks. This study points out that the longer working hours in the United States is a rising trend, while the trend in other industrialized countries is the opposite.Workers in some European countries actually outproduce American workers per hour of work. It has been suggested that this higher rate of productivity might be because European workers are less stressed than U.S. workers.At any rate, there seems to be general agreement that U.S. productivity has greatly increased over the last thirty years. However, workers have not seen their wages rise at the same rate. Agroup of sociologists in their book Inequality by Design point out that there is a growing gap between rich Americans and everyone else in the United States. They write that between 1949 and 1974, increases in productivity were matched by increases in wages for workers in both manufacturing and the service industries, but since 1974, productivity increased 68 percent in manufacturing and 50 percent in services, but real wages stagnated. That is, wages moved up little or not at all. So, where does all the money generated by the increased productivity go thenAccording to the authors of this book, the money goes to the salaries for CEOs, to the stock market, and to corporate profits. Workers play a great role in increasing productivity, but no longer see their wages connected to increased productivity. In other words, CEOs’salaries, the stock market, and the corporate profits go up as work productivity goes up, but workers’ wages don’t.What are the reasons why U.S. workers, who are the most productive in the world, have to work longer hours, have fewer vacation days, and see their wages stagnate and not rising at the same rate as productivity The answer to this question is complex and controversial, but there are two reasons most people who speak or write about these issues mention: The first is that labor unions in the United States have lost great power since the beginning of the1980s, and the second is that the government has passed laws that favor the rich and weaken the rights of the workers.I see our time is up. So, I’ll see you next time.Chapter 4 Family in the United StatesA hundred years ago, one heard the same kind of comments about the American family that one hears today --- in short, that the American family is disintegrating. Proof of this disintegration at the end of the nineteenth century included three points: the declining birth rate, a rising divorce rate, and evidence that women were not completely content with their domestic role. It’s a little surprising to me that the same claim about the family is being made today --- that it is disintegrating. And often the same points are mentioned as proof: declining birth rates, increasing divorce rates, and discontent of women with domestic roles. Now, in no way do I mean to imply that cultural, demographic, and economic conditions are the same now as they were 100 years ago. On the contrary, the very nature of the family has changed drastically in the last 50 years, not to mention the last 100 years. But I don’t think the average person’s concept of the family has changed very much over the years. A lot of people have on fixed idea of the family: a married couple where Mother stays home to care for the children and Father works. But this idea is challenged by what we see every dayin U.S. society. To be sure, the family is a very sensitive barometer for what is happening in the society, the culture, and the economy of the United States. To make this point clearer, we’ll take a look at how the American family has changed in the last 50 years by looking at three different time periods: there are the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s; the mid-60s to the mid-80s; and finally the present. Sociologist Barbara Dafoe Whitehead labels these three periods: the period of traditional familism, the period of individualism, and the period of the new familism. I will try for each period to show how economic, demographic, and cultural elements interact and, in turn, affect the family.Well, let’s proceed in chronological order and start with traditional familism. We’re talking here of the twenty years from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s. This was the period after World War II, a period characterized by a very strong economy. This gave the United States a rising standard of living and a growing middle class. Demographically, the predominant configuration of the family from these years was the traditional one: a married couple with children. Some women worked, but divorce rates were low, and birth rates were high. I guess you could say that the country idealized the family in these years. And what I mean is, there was a commitment to the family from its members and a reverence for it from society. TVprograms of the era depicted the family in the classical configuration: working father, housewife, and children. Culturally, three characteristics stand out in this period: conformity to social norms, greater male domination of the family than in the later periods, and clear-cut gender roles, that is, clear and separate roles for men and women at home and at work. Well, things changed quite a bit after this period.Let’s move on to the second period, the period of individualism. This period is from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s. Now, because individualism is so often mentioned in our discussion of U.S. culture and people, I should make a little detour here before we discuss it. Individualism brings to mind two other words: independence and self-reliance. Individualism conveys the idea that one should think and act for himself or herself, according to what one feels is right. Individualism is easily confused with egotism or selfishness, but in its best sense, it is much more. Individualism implies that one has the freedom to decide what is best rather than allowing that decision to be made by a group such as the community or society. Individualism does, of course, conflict with the concept of community, which implies that the group shares in making decisions. And this conflict between the individual and the community is one that comes up again and again in our lecture seriesabout the United States. All right, let’s get back to our discussion about the family.The second period, the period of individualism, saw three important social and political movements. Do you have any idea which movements I might be talking about Keep in mind that these decades were characterized by a lack of conformity to social norms. Well, the movements have in mind are the sexual revolution, in which sex was clearly no longer reserved for marriage; the women’s liberation movement; and the movement against the war in Vietnam. All three movements---the sexual revolution, woman’s liberation, and the antiwar movement --- were typical of the nonconforming nature of these decades. Now, culturally, it is in this period where we see two important developments: one the idealization of one’s career and work and, two, the drive for self-expression and self-fulfillment. In this period, the feminist movement challenged traditional gender roles and male domination of society. Women began to enter professions previously closed to them like medicine, law, and management. Men, for their part, began at least to consider a more active role in raising their children.These cultural changes occurred during a time of economic changes, too. This was a time of rapidly rising cost of living. Together, these forces changed the demographics of the family. Theformer picture of the family had only one configuration: a married couple with children where Mother stayed home. The new picture of the family had to include new configurations, like families in which the husband and wife both worked, families of single parents with children, and families of cohabiting couples with or without children. With more women pursuing careers and making money, there was less economic pressure for them to stay in an unsuitable marriage. Therefore, divorce rates doubled in a decade. Rising divorce rates and more financial independence for women made marriage a less attractive arrangement for many women. Consequently, the number of single-parent households tripled. Less conformity to social norms paved the way for cohabitation. So the number of unmarried couples living together in this period quadrupled. Can you see how economic, cultural, and demographic aspects of the society interact with each other I hope so. Well, let’s continue with our agenda.The third period, the new familism, is harder to see because we are living in this period now. And because we are constantly informed by the media about the deteriorating American family, it’s hard to get an objective view of the state of the family. I think that today most people applaud the social changes that came about in the second period of individualism. They are not willing to give up。
【精品】高级英语视听说教程book2听力文本
Today we’re going to talk about population in the United States. According to the most recent government census, the population is 281,421,906 people. Now this represents an increase of almost 33 million people since the 1990 census. A population of over 281 million makes the United States the third most populous country in the whole world. As you probably know, the People’s Republic of China is the most populous country in the world. But do you know which is the second mo st populous? Well, if you thought India, you were right. The fourth, fifth, and sixth most populous countries are Indonesia, Brazil, and Pakistan. Now let’s get back to the United States. Let’s look at the total U. S. population figure of 281 million in three different ways. The first way is by race and origin; the second is by geographical distribution, or by where people live; and the third way is by the age and sex of the population.First of all, let’s take a look at the population by race and origin. T he latest U. S. census reports that 75.1 percent of the population is white, whereas 12.3 percent is black. Three percent are of Asian origin, and 1 percent is Native American. 2.4 percent of the population is a mixture of two or more races, and 5.5 percen t report themselves as “of some other race”. Let’s make sure your figures are right: OK, white, 75.1 percent; black, 12.3 percent; Asian, 3 percent; Native American, 1 percent;a mixture of two or more races, 2.4 percent; and of some other race, 5.5 percent. Hispanics, whose origins lie in Spanish-speaking countries, comprise whites, blacks, and Native Americans, so they are already included in the above figures. It is important to note that Hispanics make up 12.5 percent of the present U.S. population, however. Finally, the census tells us that 31 million people in the United States were born in another country. Of the 31 million foreign born, the largest part, 27.6 percent are from Mexico. The next largest group, from the Philippines, number 4.3 percent.Another way of looking at the population is by geographical distribution. Do you have any idea which states are the five most populous in the United States? Well, I’ll help you out there. The five most populous states, with population figures, ar e California, with almost 34 million; New York, with 21 million; Texas, with 19 million; and Florida, with 16 million; and Illinois with 12.5 million people. Did you get all those figures down? Well, if not, I’ll give you a chance later to check yo ur figures. Well, t hen, let’s move on. All told, over half, or some 58 percent of the population, lives in the South and in the West of the United States. This figure, 58 percent, is surprising to many people. It is surprising because the East is more densely populated. Nevertheless, there are more people all together in the South and West. To understand this seeming contradiction, one need only consider the relatively larger size of many southern and western states, so although there are more people, they are distributed over a larger area. To finish up this section on geographical distribution, consider that more than three-quarters of the people live in metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Houston. That means that only 20 percent, or 2 out of 10 people, live in rural areas. An interesting side note is that some 3,800,000 U.S. citizens live abroad, that is, in foreign countries.Before we finish today, I want to discuss the distribution of the U.S. population in terms of age and sex. Just for interest, would you say there are more men or more women in the United States? Well, according to the 2000 census, there are more women. In fact, there are more than five million more women than men in the U.S. population. If we consider that more males than females are born each year, how can this difference be explained? Well, for a variety of complicated reasons that we can’t go into here, there is a progressively higher death rate for males as they get older. This is seen in 2003 life expectancy figures: the life expectancy for women is 80.4 years whereas for men it is only 74.5 years. I don’t know how these life expectancy figures compare to those in your countries, but statistically women generally live longer than men worldwide. Now, to finish up, let’s look at the average age of the whole population. Overall, the average age of the population is increasing: from 33.1 years in 1990 to 35.3 years in 2000. The average age has been slowly, but steadily, increasing over the past several decades. This trend toward a higher average age can be explained by a decreasing birth rate and an increasing life expectancy for the population as a whole. Well, I’d like to investigate these two subjects further, but I see our time is up, so we’ll have to call it quits for today. Yo u may want to pursue the topic of the aging U.S. population further, so there are some suggestions at the end of the lesson to help you do so. Thank you.Chapter Two Immigration: Past and PresentThe act of immigrating, or coming to a new country to live, is certainly nothing new. Throughout history, people have immigrated, or moved to new countries, for many different reasons. Sometimes these reasons were economic or political.Other people moved because of natural disasters such as droughts or famines. And some people moved to escape religious or political persecution. No matter what the reason, most people do not want to leave their native land and do so only under great pressure of some sort, but a few people seem quite adventuresome and restless by nature and like to move a lot. It seems both kinds of people came to America to live. The subject of immigration is quite fascinating to most Americans, as they view themselves as a nation of immigrants. However, the early Britons who came to what is today the United States considered themselves “settlers” or “colonists,” rather than immigrants. These people did not exactly think they were moving to a new country but were merely settling new land for the “mother country.”There were also large numbers of Dutch, French, German, and Scotch-Irish settlers, as well as large numbers of blacks brought from Africa as slaves. At the time of independence from Britain in 1776, about 40 percent of people living in what is now the United States were non-British. The majority of people, however, spoke English, and the traditions that formed the basis of life were mainly British traditions. This period we have just been discussing is usually referred to as the Colonial Period. Today, we’re a little more interested in actual immigration after this period. Let’s first look at what is often called the Great Immigration, which began about 1830 and ended in 1930. Then let’s consider the reasons for this so-called Great Immigration and the reasons it ended. Finally, let’s talk about the immigration situation in the United States today,As I said, we’ll begin our discussion today with the period of history called the Great Immigration, which lasted from approximately 1830 to 1930. It will be easier if we look at the Great Immigration in terms of three major stages, or time periods. The first stage was from approximate1y 1830 to 1860. Now, before this time, the number of immigrants coming to the United States was comparatively small, only about 10,000 a year. However, the rate began to climb in the 1830s when about 600,000 immigrants arrived. The rate continued to climb during the 1840s with a tota1 of 1,700,000 people arriving in that decade. The rate continued to climb, and during the 1850s 2,600,000 immigrants arrived. During this first stage of the Great Immigration, that is, between the years 1830 and 1860, the majority of immigrants came from Germany, Great Britain, and Ireland. Now let’s consider the second stage of the Great Immigration. The second stage was from l860 to 1890, duri ng which time another 10,000,000 people arrived. Between l860 and 1890 the majority of immigrants continued to be from Germany, Ireland, and Great Britain. However, during the second stage, a smaller but significant number of immigrants came from the Scandinavian nations of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The third stage of the Great Immigration, which lasted from 1890 to 1930, was the era of heaviest immigration. Between the years l890 and l930, almost 22 million immigrants arrived in the United States. Most of these new arrivals came from the Southern European countries of Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain and the Eastern European countries of Poland and Russia.Now that we know something about the numbers and origins of immigrants who came to the States during the Great Immigration, let’s consider the reasons why most of these people immigrated to the United States. Why did such large numbers of Europeans leave their homes for life in an unknown country? It would be impossible to discuss all the complex political and economic reasons in any depth today, but we can touch on a few interesting facts that might help to clarify the situation for you. First of all, one of the most important reasons was that the population of Europe doubled between the years 1750 and 1850. At the same time that the population was growing so rapidly, the Industrial Revolution in Europe was causing widespread unemployment. The combination of increased population and the demand for land by industry also meant that farmland was becoming increasingly scarce in Europe. The scarcity of farmland in Europe meant that the abundance of available land in the growing country of the United States was a great attraction. During these years, the United States was an expanding country and it seemed that there was no end to land. In fact, in 1862, the government offered public land free to citizens and to immigrants who were planning to become citizens. In addition to available farmland, there were also plentiful jobs during these years of great economic growth. Other attractions were freedom from religious or political persecution. Some other groups also came to the United States as the direct results of natural disasters that left them in desperate situations. For example, the frequent failure of the potato crop in Ireland between the years 1845 and 1849 led to widespread starvation in that country, and people were driven to immigrate. Another factor that affected the number of immigrants coming to the United States was improved ocean transport beginning in the 1840s. At that time, ships large enough to carry large numbers of people began to make regular trips across the ocean. Now let’s summarize the reasons for the high rate of immigration to the United States during the years we discussed: first, the doubling of the population in Europe between 1750 and 1850;second, the unemployment caused by the Industrial Revolution; and third, the land scarcity in Europe, followed by religious and political persecution and natural disaster. These reasons combined with improved transportation probably account for the largest number of immigrants.I would now like to talk briefly about the period of time following the Great Immigration and the reasons for the decline in the rate of immigration. Although immigration continues today, immigration numbers have never again reached the levels that we discussed previously. There are several reasons for this decline. This decline was in part due to various laws whose aim was to limit the number of immigrants coming from different parts of the world to the United States. The first such law that limited the number of immigrants coming from a certain part of the world was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This law was followed by many other laws that also tried to limit the numbers of people immigrating from various countries or parts of the world. In addition to such laws, certainly economic and geopolitical events as important as the Great Depression starting in 1929 and World War II also contributed to the decline in immigration.Let’s conclude our talk by discussing the current situation with respect to immigration, which is quite different from that in the past. To understand some of the changes, it’s important to note that in 1965 strict quotas based on nationality were eliminated. Let’s see how different things are today from the past. As I noted, the greatest number of immigrants to the United States have historically been European. According to U.S. Census figures, in 1860, the percentage of immigrants that were European was 92 percent. But by 1960, the percentage of European immigrants had dropped to 74.5 percent, and by the year 2002, it had dropped to 14 percent! In 2002, 52.2 percent of immigrants came from Latin America, that is, from the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. Mexico is ordinarily considered part of North America, but the U.S. Census Bureau considers Mexico as a Central American country in terms of immigration statistics, and estimates that more than one-third of the total of all immigrants to the United States in 2002 came from Mexico or another Central American country. The next largest percentage, 25.5 percent, of immigrants came from Asia, mainly from the Philippines, China, and India.Although immigration dropped sharply when the United States entered World War I and remained low throughout the Depression and World War II years, at the end of the l940s, immigration began to increase again and has, in general, risen steadily since then. It might surprise you to know that the actual number of immigrants coming yearly to the States in recent years is about the same as the numbers coming yearly between 1900 and 1910. Keep in mind, though, that the population of the United States is much larger now than at the turn of the century, so that while the yearly numbers may be similar, the percentage of the population that is foreign-born is considerably smaller today than it was a century ago.It might be interesting to speculate on immigration in the future. Will the trend continue for non-Europeans to immigrate to the United States? The answer is probably yes for the foreseeable future. Do these non-European people come to the United States for the same reasons that Europeans came? Well, land is no longer plentiful and cheap. Industry no longer requires large numbers of unskilled workers. In fact, the government usually tries to restrict immigration to those people who already have the skills to be successful in U.S. society. Still, people come for politica1 and economic reasons and probably will continue to do so.Chapter 3 Americans at WorkWhether you love it or hate it, work is a major part of most people’s lives everywhere in the world. Americans are no exception. Americans might complain about “blue Monday,” when they have to go back to work after the weekend, but most people put a lot of importance on their job, not only in terms of money but also in terms of identity. In fact, when Americans are introduced to a new person, they almost always ask each other, “What do you do?” They are asking, what is your job or profession. Today, however, we won’t look at work in terms of what work means socially or psychologically. Rather, we’re going to take a look at work in the United States today from two perspectives. First, we’ll take a historical look at work in America. We’ll do that by looking at how things changed for the American worker from the beginning to the end of the twentieth century, that is, from the year 1900 to the year 1999. Then we’ll look at how U.S. workers are doing today.As we look at the changes over the last century, we’re going to use a lot of statistics to describe these changes. You will need to write down a lot of numbers in today’s lecture. First, let’s consider how the type of work people were involved in changed. At the beginning of the twentieth century, about 38 percent of the workforce was involved in agriculture; that is, they worked on a farm. By the end of the century, only 3 percent still worked on farms. There was also a large decrease in thenumber of people working in mining, manufacturing, and construction. The number of workers in mining, manufacturing, and construction went down from 31 percent to 19 percent.While the number of people in these goods producing industries went down, the number of people in the industries went up. As you may know, a industry is one that provides a, rather than goods or products. A few examples include transportation, tourism, banking, advertising, health care, and legals. I’m sure you can think of more. The industry workforce jumped from 31 percent of the workforce at the turn of the century to 78 percent in 1999.Let’s recap the numbers: in 1900, 38 percent in agriculture; 31 percent in mining, manufacturing, and construction; and 31 percent in the industries. That should add up to 100 percent. In 1999, 3 percent in agriculture; 19 percent in mining, manufacturing, and construction; and 78 percent in the industries. Again, that should add up to 100 percent.The labor force changed in other important ways. For example, child labor was not unusual at the beginning of the twentieth century. In 1900 there were 1, 750, 000 children aged ten to fifteen working full-time in the labor force. This was 6 percent of the labor force. Over the years, child labor laws became much stricter and by 1999, it was illegal for anyone under sixteen to work full-time in any of the fifty states. While the number of children in the workforce went down, the number of women went up dramatically. In 1900, only 19 percent of women were employed; in 1999, 60 percent of women were holding down jobs.Let’s see what has happened to wages and salaries. All the numbers I will give you are in terms of 1999 dollars. Let me explain. In 1900 the average per capita income was $4,200 a year. That does not mean that the average worker in 1900 earned $4,200, a year, but that what he or she earned was equal to $4, 200 in 1999. That is, the amount of money the average worker earned in 1900 was worth the same as $4,200 in 1999. The average per capita income in 1999 was $33, 700. Not only did people earn a lot more money at the end of the century, they also received a lot more in benefits than at the beginning of the century.One of the important benefits most workers received later in the century was health insurance. Whereas wages and salaries rose over the century, the average workweek dropped. That is, workers, in general, did not work as long hours in 1999 as they did in 1900.The last area that I’d like to give you a few statistics about is workplace safety. Most of us who go to work every day don’t think a lot about whether we are safe or not, but in 1900 it was a real concern for a lot of workers. There aren’t many statistics available, but the U.S. government does have statistics on two industries that will give you some idea of the differences today. In 1900 almost 1,500 workers were killed in coal-mining accidents; in 1999, the number was 35. 2,555 railroad workers were killed in 1900, compared to 56 in 1999.People often tend to romanticize the past and talk about “the good old days,” but I think it’s fair to say that by the end of the twentieth century, U.S. workers in general made more money, they enjoyed more benefits, and their working conditions had improved greatly.Now let’s turn our attention to the current situation for U.S. workers. The picture is not so rosy as the one drawn by comparing U.S. workers at the beginning and the end of the twentieth century. I’m going to focus on the current situation in terms of productivity, working hours, and wages and salaries.First let’s consider the number of hours worked. According to a 2003 study released by the United Nations International Labor Organization, U.S. workers are the most productive in the world among industrialized nations, but they work longer hours than European workers to achieve this productivity. Europeans typically have four to six weeks of vacation a year, whereas the average American worker has only about two weeks. This study points out that the longer working hours in the United States is a rising trend, while the trend in other industrialized countries is the opposite.Workers in some European countries actually outproduce American workers per hour of work. It has been suggested that this higher rate of productivity might be because European workers are less stressed than U.S. workers.At any rate, there seems to be general agreement that U.S. productivity has greatly increased over the last thirty years. However, workers have not seen their wages rise at the same rate. A group of sociologists in their book Inequality by Design point out that there is a growing gap between rich Americans and everyone else in the United States. They write that between 1949 and 1974, increases in productivity were matched by increases in wages for workers in both manufacturing and the industries, but since 1974, productivity increased 68 percent in manufacturing and 50 percent ins, but real wagesstagnated. That is, wages moved up little or not at all. So, where does all the money generated by the increased productivity go then? According to the authors of this book, the money goes to the salaries for CEOs, to the stock market, and to corporate profits. Workers play a great role in increasing productivity, but no longer see their wages connected to increased productivity. In other words, CEO s’ salaries, the stock market, and the corporate profits go up as work productivity goes up, but workers’wages don’t.What are the reasons why U.S. workers, who are the most productive in the world, have to work longer hours, have fewer vacation days, and see their wages stagnate and not rising at the same rate as productivity? The answer to this question is complex and controversial, but there are two reasons most people who speak or write about these issues mention: The first is that labor unions in the United States have lost great power since the beginning of the 1980s, and the second is that the government has passed laws that favor the rich and weaken the rights of the workers.I see our time is up. So, I’ll see you next time.Chapter 4 Family in the United StatesA hundred years ago, one heard the same kind of comments about the American family that one hears today --- in short, that the American family is disintegrating. Proof of this disintegration at the end of the nineteenth century included three points: the declining birth rate, a rising divorce rate, and evidence that women were not completely content with their domestic role. It’s a little surprising to me that the same claim about the family is being made today --- that it is disintegrating. And often the same points are mentioned as proof: declining birth rates, increasing divorce rates, and discontent of women with domestic roles. Now, in no way do I mean to imply that cultural, demographic, and economic conditions are the same now as they were 100 years ago. On the contrary, the very nature of the family has changed drastically in the last 50 years, not to mention the last 100 years. But I don’t think the average person’s concept of the family has changed very much over the years. A lot of people have on fixed idea of the family: a married couple where Mother stays home to care for the children and Father works. But this idea is challenged by what we see every day in U.S. society. To be sure, the family is a very sensitive barometer for what is happening in the society, the culture, and the economy of the United States. To make this point clearer, we’ll take a look at how the American family has changed in the last 50 years by looking at three different time periods: there are the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s; the mid-60s to the mid-80s; and finally the present. Sociologist Barbara Dafoe Whitehead labels these three periods: the period of traditional familism, the period of individualism, and the period of the new familism. I will try for each period to show how economic, demographic, and cultural elements interact and, in turn, affect the family.Well, let’s proceed in chronological order and start with traditional familism. We’re talking here of the twenty years from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s. This was the period after World War II, a period characterized by a very strong economy. This gave the United States a rising standard of living and a growing middle class. Demographically, the predominant configuration of the family from these years was the traditional one: a married couple with children. Some women worked, but divorce rates were low, and birth rates were high. I guess you could say that the country idealized the family in these years. And what I mean is, there was a commitment to the family from its members and a reverence for it from society. TV programs of the era depicted the family in the classical configuration: working father, housewife, and children. Culturally, three characteristics stand out in this period: conformity to social norms, greater male domination of the family than in the later periods, and clear-cut gender roles, that is, clear and separate roles for men and women at home and at work. Well, things changed quite a bit after this period.Let’s move on to the second period, the period of individualism. This period is from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s. Now, because individualism is so often mentioned in our discussion of U.S. culture and people, I should make a little detour here before we discuss it. Individualism brings to mind two other words: independence and self-reliance. Individualism conveys the idea that one should think and act for himself or herself, according to what one feels is right. Individualism is easily confused with egotism or selfishness, but in its best sense, it is much more. Individualism implies that one has the freedom to decide what is best rather than allowing that decision to be made by a group such as the community or society. Individualism does, of course, conflict with the concept of community, which implies that the group shares in making decisions. And this conflict between the individual and the community is one that comes up again and again in our lectureseries about the United States. All right, let’s get back to our discussion about the family.The second period, the period of individualism, saw three important social and political movements. Do you have any idea which movements I might be talking about? Keep in mind that these decades were characterized by a lack of conformity to social norms. Well, the movements have in mind are the sexual revolution, in which sex was clearly no longer reserved for marriage; the women’s liberation movement; and the movement against the war in Vietnam. All three movements---the sexual revolution, woman’s liberation, and the antiwar movement --- were typical of the nonconforming nature of these decades. Now, culturally, it is in this period where we see two important developments: one the idealization of one’s career and work and, two, the drive for self-expression and self-fulfillment. In this period, the feminist movement challenged traditional gender roles and male domination of society. Women began to enter professions previously closed to them like medicine, law, and management. Men, for their part, began at least to consider a more active role in raising their children.These cultural changes occurred during a time of economic changes, too. This was a time of rapidly rising cost of living. Together, these forces changed the demographics of the family. The former picture of the family had only one configuration: a married couple with children where Mother stayed home. The new picture of the family had to include new configurations, like families in which the husband and wife both worked, families of single parents with children, and families of cohabiting couples with or without children. With more women pursuing careers and making money, there was less economic pressure for them to stay in an unsuitable marriage. Therefore, divorce rates doubled in a decade. Rising divorce rates and more financial independence for women made marriage a less attractive arrangement for many women. Consequently, the number of single-parent households tripled. Less conformity to social norms paved the way for cohabitation. So the number of unmarried couples living together in this period quadrupled. Can you see how economic, cultural, and demographic aspects of the society interact with each other? I hope so. Well, let’s continue with our agenda.The third period, the new familism, is harder to see because we are living in this period now. And because we are constantly informed by the media about the deteriorating American family, it’s hard to get an objective view of the state of the family. I think that today most people applaud the social changes that came about in the second period of individualism. They are not willing to give up gender equality, the freedom to leave an unsuitable marriage, or the self-fulfillment of an interesting job. At the same time, most experts, if not most people, admit that children paid a high price for the social changes that took place in the second period. It was the children who spent long days in day care or after-school hours home alone while both parents worked. And it was the children who grew up with only one parent or with stepparents in many cases.Some experts see changes occurring now in U.S. society, changes that affect the family. They see a continuing decline inn divorce rates since the 1980s but also a decline in birth rates after an initial increase in 1980s. The decline in divorce rates could be due to families’ better financial situations. Despite the decline in divorce, a quarter of U.S children today live with only one parent. The birth rate is probably declining because an increasing life span results in fewer women of childbearing age. A more encouraging reason is the reduction in unmarried teen pregnancies. Experts also report an attempt by people to balance work with family obligations, especially the care of children. They see the individualism of the middle period changing somewhat; the concern seems in many cases to be shifting from one’s career to one’s family, from individualism to the new familism. The most optimistic view of this third period would be that Americans have learned from past mistakes: they want to regain the commitment to family of the first period and keep the equality and fulfillment of the second period. It will not be easy to regain the commitment to the family of the first period. It will require changes in how society and the government look at the family. In families where bother parents work, one parent may try to work at home or work only part-time to have more time for the children. Places of work may offer more flexible working hours and on-site day care to allow more time for parents and children. For its part, the government could mandate parental leave, family allowances, and quality day-care centers. Parental leave and family allowances would allow parents to stay home to look after their newborn children. Quality day care would be adequately staffed by professionals who stay at their jobs and with the same children year after year.None of these changes is guaranteed. But it seems clear that such changes or similar ones are necessary to ensure a healthier U.S. family in the future; and, a healthier family is needed to play the central role that family does in every society. I’ve gone over a lot here, but if you want to pursue the topic further, there are some references that the end of the lesson to。
听力教程第二册unit4听力原文
听力教程第二册u n i t4听力原文-CAL-FENGHAI.-(YICAI)-Company One1Unit4Section One Tactics for ListeningPart 1 Phonetics-Stress, Intonation and Accent1 . A: Excuse me. Could you tell me where the secretary's office is pleaseB: Yes. It's up the stairs, then turn left, ... ↗2. A: Excuse me. Can you tell me where the toilets areB: Yes, they're at the top of the stairs.↘3. A: What did you do after work yesterdayB: Ah, well, I went for a drink in the pub opposite the car-park. ↘4. A: What did you do after work yesterdayB: O h, I ran into Jane and Tom ..... ↗5. A: Excuse me, can you tell me how the machine worksB: Certainly. Erm, first of all you adjust the height of the stool, and then put four 10 pence pieces there, ...↗6．A：Excuse me, can you tell me how the machine worksB：Yes. You put 30 pence in the slot and take the ticket out here. ↘Part2 Listening and Note-takingFrog legsPeople want frogs mostly for food. Many Asian cultures have included frog legs in their diets for centuries -- or at least until they have run out of frogs. But the most famous frog-eaters, and the people who inspired frog-eating in Europe and the United States are the French. By 1977 the French government, so concerned about the scarcity of its native frog, banned commercial hunting of its own amphibians. So the French turned to India and Bangladesh for frogs.As happened in France, American frog-leg fanciers and restaurants also turned increasingly to frozen imports. According to figures collected from government agencies, the United States imported more than million pounds of frozen frog meat each year between 1981 and 1984.So many frozen frog legs were exported from India to Europe and the United States. One of the attractions of Indian frogs, apart from the fact that they have bigger legs than French frogs, was the price. In London, a pound of frozen frog's legs from India cost about ￡, compared with ￡ for the French variety.Indian scientists have described as "disastrous" the rate at which frogs are disappearing from the rice fields and wetlands, where they protect crops by devouring damaging since the India and Bangladesh frog-export bans, Indonesia has become the major exporter of frog legs to the United States and Europe. But no matter what country the legs come from, one thing is usually constant: The legs once belonged to frogs are taken from the wild, not from farms. Frogs are nearly impossible to farm economically in the countries where frogs are commercially harvested from the wild.Exercise A:1.Many Asian cultures have included frog legs in their diets for centuries.2.By 1977 the French government banned commercial hunting of its own amphibians.3.Indian scientists have described as "disastrous" the rate at which frogs are disappearingfrom the rice fields and wetlands.4.The United States imported more than million pounds of frozen frog meat each yearbetween 1981 and 1984.5.One of the attractions of Indian frogs was the price.Exercise B:Frog legsPeople want frogs mostly for food. Many Asian cultures have included frog legs in their diets for centuries, The most famous frog-eaters, and the people who inspired frog-eating in Europe and the United States are the French. By 1977 the French government bannedcommercial hunting of its own amphibians. So the French turned to India and Bangladesh for flogs. And the United States imported more than million pounds of frozen frog meat each year between 1981 and 1984. One of the attractions of Indian frogs was the price.Indian scientists have described as "disastrous" the rate at which frogs are disappearing from the rice fields and wetlands, where they protect crops by devouring damaging insects.Since the India and Bangladesh frog-export bans, Indonesia has become the major exporter of frog legs to the United States and Europe. But no matter what country the legs come from, one thing is usually constant: The legs once belonged to frogs that are taken from the wild, not from farms.Section Two Listening ComprehensionPart 1 DialoguesDialogue 1 Health ClubInterviewer: Lorna, you and your husband opened this health club here last summer. Can you tell me something about the clubLama: Yes, well we offer a choice of facilities -- gym, sunbed*, sauna* andJacuzzi* -- that's also from Scandinavia -- as well as our regularfitness classes, that is. And there's a wholefood bar for refreshmentsafterwardsInterviewer: And does it cost a lot I mean, most people think health clubs are reallyexpensive.Lama: Actually our rates are really quite competitive. Since we only startedlast July, we' ve kept them down to attract customers. It's only ￡30 ayear to join. Then an hour in the gym costs ￡ -- the same as halfan hour on the sunbed. Sauna and Jacuzzi are both ~ for half anhour.Interviewer: And is the club doing wellLama: Well, so far, yes, it's doing really well. I had no idea it was going to be such a success, actually. We're both very pleased. The sunbed's so popular, especially with theover 65s, that we're getting another one in August.Interviewer: What kind of people join the clubLama: We have people of all ages here, from small children to old-age pensioners, though of course the majority, about three-quarters of our members, are in their 20sand 30s. They come in their lunch hour, to use the gym, mostly, or after work,while the Youngsters come when school finishes, around half past three orfour. The Jacuzzi's very popular with the little ones.Interviewer: What about the old-age pensionersLoma: They're usually around in the mornings, when we offer them special reduced rates for the Jacuzzi or sauna, plus sunbed, it's only ￡2, which is half price, actually.It doesn't affect our profits really -- only about 5% of our members are retired. Exercise:Dialogue 2 skiingSimon: This one shows the view from the top of the mountain.Sally: Oh, it's lovely!Teresa: That's me with the red bobble hat.Sally: Is itTeresa: Yet, it looks kind of silly, doesn't itSally: Yes, it does rather.Teresa: Oh, don't worry. I know it looks ridiculous.Simon: Look. That's our instructor, Werner.Teresa: Yeah, we were in the beginners' class.Sally: Well, everyone has to start somewhere.Simon: Ah, now, this is a good one.Sally: What on earth is thatSimon: Can't you guessSally: Well, it looks like a pile of people. You know, sort of on top of each other.Teresa: It is!Sally: How did that happenSimon: Well, you see we were all pretty hopeless at first. Every day Werner used to take us to the nursery slope* to practise, and to get to the top you had to go up on a ski lift. Teresa: Which wasn't really very easy.Simon: No, and if you fell off you'd start sliding down the slope, right into all the people coming up!Sally- Mmm.Simon: Well, on that day we were all going up on the ski lift, you know, we were just getting used to it, and, you see there was this one woman in our class who never got thehang of* it. She didn't have any sort of control over her skis and whenever shestarted sliding, she would sort of stick her ski sticks out in front of her, you know,like swords or something.Teresa: I always tried to avoid her, but on that day I was right behind her on the ski lift* and just as she was getting to the top, she slipped and started sliding down the slope.Sally: Did she ~Simon: Mmm, with her ski sticks waving around in front of her!Teresa: So of course everyone sort of let go and tried to jump off the ski lift to get out of the way.Simon: And that's how they all ended up in a pile at the bottom of the slope -- it was lucky I had my camera with me.Sally: I bet that woman was popular!Simon oh,yes. everybody's favourite!Exercise A:1. They are looking at some pictures.2. A ski class for beginners.3. Two.Exercise B:Everyday the coach took them to a nursery slope. They got to the top on a ski lift. In their class there was one woman who could never learn how to ski. She couldn't control her skis and whenever she started sliding, she would stick her ski sticks out in front of her. People always tried to avoid her.One day as she was getting to the top, she slipped and started sliding down the slope. Everyone let go and tried to jump off the ski lift to get out of the way and they all ended up in a pile at the bottom of the slope.Passage 2 The Truth about the French!Skiing in France is heaven on Earth for a dedicated skier. There are resorts where you can access skiing terrain that is larger than all the ski resorts in Utah* and Colorado* combined.The larger resorts have an adequate number of restaurants and discos. It is a good idea to eat a good lunch because the mountain restaurants are normally much better than the restaurants in the ski stations.French resorts are mostly government owned and operated. The social system puts a high percentage of money back into the areas. This provides state-of-the-art* lifts, snow making and snow grooming. In general, an intermediate skier who can read a lift map will easily be able to ski all day avoiding lift lines and crowds, even during the busiest season.The French school systems have a staggered* two-week winter vacation period. When the snow is good, nearly all of France migrates to the mountains for this period. The break usually covers the last two weeks of February and the first week of March. The time to absolutely avoid is the "Paris school holiday week" which will always be in the middle period of the vacation time but alternates starting the first or second week of the break.No one has a more undeserved* reputation about his or her character than the French. The French are not generally arrogant and rude. Tree, in large tourist centers there are unpleasant people and if you're looking for or expecting rudeness, you may just provoke* it. Generally the French, especially in the countryside, are as kind as you wish and you will find warmth and acceptance. The most fractious* Frenchman is easily disarmed by a little sincerity*.When greeting someone or saying good-bye, always shake hands. Don't use a firm, pumping handshake, but a quick, slight pressure one. When you enter a room or a shop you should greet everyone there. If you meet a person you know very well use their first name and kiss both cheeks. Men don't usually kiss unless they are relatives. Good topics of conversation include food, sports, hobbies and where you come from. Topics to avoid are prices, where items were bought, what someone does for a living, income and age. Questions about personal and family life are considered private. Expect to find the French well-informed about the history, culture and politics of other countries. To gain their respect, be prepared to show some knowledge of the history and politics of France.France is generally a very safe country to visit. Pickpockets, however, are not unheard of. In large cities particularly, take precautions against theft. Always secure your vehicles, leavenothing of value visible and don't carry your wallet in your back pocket. Beware of begging children!Exercise A:Exercise B:2. A3. A4. A5. B6. C7. D8. DExercise C:1.Because there are resorts where you can access skiing terrain that is larger than all the skiresorts in Utah and Colorado combined.2.Because an intermediate skier who can read a lift map will easily be able to ski all dayavoiding lift lines and crowds, even during the busiest season.3.This staggered two-week winter vacation period usually covers the last two weeks ofFebruary and the first week of March.4.The French are not generally arrogant and rude. Generally they are as kind as you wish.5.In large cities in France, always secure your vehicles, leave nothing of value visible anddon’t carry your wallet in your back pocket. Beware of begging children.Part 3 NewsNews Item 1France's busiest airport will reopen part of a terminal that was not damaged when a segment of the roof collapsed in May, killing four people.The Transport Minister Gilles de Robien said a segment of the three-building 2E terminal at Charles de Gaulle airport would return to service on July 15. In the May 23 disaster, failing glass, steel and masonry* killed four travelers -- two Chinese,one Czech* and one Lebanese*. Three others were injured.A preliminary report by experts said Tuesday that a weakness in the concrete that formed the futuristic terminal's vaulted roof may have contributed to the collapse.Officials are still unsure about what exactly caused it to collapse.Exercise A:This news item is about the new information Of France Charles de Gaulle airport where a segment of the roof collapsed in May.Exercise B:News Item 2An Antonov 26 plane crashed in northwestern Congo shortly after take-off on Saturday, killing all 22 Congolese passengers and the crew.It was not known how many crew members were on the plane when it crashed near the town of Boende, more than 600 km northeast of the capital Kinshasa. The cause of the crash was unknown.A string of accidents this week has underlined the parlous* state of Democratic Republic of Congo's transport infrastructure* after five years of war and decades of misrule.More than 160 people drowned when a ferry sank during a storm on Lake Mai-Ndombe, north east of Kinshasa, on Tuesday.On Saturday, 18 people were killed or injured when a small truck experienced brake trouble and crashed near the eastern town of Goma.Exercise A:This news item is about a string of accidents this week in Congo.Exercise B:News Item 3In the United States lawyers for Raed jarrar, an airline passenger forced to cover his T-shirt because it displayed an Arabic script, say he has been awarded a total of $240,000 in compensation.Lawyers representing Raed Jarrar say the payout* is a victory for free speech and a blow to the practice of racial profiling*. Back in 2006 Mr Jarrar was waiting to board a flight at New York's JFK airport wearing a T-shirt that read 'We Will Not Be Silent" in English and Arabic. His lawyers claim he was ordered to remove the item of clothing by staff who said other passengers felt uncomfortable with the Arabic slogan. He eventually agreed to cover the shirt and boarded the plane, but says he was made to sit at the back.Exercise A:This news item is about the practice of racial profiling in the United States.Exercise B:Raed Jarrar, an airline passenger, has recently been awarded a total of $ 240,000 in compensation.Back in 2006 Mr Jarrar was w aiting to board a flight at New York’s JFK airport wearing a T-shirt that read “ We Will Not Be Silent” in English and Arabic. Later he was ordered to remove the printed words on his T-shirt by staff who said other passengers felt uncomfortable with the Arabic slogan. He eventually agreed to cover the shirt and boarded the plane, but he was made to sit at the back.Lawyers representing Raed Jarrar say the payout is a victory for free speech and a blow to the practice of racial profilingSeetion three oral workRetellingThere is a street called "The Strand" in Galveston, where hundreds of thousands oftouristsvisit today. This street was Mama's stomping* ground as a kid. Before Mama died, we took a streetcar around Galveston to see all the lovely, restored homes. What a great day. She knew morethan the tour guide. As we sat enjoying the sights, Mama said, "Liz, do you know why my noseis a little crooked*" (I thought, "Where did that come from") "No, Mama, you haven't ever mentioned it," I replied."Well," said mother, "one day I followed my brothers to The Strand, and a streetcar ranoverme. I put myself flat down between the rails and pushed my face in the ground so hard, Ibroke mynose! It sure caused a lot of chaos*. People screamed, the police came, and I just crawled out, brushed myself off and went home. The only thing 1 ever noticed different about me was a crookedI just looked at her nose and looked at Mama in utter disbelief!Section Four Supplementary Exercises Babies and IntelligenceSome people thought babies were not able to learn things until they were five or sixmonths old. Yet doctors in the United States say babies begin learning on their first day of life.Research scientists at the National Institute of Child Health and Development note thatbabies are strongly influenced by their environment. They say a baby will smile if her motherdoes something the baby likes. A baby learns to get the best care possible by smiling to pleaseher mother or other caregiver. This is how babies learn to connect and communicate withother humans. This ability to learn exists in a baby even before birth. They say newborn babies can recognize and understand sounds they heard while they were still developing inside their mothers.The Finnish researchers used devices to measures the babies' brain activity. Theresearchersplayed recordings of spoken sounds for up to one hour while the babies slept.The head of the study believes that babies can learn while asleep because the part of their brains called the cerebral cortex* remains active at night. The cortex is very important for learning. This part of the brain is not active in adults while they sleep.Many experts say the first years of a child's life are important for all later development. An American study shows how mothers can strongly influence social development and language skills in their children. The study involved more than 1,200 mothers and children. Researchers studied the children from the age of one month to three years. They observed the mothers playing with their children four times during this period.The researchers attempted to measure the sensitivity of the mothers. The women were considered sensitive if they supported their children's activities and did not interfere unnecessarily. They tested the children for thinking and language development when they were three years old.The children of depressed women did not do as well on tests as the children of women who did not suffer from depression. The children of depressed women did poorly on tests of language skills and understanding what they hear. These children also were less cooperative and had more problems dealing with other people.Another study suggests that babies who are bigger at birth generally are more intelligent later in life. It found that the intelligence of a child at seven years of age is directly linked to his or her weight at birth. Study organizers say this is probably because heavier babies received more nutrition* during important periods of brain development before they were born.The study involved almost 3,500 children. Researchers in New York City used traditional tests to measure intelligence. Brothers and sisters were tested so that the effects of birth weight alone could be separated from the effects of diet or other considerations.The researchers found that children with higher birth weights generally did better on the intelligence tests. Also, the link between birth weight and intelligence later in life was stronger for boys than for girls.Exercise A:1. Some people thought babies were able to learn things when they were five or six months old.2. Doctors think babies begin learning things on their first day of life.3. Babies communicate with other people by smiling.4. They can recognize and understand sounds they heard while they were still developing inside their mothers.5. Babies can learn while asleep.6. They are important for a child's all later development.Exercise:BExercise C:Your opinionDirections: Listen to the passage again and give your opinion on the following topics, "Many experts say the first years of a child's life are important for all later development."1. What should mothers do in the first year of a child's life2. What might affect a child if his parents get divorced in his first year of lifeFatigueFatigue is a feeling of weariness, tiredness, or lack of energy.Fatigue is different from drowsiness. In general, drowsiness is feeling the need to sleep, while fatigue is a lack of energy and motivation. Drowsiness and apathy (a feeling of indifference or not caring about what happens) can be symptoms of fatigue.Fatigue can be a normal and important response to physical exertion, emotional stress, boredom, or lack of sleep. However, it can also be a nonspecific sign of a more serious psychological or , physical disorder. Fatigue that is not relieved by enough sleep, good nutrition, or a low-stress environment should be evaluated by your doctor. Because fatigue is a common complaint, sometimes a potentially serious cause may be overlooked.The pattern of fatigue may help your doctor determine its underlying cause. For example, if you wake up in the morning rested but rapidly develop fatigue with activity, you may have an ongoing pysical condition like an underactive thyroid*. On the other hand, if you wake up with a low level of energy and have fatigue that lasts throughout the day, you may be depressed. Here are some tips for reducing fatigue:Get adequate, regular, and consistent amounts of sleep each night.Eat a healthy, well-balanced diet and drink plenty of water throughout the day.Exercise regularly.Learn better ways to relax. Try yoga* or meditation*.Maintain a reasonable work and personal schedule.Change your stressful circumstances, if possible. For example, switch jobs, take a vacation, and deal directly with problems in a relationship.Take a multivitamin. Talk to your doctor about what you need and what is best for you.Avoid alcohol, nicotine*, and drag use.If you have chronic* pain or depression, treating either often helps address the fatigue. However, some antidepressant* medications may cause or worsen fatigue. Your medicationmay have to be adjusted to avoid this problem. Do not stop or change any medications without instruction from your doctor.Stimulants* (including caffeine) are not effective treatments for fatigue, and can actually make the problem worse when the drugs are discontinued. Sedatives* also tend to intensify fatigue in the long run.Exercise A:Fatigue is a feeling of weariness, tiredness, or lack of energy. Fatigue is different from drowsiness. In general, drowsiness is feeling the need to sleep, while fatigue is a lack of energy and motivation. Drowsiness and apathy can be symptoms of fatigue.Exercise B:1. D2. A3. B4. D5. A6. B7. C8. CExercise C:1. Fatigue is a normal and important response to physical exertion, emotional stress, boredom, or lack of sleep.2. Drowsiness and apathy can be symptoms of fatigue.3. Enough sleep, good nutrition, or a low-stress environment can usually relieve fatigue.4. Treatment for chronic pain or depression often helps address fatigue.。
视听说第二册 听力原文
视听说第二册听力原文Unit1II. Listening Skills1.M: Why don‟t we go to the concert today?W: I‟ll go get the keys.Q: What does the woman imply?2.W: I can‟t find my purse anywhere. The opera tickets are in it.M: Have you checked in the car?Q: What does the man imply?3.M: Are you going to buy that pirated CD?W: Do I look like a thief?Q: What does the woman imply?4.M: Do you think the singer is pretty?W: Let‟s just say that I wouldn‟t/t vote for her in the local beauty contest.Q: What does the woman imply about the singer?5.M: Have you seen Tom? I can‟t find him anywhere.W: The light in his dorm was on just a few minutes ago.Q: What does the woman mean?1. B2.B3.D4.C5.AIII. Listening InTask 1: Encore!As soon as the singer completed the song, the aud ience cried, “Encore! Encore!” The singer was delighted and sang the song again. She couldn‟t believe it when the audience shouted for her to sing it again. The cycle of shouts and songs was repeated ten more times. The singer was overjoyed with the response from the audience. She talked them and asked them why they were so much audience in hearing the same song again and again. One of the people in the audience replied, “We wanted you to improve it; now it is much better.”1. F2.T3.F4.T5.FTask 2: The CarpentersW: They play “Yesterday Once More” all the time on the campus radio. Do you like it?M: I do. I never get tired of it. I like the Carpenters. Their voices are so beautiful and clear. I guess that‟s why they‟re so popular.W: I like the way their voices blend. There were just two of them, brother and sister, right?M: Yes, Richard and Karen I think they were. She died I think.W: Yes, anorexia. It is hard to believe that someone so beautiful would starve herself to death. M: It‟s a problem everywhere in the world, including China, I‟m afraid. Women worry too much about their appearances, and are so crazy about losing weight.W: Well, let‟s go for lunch before we go to the concert.1. beautiful and clear2. blend well3. sister4. worry too much5. more important Task 3: MozartMozart was a fascinating musician and composer whose fame continues to grow more than two centuries after his death. He was born in Salzburg, Austria, in 1756. Before the age of four, he hadshown great musical talent. His father then decided to let him start taking harpsichord lessons. The boy‟s reputation as a musical talent grew fast. At five, he was composing music. Form that time on, Mozart was performing n concerts and writing music. By his early teens, he had mastered the piano, violin and harpsichord, and was writing symphonies and operas. His first major opera was performed in Milan in 1770, when he was only fourteen. At fifteen, Mozart became the conductor for an orchestra in Salzburg. In 1781, he left for Vienna, where he was in great demand as both a performer and a composition teacher. His first opera was a success. But life was not easy because he was a poor businessman, and his finances were always in a bad state. His music from the next decade was not very popular, and he eventually fell back on his teaching jobs for a living. In 1788 he stopped performing in public, preferring only to compose. He died in 1791 at the age of thirty-five. Although he lived only a short life, he composed over 600 works.1. Which of the following is true of Mozart? D2. How long has Mozart‟s fame lasted? A3. Which of the following is true of the four-year-old Mozart? B4. What could Mozart do at the age of six? C5. Which of the following is not ment ioned as one of Mozart‟s accomplishments while he was in his early teens? CUnit2II. Listening Skills1. W: From what I can remember, the director asked us to rehearse this a hundred times.M: One hundred times? Is the director out of his mind?Q: What does the man imply?2. M: Do you think we have made enough food for the party?W: The refrigerator is about to explode.Q: What does the woman imply?3. W: She said she might become a famous movie star.M: Yes, and pigs might fly.Q: What does the man mean?4. M: Although the man often plays a bad guy in movies, in real life he has a heart of gold.W: So does a hard-boiled egg.Q: What does the woman mean?5. W: What a beautiful sunset!M: Don‟t blink. You might just miss it.Q: What does the man mean?1. A2.D3.B4.C5.BIII. Listening InTask 1: Waiting for the New Harry Potter MovieAmy: I‟m so excited about finally seeing this movie!Peter: Me too. I‟m crazy about Harry Potter. Have you heard that J.K. R owling has added another book to the series?Amy: She‟s already written Book Seven? I‟m still waiting for Book Five…Peter: I know. Who isn‟t? At least we have the movies to watch in the meantime.Amy: By the way, have you seen the trailer yet?Peter: Yeah. It was great! I think the movie itself will be really scary.Amy: It surely will! All that writing on the wall in blood… It scares me to death just to think about it!Both the girl and the boy are excited / crazy about the movie and the hero Harry Potter. The boy heard that the writer J.K. Rowling has written the latest book, which is Book Seven, though the girl is still waiting for Book Five. The boy has been the trailer and believes the film will be scary. The girl shares that view because of the writing on the wall in blood.Task 2: A Great ActorThere was once a great actor who could no longer remember his lines. After several years of searching, he finally found a theater that was willing to give him a try. The director said, “This is the most important part, and it has only one line. At the opening you walk onto stage carrying a rose. You hold the rose to your nose with just one finger and thumb, smell it deeply and then say the line on praise of the rose: …Ah, the sweet smell of my love.‟” The actor was excited. All day long before the play he practiced his line over and over again. Finally, the time came. The curtain went up, the actor walked onto the stage, looked at the audience, and with great emotion said the line, “Ah, the sweet smell of my love.” The audience exploded in laughter. Only the director was furious! “Ahhhhhh! You damned fool!” he cried. “You‟ve ruined my play! You‟ve ruined me!” The actor was puzzled, “What happened? Did I forget my line?” “No!” shouted the director. “You forget the rose!”1. D2.C3.D4.A5.BUnit3II. Listening Skills1.M: Will you love and keep him in sickness and in health, as long as you both shall live?W: I will.Q: Who is the woman?2.W: Mike, wake up1 It is time to go to school. Hurry up or you‟re going t o be late!M: Don‟t worry. I can sleep all day long. Did you forget today is Martin Luther King‟s birthday?Q: Who is the woman most likely to be?3. M: Could I see your driver‟s license and registration, please?W: What‟s the matter, officer?Q: Who is the man?4. M: I‟d like to ask you about the research paper you assigned that we have to do by the end ofthe semester.W: ok. What would you like to know?Q: Who is the woman most likely to be?5. W: I‟ve cleaned the windows, mopped the f loors, and folded the laundry. Is there anythingelse that you would like me to do before I cal lit a day?M: Did you do the living room yet?Q: Who is the woman most likely to be?1. B2.C3.D4.A5.AIII. Listening InTask 1: Don’t be a c hicken!Gilbert: Hey, Henry, is Sarah coming with us?Henry: Yes. Why?Gilbert: Nothing. I‟m just asking.Henry: Just asking? But why is your face flaming red? Ah-huh, someone has a crush on Sarah, doesn‟t he?Gilbert: Who has a crush?!Henry: Come on, Gil bert, don‟t be such a chicken. If you like her, just go and tell her. Maybe she likes you.Gilbert: But I don‟t have the guts to ask her out.Henry: What are you so afraid of?Gilbert: I‟d totally die if she turned me down.Henry: But that‟s better than keeping everything to yourself. You‟ve got to let her know. Come on!You‟ve got to take a chance!Gilbert: I don‟t know… Well, maybe you‟re right, but how am I going to tell her I like her?1. go out2. flaming red3. has a crush on4. a chicken5. likes6. the guts7. turn him down 8. know 9. keeping everything to himself 10. how to tell herTask 2: Wedding VowsBefore the wedding, the groom went up the minister with an unusual offer. “Look, I‟ll give you $100 if you‟ll change the wedding vows. When you get to the part where I‟m expected to promise to …love, respect and obey her,‟ …giving up all others,‟ and …be true to her forever,‟ I‟d be happy if you‟d just leave that part out.” He gave the minister the cash and walked away with a lig ht heart. The wedding day arrived, and the bride and groom reached that part of the ceremony where they would make vows to each other. When it was time for the groom‟s vows, the minister looked the young man in the eye and said, “Will you promise to kneel before her, obey her every command and wish, serve her breakfast in bed every morning of your life and make a vow before God and your lovely wife that you will never even look at another woman, as long as you both shall live?” The groom was shocked, but in spite of himself, he said in a low voice, “Yes, I will.” Then the groom whispered to the minister, “I thought we had a deal.” The minister put the $100 into his hand and whispered back, “She made me a much better offer.”1. F2.F3.T4.T5.FTask 3: an American weddingAmerican weddings are not always the same. I‟d like to show you pictures of my wedding. When we got engaged, an announcement was published in the newspaper. The announcement typically includes the names of the bride, the bridegroom and their parents and the wedding is expected to be held. About a month before the wedding, we sent out wedding invitations to relatives and friends. This is the church where we had the wedding. My father gave me to my future husband. Then the minister started the wedding ceremony. He greeted the guests, and talked about the meaning of marriage. Next, we exchanged vows and gave each other rings. This is the main part of the wedding. After the vows, the minister prayed for us. Then the minister declared us husband and wife, and we kissed each other. Here is my sister, who was a bridesmaid. This is the bouquet I carried. Traditionally, the unmarried women gather after the wedding, and the bride throws her bouquet to them. The one who catches it will, according to tradition, be the next one to get married. At the reception, we cut the wedding cake and fed each other bites of the cake. Then we toasted each other with champagne. Finally the reception was over, and the minister signed themarriage certificate and we were legally married.1. A2.B3.C4.D 1-3-7-5-4-2-6Unit4II. Listening Skills1-i 2-a 3-f 4-b 5-c 6-d 7-h 8-g 9-eIII. Listening InTask 1: The Influence of AdvertisingRichard: Dad, I need a pair of new shoes for an important basketball game. My old ones look kind of funny.Father: Funny! We just bought those last spring. There‟s a lot of life left in them.Richard: But look at this ad with Yao Ming. He says these shoes give him extra spring. Father: Yao Ming is so tall th at he doesn‟t need extra spring. Anyway, he makes money than I do. And they probably give him millions of dollars to wear those shoes.Richard: But if you bought me the shoes, I‟d wear them for nothing. And I‟d have that extra spring.Father: Do you think Yao Ming reached the top just because of the shoes he wears? Or was it something else?Richard: You mean like hard work, dedication, that sort of thing?Father: Exactly. Just focus on your studies and forget the shoes.1. shoes2. look kind of funny3. there is still a lot of life left4. ad5. give him extra spring6.as much money7. need extra spring8. millions of dollars9.wearing the shoes 10. wear 11. for nothing 12. reach the top 13. because of 14. something lese 15. hard work and dedication 16. focus/concentrate on his studies 17. forgetTask 2: I’ll get a camera.One day just before closing time, John rushed into a TV store to buy a color TV set with the money he had saved for three months. The friendly shop assistant was waiti ng for the day‟s last and 100th customer to reach his sales target for his bonus, so he warmly greeted John and showed him the various models on display. He asked John to see how sharp and colorful the imagine on the screen was. At that moment, a new commercial came onto the screen, introducing a popular brand of camera as well as some beautiful pictures it had taken. The camera and pictures attracted John. He suddenly changed his mind and told the shop assistant: “Thank you for the TV commercial. Now I hav e to hurry to the camera store to get that camera.”1. T2. F3.F4.T5.FTask 3: Don’t even think about it!“Don‟t even think about it!” is a phrase commonly used in the United States when a person emphatically denies or refuse something.In 1995, Shaquille O‟ Neal, a popular basketball player, made a Pepsi commercial in which this phrase was used. The commercial begins with Shaq playing basketball, and a little kid is watching him. Then the boy cries out the name of this basketball star. Shaq turns to see the kid with a Pepsi n his hand. He walks over to the boy and says, “Hey, can I have it?” He bends over, supposing that his admirer will give him the Pepsi. But then the kid says, “Don‟t even think about it!” This commercial was rather popular, and it had been shown on TV for about three years. The commercial seems to have a more dramatic effect than that produced by the Coca-Cola Companyin the 1970s. In the Coke ad a young boy meets football star “Mean” Joe Green as he is leaving the field a game. The boy gives his hero a bottle of Coke, and in exchange for the drink, the football player throws to the boy, who excitedly catches the souvenir.The phrase “Don‟t even think about it!” is used on many other occasions. Visitors to New York City are ofte n amused to see a road sign with these words: “Don‟t even think about parking here.” This road sign means that people are strictly prohibited from parking there.1. A2.D3.B4.C5.CUnit5II. Listening Skills1. M: The police gave a few tickets out last week along Highway 15.W: In fact, quite a few tickets were given on that road.Q: What does the woman mean?2. M: Who do you think is the smartest student in the class?W: Mary is second to none.Q: What does the woman say about Mary?3. W: What are you so happy about?M:Instead of being given an even dozen, we‟ve been given a baker‟s dozen.Q: Why is the man so happy?4. M: We have had a lot of rain over the last few years.W: But nothing like this.Q: What does the woman mean?5. M: What effect has the booming economy had on interest rates for loans?W: The interest rates have skyrocketed!Q: What does the woman mean?1. A2. B3.B4.D5.CIII. Listening InTask 1: Dogs aren’t allowed here!Manager: I‟m sorry. Miss, but dogs aren‟t allowed in this theater.Mary:But I have a ticket for him.Manager:I‟m very sorry, but animals aren‟t permitted.Mary:You don‟t understand. This is a special case. My dog is so well trained and so intelligent that he‟s almost human.Manager: I see that you have an exceptional animal, but…Mary:I promise you that if there is any problem we‟ll leave the theater immediately. I promise you that this dog isn‟t like any other dog you‟ve ever seen.Manager:Well…all right. I‟ll let you go in, since the theater is almost empty tonight. But your dog will have to behave himself, or you will have to leave.Mary:Thank you very much.1. allowed movie theater2. a ticket3. well trained intelligent human4.any problem leave the theater any other dog seen5. almost emptyTask 2: Put the cat out!A couple was going out for the evening to celebrate the wife‟s birthday. While they were getting ready, the husband put the cat out. The taxi arrived, and as the couple walked out of their home,the cat ran back into the house. Not wanting their car to have free run of the house while they were out, the husband went back upstairs to chase the cat out. The wife, not waiting it known that the house would be empty, explained to the taxi driver, “He‟s just going upstairs to say goodbye to my mother.” A few minutes later, the husband got into the car, and said, “Sorry it took it so long. The stupid old thing was hiding under the bed, and I had to poke her with a stick to get her to come out!”4-1-3-5-2-6 D) She was ill-treated at home.Task 3: A Sudden Change in the Parrot’s AttitudeA young man named John received a parrot as a gift. The parrot had a bad attitude and an even worse vocabulary. Every word out of this bird‟s mouth was rude. John tried every method to change the bird‟s attitude by constantly saying polite words, playing soft music, and anything he could think of to set a good example. Nothing worked. Finally, John got fed up and he yelled at the parrot. And the bird yelled back. John shook the parrot, and the bird got angrier and ruder. Finally, in a moment of desperation, John put the bird in the refrigerator freezer. For a few minutes, John heard the bird scream and kick. Then suddenly there was silence. Not a sound for over a mi nute. Fearing that he‟s hurt the bird, John quickly opened the door to the freezer. The parrot calmly stepped out and said, “I believe I may have offended you with my rude language and actions. I am truly sorry, and I will do everything I can to correct my poor behavior.”John was greatly surprised at the bird‟s change of attitude. As he was about to ask the parrot what had caused such a sudden change in his behavior, the bird continued, “May Ii ask why you put the chickens there and what they did wrong?”1. C2.D3.B4.C5.AUnit6II. Listening SkillsDialog 1Girl 1: What do you think of this miniskirt, Amy? Pretty hot stuff, eh?Girl 2:Wow…it‟s pretty short. My mom would never let me wear something like that.Girl 1: My mom‟s cool. She lets me make my own decisions about clothes.Girl 2:Not my mom. She‟d be mad if I came home in a skirt like that.Girl 1:Let‟s both got one; then maybe your mom wouldn‟t be so upset if we both wore the same skirt.Girl 2:Well…maybe.1.D2. The first girl(The girl who suggests wearing the short skirt.)Dialog 2Mother: Lily, where did you get that skirt? You can‟t wear that. It‟s much too short! What will others think?Lily: You don‟t understand fashion. It‟s what everyone is wearing. I think it looks very attractive.Mother: Nonsense, it‟s only suitable for a supermodel on the catwalk. It‟s not meant for ordinary people like us. Your dad is sure to say the skirt is far too revealing!Lily: But it‟s really in high fashion; everyone is wearing clothes like th is.Mother: Not everyone. Your friend Amy would never wear a skirt like that![Amy comes in, wearing the same style of short skirt!]Lily: Look, Amy has come. She‟s wearing the same skirt!Mother: My God, I give up.1. B2. No, she hasn‟t.III. Listening InTask 1: A Woman’s Funny DressLily: Mom, look at that woman. Her dress looks funny.Mother: I wouldn‟t say that, Lily. It looks fine to me.Lily: Are you kidding? She‟s out of fashion. That‟s last year‟s style.Mother: Oh, come one, as long as it looks good on her.Lily: Wow, you‟re really as out-dated as she is.Mother: You‟re right. I‟m out of date. So what? What‟s the point of following the fashion?Lily: No wonder you never buy me new dresses.1.looks funny2. looks fine to her3. is behind the times4. went out5. went out6. looks good on her7. looks good on her8. out-dated9. keeping herself in style10. no wonderTask 2: How is fashion decided?Fashion designers design and make fashionable clothes for men and women. They deign trends and create new styles. Paris has been the traditional center of world fashion, though recently British designers have had great influence in setting new styles, and so have certain designers in the United States and Italy. French designers guard the secrets of their new designs until their collections are shown to the public. Then pictures of the styles are published in newspapers and magazines all over the world. People from many countries travel to Paris to buy the clothes and copy the newest ideas. In January they go to see the spring clothes; and in July, to see the autumn designs. Many dress manufacturers from other countries buy the original clothes of the famous French designers. They then take them back to their own sewing rooms, where the clothes are copied and made up in great numbers. That‟s why you may be able to buy in your town the clothing that is in the latest style without paying a very high price for it. Other manufacturers use the Paris styles simply as a starting point for their own ideas. Still others may adapt only a part of the French design into their own styles.1. F2.F3.T4.T5.FFashion designers design fashionable clothes,begin trends and new styles,and their work is copied all over the world.Paris is the center of the world fashion, where the secrets of the newdesigns are guarded until they are shown to the public People and manufacturers come to Paris to buy and copy new clothes, in January andJuly. Then the clothes are copied and made up in largenumbers, for which one does not have to pay a high price.Other manufacturers use Paris styles simply as a starting pointfor their own ideas.Still others adapt only a part of the French designTask 3: Dreaming of Being a Fashion ModelTop fashion models travel all over the world, earn huge salaries and live exciting lives. If you want to be a model, you should know the basic rules. Girls are usually picked to be models whenthey are between 15 and 22 years old. Ideally, they are tall, long-legged, and thin. The minimum height is about 5‟8”, and the average weight is 108-125 pounds. A few other important things for a fashion model are clear skin, healthy hair, straight teeth, and a well-shaped body. You‟ll also need ambition, intelligence, confidence, independence, and will-power.If you‟ve got the right looks but are worried over not being tall enough or fit enough, Ki mi is the answer. Kimi is the magic key to developing your fashion model potential. Kimi is a computer-designed stimulator. It massages your feet to stimulate a part of your brain that produces more growth hormones. This will give you the fashion model kind of height. You should also go in for some sports like running or basketball. These increase the benefits of using Kimi.Make an important decision today. Order Kimi right now! Don‟t you think having the hegith and shape of a fashion model would be wonderful? Yes, Kimi helps you realize your dream.1.D2.B3.A4.B5.CTop fashion models…..earning large salariesFuture models…..being at least 5‟8” tallKimi…………..massaging one‟s feetA part of the brain……producing growth hormones directlyCustomers…….buying KimiUnit7II. Listening Skills1. W: How much money is the rent for an apartment in this neighborhood?M: Your rent should be about a quarter of that.Q: How much should be the woman‟s rent be?2. M: I paid $3,500 for this digital camera. It was on sale at a 30$ discount.W: It‟s a real bargain.Q: How much did the camera cost originally?3. M: What‟s the rate for an economy car?W: The daily rate is $32, unlimited mileage.Q: How much will the man pay if he rents the car for a week?4. M: I‟ll take these sweaters. How much do they cost?W: They are $180 each and four makes a total of $720. But today we are offering a 20% discount.Q: How much does the man have to pay?5. W: What an old car you‟ve got!M: Well, it had run 12,000 miles when I bought it second hand. And it‟s covered 3,080 miles since then.Q: How many miles has the car run?1.B2.A3.A4.D5.BIII. Listening InTask 1: It’s time to buy.Mike: Hey, Robert, where are you off to?Robert: I‟m going to talk to a banker about a loan.Mike: You are short of money? I thought you were the saving type.Robert: There‟s a time to save and a time to spend.Mike: I know all about spending. What‟s the loan for? I have a few bucks I could…Robert: I‟m considering getting a mortgage to buy some property.Mike: Do you think property is a good investment? I mean, it‟s a lot of money.Robert:Well, Mike, as you know, property values have been going through the roof. If I had bought an apartment two years ago, its value would have gone up by 30 percent today. Mike: And from what I know, interest rates are low now.Robert: Exactly. Sounds like a good time to buy.1. a banker a loan2.saving save spend3. a mortgage property4.Property values5.risen/gone up/increased by 30 percentTask 2: Can I have my change please?Tom was down on his luck and felt he needed a few drinks. Hw went to a bar and had several drinks. When he was done, he stood up and walked toward the door. The barman shouted after him, “Hey mister, are you going to pay for those drinks?”Tom turned around and replied, “I have already paid you,” and then walked out of the bar. Almost immediately he saw one of his friends Richard and told him about the barman, “Just go in there and drink all you want, then get up and leave. When the barman asks you to pay the bill, just tell him you have already paid.”This sounded easy enough, so Richard went in and has several drinks. The barman went to him and said, “Before you came in, another man was here. When I asked him to pa y his bill, he told me he‟d paid, but I don‟t remember him paying me.”Richard said, “I would love to stay and hear your story, but I don‟t have time. Can I havemy change please?”1. A2.B3.D4.C5.CTask 3: Why not just print money?What‟s the so lution to a recession, a time of little economic activity? Just print money! Sounds reasonable, doesn‟t it? Let‟s see if this will work by using an example.Let‟s pretend that all the students in your class make up the ENTER population of the country, and the teacher represents the government. Let‟s also pretend each student has exactly $1.00.Since we are in a recession, let‟s have the teacher, who represents the government, print money. He prints $1.00 more for everyone. Now everyone has $1.00 more to spend. More money to spend sounds like a great way to get us out of recession, since more money to spend means demand for goods and services.Then if that works, why don‟t we give MORE money away? How about $100? Now we have lots of money to spend. So no more recession, right?Not really, because we have only looked at one side of the problem. As more and more people receive more and more money, what‟ll happen?Since everyone has more money, the students all go shopping to spend that extra money. This causes the demand for goods and services to rise, and people who sell goods and services raise price. For example, if you could buy a new music CD at $10 in the past, now the price could be $1,000! This is called inflation.So, the original reason for printing all this money was to help get us of recession, but we have。
高级英语视听说第二册文本
Book 2Chapter 1 The PopulationToday we’re going to talk about population in the United States. According to the most recent government census, the population is 281,421,906 people. Now this represents an increase of almost 33 million people since the 1990 census. A population of over 281 million makes the United States the third most populous country in the whole world. As you probably know, the People’s Republic of China is the most populous country in the world. But do you know which is the second most populous? Well, if you thought India, you were right. The fourth, fifth, and sixth most populous countries are Indonesia, Brazil, and Pakistan. Now let’s get back to the United States. Let’s look at the total U. S. population figure of 281 million in three different ways. The first way is by race and origin; the second is by geographical distribution, or by where people live; and the third way is by the age and sex of the population.First of all, let’s take a look at the population by race and origin. Th e latest U. S. census reports that 75.1 percent of the population is white, whereas 12.3 percent is black. Three percent are of Asian origin, and 1 percent is Native American. 2.4 percent of the population is a mixture of two or more races, and 5.5 percent report themselves as “of some other race”. Let’s make sure your figures are right: OK, white, 75.1 percent; black, 12.3 percent; Asian, 3 percent; Native American, 1 percent; a mixture of two or more races, 2.4 percent; and of some other race, 5.5 percent. Hispanics, whose origins lie in Spanish-speaking countries, comprise whites, blacks, and Native Americans, so they are already included in the above figures. It is important to note that Hispanics make up 12.5 percent of the present U.S. population, however. Finally, the census tells us that 31 million people in the United States were born in another country. Of the 31 million foreign born, the largest part, 27.6 percent are from Mexico. The next largest group, from the Philippines, number 4.3 percent.Another way of looking at the population is by geographical distribution. Do you have any idea which states are the five most populous in the United States? Well, I’ll help you out there. The five most populous states, with population figures, are California, with almost 34 million; New York, with 21 million; Texas, with 19 million; and Florida, with 16 million; and Illinois with 12.5 million people. Did you get all those figures down? Well, if not, I’ll give you a chance later to check your figures. Well, then, let’s move on. All told, over half, or some 58 percent of the population, lives in the South and in the West of the United States. This figure, 58 percent, is surprising to many people. It is surprising because the East is more densely populated. Nevertheless, there are more people all together in the South and West. To understand this seeming contradiction, one need only consider the relatively larger size of many southern and western states, so although there are more people, they are distributed over a larger area. To finish up this section on geographical distribution, consider that more than three-quarters of the people live in metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Houston. That means that only 20 percent, or 2 out of 10 people, live in rural areas. An interesting side note is that some 3,800,000 U.S. citizens live abroad, that is, in foreign countries.Before we finish today, I want to discuss the distribution of the U.S. population in terms of age and sex. Just for interest, would you say there are more men or more women in the United States? Well, according to the 2000 census, there are more women. In fact, there are more than five million more women than men in the U.S. population. If we consider that more males than females are born each year, how can this difference be explained? Well, for a variety of complicated reasons that we can’t go into here, there is a progressively higher death rate for males as they get older. This is seen in 2003 life expectancy figures: the life expectancy for women is 80.4 years whereas for men it is only 74.5 years. I don’t know how these life expectancy figures compare to those in your countries, but statistically women generally live longer than men worldwide. Now, to finish up, let’s look at the average age of the whole population. Overall, the average age of the population is increasing: from 33.1 years in 1990 to 35.3 years in 2000. The average age has been slowly, but steadily, increasing over the past several decades. This trend toward a higher average age can be explained by a decreasing birth rate and an increasing life expectancy for the population as a whole. Well, I’d like to investigate these two subjects further, but I see our timeis up, so we’ll have to call it quits for today. You may want to pursue the topic of the aging U.S. population further, so there are some suggestions at the end of the lesson to help you do so. Thank you.Chapter Two Immigration: Past and PresentThe act of immigrating, or coming to a new country to live, is certainly nothing new. Throughout history, people have immigrated, or moved to new countries, for many different reasons. Sometimes these reasons were economic or political. Other people moved because of natural disasters such as droughts or famines. And some people moved to escape religious or political persecution. No matter what the reason, most people do not want to leave their native land and do so only under great pressure of some sort, but a few people seem quite adventuresome and restless by nature and like to move a lot. It seems both kinds of people came to America to live. The subject of immigration is quite fascinating to most Americans, as they view themselves as a nation of immigrants. However, the early Britons who came to what is today the United States considered themselves “settlers” or “colonists,” rather than immigrants. These people did not exactly think they were moving to a new country but were merely settling new land for the “mother country.” There were also large numbers of Dutch,French, German, and Scotch-Irish settlers, as well as large numbers of blacks brought from Africa as slaves. At the time of independence from Britain in 1776, about 40 percent of people living in what is now the United States were non-British. The majority of people, however, spoke English, and the traditions that formed the basis of life were mainly British traditions. This period we have just been discussing is usually referred to as the Colonial Period. Today, we’re a little more interested in actual immigration after this period. Let’s first look at what is often called the Great Immigration, which began about 1830 and ended in 1930. Then let’s consider the reasons for this so-called Great Immigration and the reasons it ended. Finally, let’s talk about the immigration situation in the United States today,As I said, we’ll begin our discussion today with the period of history called the Great Immigration, which lasted from approximately 1830 to 1930. It will be easier if we look at the Great Immigration in terms of three major stages, or time periods. The first stage was from approximate1y 1830 to 1860. Now, before this time, the number of immigrants coming to the United States was comparatively small, only about 10,000 a year. However, the rate began to climb in the 1830s when about 600,000 immigrants arrived. The rate continued to climb during the 1840s with a tota1 of 1,700,000 people arriving in that decade. The rate continued to climb, and during the 1850s 2,600,000 immigrants arrived. During this first stage of the Great Immigration, that is, between the years 1830 and 1860, the majority of immigrants came from Germany, Great Britain, and Ireland. Now let’s consider the second stage of the Great Immigration. The second stage was from l860 to 1890, during which time another 10,000,000 people arrived. Between l860 and 1890 the majority of immigrants continued to be from Germany, Ireland, and Great Britain. However, during the second stage, a smaller but significant number of immigrants came from the Scandinavian nations of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The third stage of the Great Immigration, which lasted from 1890 to 1930, was the era of heaviest immigration. Between the years l890 and l930, almost 22 million immigrants arrived in the United States. Most of these new arrivals came from the Southern European countries of Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain and the Eastern European countries of Poland and Russia.Now that we know something about the numbers and origins of immigrants who came to the States during the Great Immigration, let’s consider the reasons why most of these people immigrated to the United States. Why did such large numbers of Europeans leave their homes for life in an unknown country? It would be impossible to discuss all the complex political and economic reasons in any depth today, but we can touch on a few interesting facts that might help to clarify the situation for you. First of all, one of the most important reasons was that the population of Europe doubled between the years 1750 and 1850. At the same time that the population was growing so rapidly, the Industrial Revolution in Europe was causing widespread unemployment. The combination of increased population and the demand for land by industry also meant that farmland was becoming increasingly scarce in Europe. The scarcity of farmland in Europe meant that the abundance of available land in the growingcountry of the United States was a great attraction. During these years, the United States was an expanding country and it seemed that there was no end to land. In fact, in 1862, the government offered public land free to citizens and to immigrants who were planning to become citizens. In addition to available farmland, there were also plentiful jobs during these years of great economic growth. Other attractions were freedom from religious or political persecution. Some other groups also came to the United States as the direct results of natural disasters that left them in desperate situations. For example, the frequent failure of the potato crop in Ireland between the years 1845 and 1849 led to widespread starvation in that country, and people were driven to immigrate. Another factor that affected the number of immigrants coming to the United States was improved ocean transport beginning in the 1840s. At that time, ships large enough to carry large numbers of people began to make regular trips across the ocean. Now let’s summarize the reasons for the high rate of immigration to the United States during the years we discussed: first, the doubling of the population in Europe between 1750 and 1850; second, the unemployment caused by the Industrial Revolution; and third, the land scarcity in Europe, followed by religious and political persecution and natural disaster. These reasons combined with improved transportation probably account for the largest number of immigrants.I would now like to talk briefly about the period of time following the Great Immigration and the reasons for the decline in the rate of immigration. Although immigration continues today, immigration numbers have never again reached the levels that we discussed previously. There are several reasons for this decline. This decline was in part due to various laws whose aim was to limit the number of immigrants coming from different parts of the world to the United States. The first such law that limited the number of immigrants coming from a certain part of the world was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This law was followed by many other laws that also tried to limit the numbers of people immigrating from various countries or parts of the world. In addition to such laws, certainly economic and geopolitical events as important as the Great Depression starting in 1929 and World War II also contributed to the decline in immigration.Let’s conclude our talk by discussing the current situation with respect to immigration, which is quite different from that in the past. To understand some of the changes, it’s important to note that in 1965 strict quotas based on nationality were elimin ated. Let’s see how different things are today from the past. As I noted, the greatest number of immigrants to the United States have historically been European. According to U.S. Census figures, in 1860, the percentage of immigrants that were European was 92 percent. But by 1960, the percentage of European immigrants had dropped to 74.5 percent, and by the year 2002, it had dropped to 14 percent! In 2002, 52.2 percent of immigrants came from Latin America, that is, from the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. Mexico is ordinarily considered part of North America, but the U.S. Census Bureau considers Mexico as a Central American country in terms of immigration statistics, and estimates that more than one-third of the total of all immigrants to the United States in 2002 came from Mexico or another Central American country. The next largest percentage, 25.5 percent, of immigrants came from Asia, mainly from the Philippines, China, and India. Although immigration dropped sharply when the United States entered World War I and remained low throughout the Depression and World War II years, at the end of the l940s, immigration began to increase again and has, in general, risen steadily since then. It might surprise you to know that the actual number of immigrants coming yearly to the States in recent years is about the same as the numbers coming yearly between 1900 and 1910. Keep in mind, though, that the population of the United States is much larger now than at the turn of the century, so that while the yearly numbers may be similar, the percentage of the population that is foreign-born is considerably smaller today than it was a century ago.It might be interesting to speculate on immigration in the future. Will the trend continue for non-Europeans to immigrate to the United States? The answer is probably yes for the foreseeable future. Do these non-European people come to the United States for the same reasons that Europeans came? Well, land is no longer plentiful and cheap. Industry no longer requires large numbers of unskilled workers. In fact, the government usually tries to restrict immigration to those people who already have the skills to be successful in U.S. society. Still, people comefor politica1 and economic reasons and probably will continue to do so.Chapter 3 Americans at WorkWhether you love it or hate it, work is a major part of most people’s lives everywhere in the world. Americans are no exception. Americans might complain about “blue Monday,” when they have to go back to work after th e weekend, but most people put a lot of importance on their job, not only in terms of money but also in terms of identity. In fact, when Americans are introduced to a new person, they almost always ask each other, “What do you do?” They are asking, what is your job or profession. Today, however, we won’t look at work in terms of what work means socially or psychologically. Rather, we’re going to take a look at work in the United States today from two perspectives. First, we’ll take a historical look at work in America. We’ll do that by looking at how things changed for the American worker from the beginning to the end of the twentieth century, that is, from the year 1900 to the year 1999. Then we’ll look at how U.S. workers are doing today.As we look at the changes over the last century, we’re going to use a lot of statistics to describe these changes. You will need to write down a lot of numbers in today’s lecture. First, let’s consider how the type of work people were involved in changed. At the beginning of the twentieth century, about 38 percent of the workforce was involved in agriculture; that is, they worked on a farm. By the end of the century, only 3 percent still worked on farms. There was also a large decrease in the number of people working in mining, manufacturing, and construction. The number of workers in mining, manufacturing, and construction went down from 31 percent to 19 percent.While the number of people in these goods producing industries went down, the number of people in the service industries went up. As you may know, a service industry is one that provides a service, rather than goods or products. A few examples include transportation, tourism, banking, advertising, health care, and legal services. I’m sure you can think of more. The service industry workforce jumped from 31 percent of the workforce at the turn of the century to 78 percent in 1999.Let’s recap the numbers: in 1900, 38 percent in agriculture; 31 percent in mining, manufacturing, and construction; and 31 percent in the service industries. That should add up to 100 percent. In 1999, 3 percent in agriculture; 19 percent in mining, manufacturing, and construction; and 78 percent in the service industries. Again, that should add up to 100 percent.The labor force changed in other important ways. For example, child labor was not unusual at the beginning of the twentieth century. In 1900 there were 1, 750, 000 children aged ten to fifteen working full-time in the labor force. This was 6 percent of the labor force. Over the years, child labor laws became much stricter and by 1999, it was illegal for anyone under sixteen to work full-time in any of the fifty states. While the number of children in the workforce went down, the number of women went up dramatically. In 1900, only 19 percent of women were employed; in 1999, 60 percent of women were holding down jobs.Let’s see what has happened to wages and salaries. All the numbers I will give you are in terms of 1999 dollars. Let me explain. In 1900 the average per capita income was $4,200 a year. That does not mean that the average worker in 1900 earned $4,200, a year, but that what he or she earned was equal to $4, 200 in 1999. That is, the amount of money the average worker earned in 1900 was worth the same as $4,200 in 1999. The average per capita income in 1999 was $33, 700. Not only did people earn a lot more money at the end of the century, they also received a lot more in benefits than at the beginning of the century. One of the important benefits most workers received later in the century was health insurance. Whereas wages and salaries rose over the century, the average workweek dropped. That is, workers, in general, did not work as long hours in 1999 as they did in 1900. The last area that I’d like to give you a few statis tics about is workplace safety. Most of us who go to work every day don’t think a lot about whether we are safe or not, but in 1900 it was a real concern for a lot of workers. There aren’t many statistics available, but the U.S. government does have statis tics on two industries that will give you some idea of the differences today. In 1900 almost 1,500 workers were killed in coal-mining accidents; in 1999,the number was 35. 2,555 railroad workers were killed in 1900, compared to 56 in 1999.People often te nd to romanticize the past and talk about “the good old days,” but I think it’s fair to say that by the end of the twentieth century, U.S. workers in general made more money, they enjoyed more benefits, and their working conditions had improved greatly.No w let’s turn our attention to the current situation for U.S. workers. The picture is not so rosy as the one drawn by comparing U.S. workers at the beginning and the end of the twentieth century. I’m going to focus on the current situation in terms of productivity, working hours, and wages and salaries.First let’s consider the number of hours worked. According to a 2003 study released by the United Nations International Labor Organization, U.S. workers are the most productive in the world among industrialized nations, but they work longer hours than European workers to achieve this productivity. Europeans typically have four to six weeks of vacation a year, whereas the average American worker has only about two weeks. This study points out that the longer working hours in the United States is a rising trend, while the trend in other industrialized countries is the opposite.Workers in some European countries actually outproduce American workers per hour of work. It has been suggested that this higher rate of productivity might be because European workers are less stressed than U.S. workers.At any rate, there seems to be general agreement that U.S. productivity has greatly increased over the last thirty years. However, workers have not seen their wages rise at the same rate. A group of sociologists in their book Inequality by Design point out that there is a growing gap between rich Americans and everyone else in the United States. They write that between 1949 and 1974, increases in productivity were matched by increases in wages for workers in both manufacturing and the service industries, but since 1974, productivity increased 68 percent in manufacturing and 50 percent in services, but real wages stagnated. That is, wages moved up little or not at all. So, where does all the money generated by the increased productivity go then? According to the authors of this book, the money goes to the salaries for CEOs, to the stock market, and to corporate profits. Workers play a great role in increasing productivity, but no longer see their wages connected to increased productivity. In other words, CEOs’ salaries, the stock market, and the corporate profits go up as work productivity goes up, but workers’ wages don’t.What are the reasons why U.S. workers, who are the most productive in the world, have to work longer hours, have fewer vacation days, and see their wages stagnate and not rising at the same rate as productivity? The answer to this question is complex and controversial, but there are two reasons most people who speak or write about these issues mention: The first is that labor unions in the United States have lost great power since the beginning of the 1980s, and the second is that the government has passed laws that favor the rich and weaken the rights of the workers.I see our time is up. So, I’ll see you next time.Chapter 4 Family in the United StatesA hundred years ago, one heard the same kind of comments about the American family that one hears today --- in short, that the American family is disintegrating. Proof of this disintegration at the end of the nineteenth century included three points: the declining birth rate, a rising divorce rate, and evidence that women were not completely content with their domestic role. It’s a little surprising to me that the same claim about the family is being made today --- that it is disintegrating. And often the same points are mentioned as proof: declining birth rates, increasing divorce rates, and discontent of women with domestic roles. Now, in no way do I mean to imply that cultural, demographic, and economic conditions are the same now as they were 100 years ago. On the contrary, the very nature of the family has changed drastically in the last 50 years, not to mention the last 100 years. But I don’t think the average person’s concept of the family has changed very much over the years. A lot of people have on fixed idea of the family: a married couple where Mother stays home to care for the children and Father works.But this idea is challenged by what we see every day in U.S. society. To be sure, the family is a very sensitive barometer for what is happening in the society, the culture, and the economy of the United States. To make this point clearer, we’ll take a look at how the American family has changed in the last 50 years by looking at three different time periods: there are the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s; the mid-60s to the mid-80s; and finally the present. Sociologist Barbara Dafoe Whitehead labels these three periods: the period of traditional familism, the period of individualism, and the period of the new familism. I will try for each period to show how economic, demographic, and cultural elements interact and, in turn, affect the family.Well, let’s proceed in chronological order and start with traditional familism. We’re talking here of the twenty years from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s. This was the period after World War II, a period characterized by a very strong economy. This gave the United States a rising standard of living and a growing middle class. Demographically, the predominant configuration of the family from these years was the traditional one: a married couple with children. Some women worked, but divorce rates were low, and birth rates were high. I guess you could say that the country idealized the family in these years. And what I mean is, there was a commitment to the family from its members and a reverence for it from society. TV programs of the era depicted the family in the classical configuration: working father, housewife, and children. Culturally, three characteristics stand out in this period: conformity to social norms, greater male domination of the family than in the later periods, and clear-cut gender roles, that is, clear and separate roles for men and women at home and at work. Well, things changed quite a bit after this period.Let’s move on to the second period, the period of individualism. This period is from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s. Now, because individualism is so often mentioned in our discussion of U.S. culture and people, I should make a little detour here before we discuss it. Individualism brings to mind two other words: independence and self-reliance. Individualism conveys the idea that one should think and act for himself or herself, according to what one feels is right. Individualism is easily confused with egotism or selfishness, but in its best sense, it is much more. Individualism implies that one has the freedom to decide what is best rather than allowing that decision to be made by a group such as the community or society. Individualism does, of course, conflict with the concept of community, which implies that the group shares in making decisions. And this conflict between the individual and the community is one that comes up again and again in our lecture series about the United States. All right, let’s get back to our discussion about the family.The second period, the period of individualism, saw three important social and political movements. Do you have any idea which movements I might be talking about? Keep in mind that these decades were characterized by a lack of conformity to social norms. Well, the movements have in mind are the sexual revolution, in which sex was clearly no longer reserved for marriage; the women’s liberation movement; and the m ovement against the war in Vietnam. All three movements---the sexual revolution, woman’s liberation, and the antiwar movement --- were typical of the nonconforming nature of these decades. Now, culturally, it is in this period where we see two important de velopments: one the idealization of one’s career and work and, two, the drive for self-expression and self-fulfillment. In this period, the feminist movement challenged traditional gender roles and male domination of society. Women began to enter professions previously closed to them like medicine, law, and management. Men, for their part, began at least to consider a more active role in raising their children.These cultural changes occurred during a time of economic changes, too. This was a time of rapidly rising cost of living. Together, these forces changed the demographics of the family. The former picture of the family had only one configuration: a married couple with children where Mother stayed home. The new picture of the family had to include new configurations, like families in which the husband and wife both worked, families of single parents with children, and families of cohabiting couples with or without children. With more women pursuing careers and making money, there was less economic pressure for them to stay in an unsuitable marriage. Therefore, divorce rates doubled in a decade. Rising divorce rates and more financial independence for women made marriage a less attractive arrangement for many women. Consequently, the number of single-parent households。
高级英语视听说2答案
高级英语视听说2答案【篇一：高级英语视听说2参考答案 (1)】i 2 populous 3 race 4 origin 5 geographical distprelistening b1 census ribution6 made up of7 comprises8 relatively progressively9 metropolitan densely 10 decreased death rate 11 birth rate increasing 12 life expectancyd 1 a 18.5 mill b 80%c 1/2d 13.4 mille 2: 10f 4%g 1990h 40%i 3/4j 33.1%2 a3 b 1 c 2 d 5 e 4ii first listeningst1 population by race and origin st2 geographical distributionst3 age and sexiii postlisteninga 1. people’s republic of china, india2. 281 mill3. hispanics(12.5%)4. texas5. the south and the west6. 20%7. by more than 5 million8. about 6 years9. 2.2 years10. a decreasing birth rate and an increasing life expectancychapter 2: immigration: past and present prelisteningb. vocabulary and key concepts immigratednatural disasters/ droughts/ famines persecution settlers/ colonists stageswidespread unemployment scarcityexpanding/ citizens failure decreaselimited quotas steadily trendskills/ unskilledd notetaking preparation dates: teens and tens 1850 1951 the 1840s from 1890 to 1930 between 1750 and 1850 1776 1882 1329 1860from approximately 1830 to 1930language conventions: countries and nationalitiesthe scandinavian countries are sweden, norway, and denmark. the southern european countries are italy, greece, spain, and portugal. the eastern european countries are russia and poland. listening first listeningmajor subtopicsst1 the great immigrationst2 reasons for the great immigration and why it ended st3 immigration situation in the united states todaypostlistening a. accuracy check colonists or settlersdutch, french, german, scotch-irish, blacks the third, 1890-1930southern europe and eastern europethe population doubled, there was widespread unemployment, and there was a scarcity of farmlandfree land, plentiful jobs, and freedom from religious and political persecutionthe failure of the potato crop in irelandlaws limiting immigration from certain area, the great depression, and world war Ⅱthey are largely non-european.industry doesn’t need a large number of unskilled workers。
高级实用英语视听说(2)1-12单元听力原文
1 A Courtesy CampaignBob Edwards, host: Nearly half of all American adults have wireless telephones. People are buying them at a rate of 46,000 a day. The rise of portable phones has been accompanied by a rise in complaints about mobile phone manners. A few cities have passed laws restricting their use. But San Diego‘s trying a different approach, appealing to cell phone users with a courtesy campaign.From member station KPBS, Scott Horsley reports.Scott Horsley Reporting: It seems to be happening more and more, in restaurants, movie theaters, even in church.Soundbite of Cell Phone Ringing Horsley: When it comes to the shrill interruption of a ringing cell phone, no place it seems is sacred.Reverend Wendy Craig-Purcell: Well, if we‘re in the middle of prayer and meditation, I usually just ignore it. And I may make a comment afterwards, something like, ―Well, you know, maybe the spirit of God is truly calling us and wanting our attention.‖\\Horsley: Not everyone is as forgiving as Reverend Wendy Craig-Purcell of San Diego‘s Church of Today. And not everyone views the cell phone as an instrument of divine intervention. When San Diego Mayor Susan Golding conducted an Internet survey last year, thousands of people responded calling for restrictions on cell phone use, especially in movie theatres.Mayor Susan Golding: I know that I‘ve been in the movies. And it‘s at the quiet time when everyone‘s on the edge of their seat and the phone rings next to you and the person starts to talk in a very loud voice.Horsley: But rather than proposing regulation, Mayor Golding has launched a voluntary courtesy campaign, urging wireless phone users to mind their mobile manners. The campaign includes stickers that business can display, reminding customers they‘re in a quite zone. The mayor herself posted a sticker outside one movie theatre as Doug Cohen looked on in approval. Cohen is a real estate broker whose own cell phone gets plenty of use, but he agrees there ought to be limits. Doug Cohen: I have a very good friends that I won‘t eat lunch with. They just can‘t get away from it. So it‘s … there‘s an etiquette. It‘s just like driving or anything else, you know. Some people will subscribe to a certain politeness and some people won‘t. But it‘s nice that there‘s an issue raised here. \\Horsley: San Diego might seem like an unlikely place to raise the issue of rude cell phone use since the cell phone industry is one of the city‘s biggest employers, with companies like Qualcomm and Nokia. But Nokia is actually sponsoring the mayor‘scourtesy campaign. Vice President Larry Paulson says customers should set phone is vibrate rather than ring in certain settings, and sometimes even turn their phones off.Larry Paulson: Certainly, I think everyone agrees with this. In certain public areas such as movie theaters, plays, churches, museums, and libraries, talking can be very disruptive and, essentially, it‘s a violation of basic courtesy.Horsley: Cell phone companies realize a public backlash isn‘t good for their business. And with communities in Ohio and New Jersey already banning cell phone use behind the wheel, the industry may see a courtesy campaign as a way to head off further government regulation, like the beer companies urging their customers to drink responsibly. \\Instead of a strict enforcer, Mayor Golding hopes to play a gentle Miss Manners. The real Miss Manners, newspaper columnist Judith Martin, thinks that might work better, anyway.Judith Martin: If you use the heavy hand of the law for everyday trivial things, you create this state where everybody is angry at everybody else, where the courts are clogged up. This is a very simple thing we‘re talking about: don‘t disturb people, you know. Don‘t talk at eh movies. Don‘t talk on the phone in the movies. Don‘t talk to the person next to you in the movies.Horsley: Martin says it‘s not unusual when new technologies develop for people to believe they‘re in an etiquette-free zone. But gradually, a consensus develops about how the tools should be used. With cell phones, she says, we‘re halfway there. \\ People agree that others shouldn‘t annoy them with their phones, but they don‘t necessarily apply the same rules with themselves. That will be the challenge, as Mayor Golding demonstrated during a news conference kicking off her courtesy campaign.Mayor Golding: I think we will influence a great number of people to stop and think.Soundbite of Cell Phone RingingMayor Golding: For example, my phone is ringing right now. But I think we will influence a lot of people to turn off their cell phones or to put them or vibrate. Clearly, there are places…and this doesn‘t even hang up well. But because I want to be courteous and not answer it during this press conference.Horsley: The mayor later explained that hers was a new phone, and she hadn‘t figured out all the settings. She got a quick lesson from the Nokia vie president in how to turn of the ringer. For NPR News, I‘m Scott Horsley in San Diego.1.Reverend Wendy Craig-Purcell: Well, if we‘re in the middle of prayer andmeditation, I usually just ignore it. And I may make a comment afterwards, something like, ―Well, you know, maybe the spirit of God is truly calling us and wanting our attention.‖2. Mayor Susan Golding: I know that I‘ve been in the movies. And it‘s at the quiettime when everyone‘s on the edge of their seat and the phone rings next to you and the person starts to talk in a very loud voice.3.Doug Cohen: I have a very good friends that I won‘t eat lunch with. They justcan‘t get away from it. So it‘s …there‘s an etiquette. It‘s just like driving or anything else, you know. Some people will subscribe to a certain politeness and some people won‘t. But it‘s nice that there‘s an issue raised here.4. Larry Paulson: Certainly, I think everyone agrees with this. In certain public areassuch as movie theaters, plays, churches, museums, and libraries, talking can be very disruptive and, essentially, it‘s a violation of basic courtesy.5. Judith Martin: If you use the heavy hand of the law for everyday trivial things,you create this state where everybody is angry at everybody else, where the courts are clogged up. This is a very simple thing we‘re talking about: don‘t disturb people, you know. Don‘t talk at eh movies. Don‘t talk on the phone in the movies. Don‘t talk to the person next to you in the movies.2 Give me my place to smokeMy name is Michael, and I‘ve been smoking for fifteen years.My name is Peggy, and I‘ve been smoking for probably thirty and thirty-five years.Peggy and Michael sit in a smoky neighborhood bar in Washington D.C., a cigarette perched in each other‘s hands. They say there are fewer and fewer places like this, where they feel completely comfortable lighting up, and they expect the EPA report on secondhand smoke to contribute to further restrictions on smoking in public places. They both say they are keenly aware of the reception they get when they smoke, and how that has changed over the years.Thirty-five years ago you really didn‘t give a lot of thought to smoking. Now you do. And of course you‘re finding that it‘s much less acceptable, much less popular, shall we say, to be smoker. And I don‘t know how much of that is basically political, and how much is apolitical. I don‘t like the atmosphere today, not only for smoking, but I find that that‘s true in many other areas of freedom. //How do you experience it? How do you get that feeling from other people?Well, fifteen years ago you didn‘t think about it. You walked in to someone‘s house and they would offer you an ashtray. You don‘t do that anymore. I don‘t even ask anymore. ―Is it OK if we smoke?‖because for a while there it was. ―Well, I really wish you wouldn‘t.‖And that was awkward?No, it wasn‘t awkward; it‘s just that you learn not to ask anymore, and just assume that it‘s not right.I found it awkward.You go to parties now. You know, where it used to be that everybody was standing around with a cocktail in one hand and a cigarette in the other and blabbing, and now you see the smokers, kind of … if it‘s an apartment, furtively standing around an open window, or if it‘s a house, standing outside in groups. It‘s pretty common. //Has it changed your smoking habits in any way?That‘s hard to say. I will say this: I know that I‘m much more cognizant of my surroundings. For example, if I walk into someone else‘s office any more, I would never think to take a cigarette. And like he said, in someone‘s home, you wouldn‘t automatically sit down and have a cigarette. So in that regard, yes.Yeah. I mean, I‘ve develop a whole body language about smoking in groups and in places where it is permissible to smoke.Oh, yes.It‘s … take a drag.As you are doing right now.Right, blow it straight up in the air so that it doesn‘t get in anybody‘s face, then try to hold your cigarette so that the wind catches, whatever wind there is catches it so that it goes away from the group. So after a while, you look like a factory. You‘re blowing smoke straight up, and you‘ve got this cigarette flying out in the air there, //it‘s whole body language.And you do look a bit strange, you‘re right, now that you say that. Do you feel anydefiance?I don‘t think I do. I‘ve never felt a desire to inflict my habit on anybody else.I guess I don‘t mean inflict your habit. I think when I mean defiance, what I mean by that is, if you are in an area where it is totally acceptable to smoke, that…but you know that there is someone there who doesn‘t really want you to smoke.Yes, yes. Actually, one afternoon I was coming home from work. I was walking up Connections Avenue and I had my Walkman on. It had been kind of a rough day, and I was puffing away on a cigarette and walking up the street, and someone came around in front of me and pointed behind me. So I took my Walkman off, and turned around, and there was this man standing there, and he was going, ―Excuse me, your cigarette is in my eyes.‖And you were outside.I was outside, on the sidewalk. And I looked at him, and I said, ―Well, then walk in front of me.‖ And I just felt like he was his own private smoking patrol. It had nothing to do with any kind of physical discomfort I was causing him.And did you wonder if, the next day, he was part of the fur patrol? That‘s what I think I mean about defiance. I find that in myself, that when they make a judgment, and that‘s basically what they‘re doing, they‘re making a judgment on my behavior. //Do you understand at all, though, this strong feeling that people have about smoking, that if they‘re not a smoker, they don‘t want to be around it, they don‘t want to inhale the smoke?Yes, I can understand it. Sure. I mean, I‘ve really knuckled under… I have changed my habits to respect the rights of people who don‘t want smoke around them, and I‘m much more cognizant of how my smoking might be affecting the general area. If I'm in a smoking section, I feel that I‘m entitled to smoke. If they take away that smoking section, I won‘t smoke in there anymore.I wouldn‘t go there anymore, If it‘s a matter of spending my money in a restaurant, for example, I wouldn‘t spend my money there. But in regard to that, yes, I understand it, but I also feel, again, back to equity. Give me my place to smoke. That‘s all I ask. Peggy and Michael both live in Washington, D.C. //3 Kids and the mediaThe excesses of the media came under scrutiny this month over how young people are used as sources in news stories. ABC News has been under fire for airing an interview with six-year-old Elian Gonzalez, as many other networks for airing a home videotape of the child. Last year, CNN was criticized when it broadcast phone calls from students at Columbine High School as the shootings there were taking place. NPR‘s Rick Karr reports on the choices journalists make in dealing with children in the news. //When ABC‘s Diane Sawyer introduced her interview with Elian Gonzalez, she referred to one of the bedrock rules of the craft of journalism: Get the story straight from the source.And even though the media has had him under twenty-hour-a-day surveillance and written, by our calculation, 11,984 articles about the politics of all this, not one of us has sat down and looked in to his eyes.Just looking into his eyes would have been fine, according to Bob Steel. E‘s a journalistic ethicist at the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Florida.The problem is when he was interviewed. For Diane Sawyer or any other journalist to ask him questions of the weight that were asked of him about his mother and the loss of his mother, about whether he wants to stay in Florida, in the United States, or return to Cuba- these are questions that are beyond the grasp of a six-year-old in terms of taking with a journalist in a meaningful way. //Steel says journalists need, first and foremost, to consider whether or not a child is mature enough to actually shed light on a story. An immature child may not know fact from fantasy and while that‘s no big deal if the story is on, say, Chicagoans‘ hopes for this year‘s White Sox, where a six-year-old might have as much to say as any other pundit, it‘s much more pressing a concern when international relations or criminal allegations are at stake. It‘s not solely a matter of chronological age, Steel says; trauma can make even adults regress to childhood. Steele says journalists need to step back and fight the urge to get it done right this second.Slow down enough that you can assess the situation and assess the individuals who may be the witnesses and may be the interview sources in a particular story, and to ascertain the best we can at hat moment what kind of vulnerability they may have. // Sometimes witnesses to a crime can be vulnerable in terms of the perpetrator going after those witnesses.Bob, is it outside the school right now or are they still inside, can you tell?They‘re inside….they‘re inside the building. I haven‘t seen…CNN and a local Denver television station were criticized last year when they broadcast this tape and others like it: cell phone calls from students hiding in and around Columbine High School, which Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris could, in theory, have used to pinpoint the locations of their intended victims.They‘re OK. One of my friends is still in the school, though.Really?I guess his mother paged hi. He called her back, said that he‘s … I guess he‘s in the choir room.Suzanne McCarroll was on the scene at Columbine High School that day. She‘s a reporter with KCNC, Denver‘s CBS station. She says in breaking news situations, judging right from wrong is a matter of gut instinct.A lot of time I look at the those kid s‘ faces I think, ―Oh, my God, this could be one of my kids and am I doing something that‘s OK if this were my child, if somebody came up and started interviewing my child about whatever given topic or grilling my child with those questions?‖McCarroll says when she‘s interviewing kids, parental consent doesn‘t mean much. Sometimes parents are more confused than kids and sometimes they give their consent for the wrong reasons. Suzanne McCarroll won praise from media critics for her sensitive handling of Columbine. But journalism is a deeply competitive field and sometimes the urge to scoop the competition trumps the gut check. So had she been in Diane Sawyer‘s shoes, would she have interviewed Elian?I don‘t know…I…you know, I would hat to…I don‘t know. I…truthfully, I uses, I don‘t think I would‘ve, but I‘m not in her position.Suzanne McCarroll says the bottom line of practicing ethical journalism where children are concerned is context. What‘s going on around the kid in question? How has the reporter couched the interview?Bob Steel of the Poynter Institute says it would be hard to confuse the tape of Elian Gonzalez, provided to the media on Thursday by his Miami relatives, with journalism. The question is: When it showed up on the evening news, how was it presented? Steel says the listeners, readers, and viewers need to keep questions like that in mind. Rick Karr, NPR News.4 Is it a sculpture，or is it foodIn the near future, you might be able to buy a tomato in the supermarket that has been genetically designed and engineered, a tomato that would stay ripe much longer, strawberries that are not so fragile in freezing temperatures, vegetable oil that‘s lower in fat. Already on the market: a gene-spliced product that‘s used in cheese making. There are impressive claims being made for genetic manipulation of food, including production increases that could help alleviate world hunger. But there‘s also concern, and indeed some fear, about the use of gene-splicing techniques; and last week more than 1,000 chefs from restaurants all around the country made a pledge they will mot serve such foods, and they‘ll work to see that genetically engineered foods are labeled as such. It was announced back in May that no special labeling would be required. Joyce Goldstein has joined the boycott. She‘s the owner of Square One Restaurant in San Francisco. //When I first heard about it, I thought, well, they‘re not even talking about flavor. The only thing they‘re talking about is how long they can keep the damn thing in the shelf. You are talking about tomato, basically.Basically the tomato. You know, you worry how long they want to keep it. Is it a sculpture or is it food? And I just kept thinking, I hope that we will get to find out more about this, and that they‘ll do some testing. For example, if they‘re using these trout genes in other products, and we have customers with fish allergies, are they going to get sick?There‘s the idea that they would use a fish gene to make tomatoes more frost-resistant.Right, well I mean, will people with fish allergies have responses to this, or will that be so sublimed that they won‘t have any effect? I guess the thing is, when a new product comes on the market like this, number one, you‘d like to be aware that it‘s being sold to you, and number two, you‘d like to know that they have checked out all of these ramifications before they put it on the shelf. //It sounds like your concerns are more practical than others‘. Other people are talking about science fiction food; and I‘ve heard it referred to as ―Franken food‖ in the past. Well, you know, it‘s very easy to poke fun at—and I want to put this in quotes—―progress.‖I mean, those of us that were attached to typewriters, I think, poked fun at people using computers until we started using them. So I don‘t want to sound like I‘m some old fogey saying, ―In the old days we didn‘t do it that way.‖ If they would come up with a wonderful product through genetic—I mean, they‘ve done wonderful roses with genetic breeding that are perfectly beautiful and still have somescent- If they could do this and prove it was safe to the public, I‘m not going to say it‘s a bad thing. All I‘m saying is, right now we have a lot of nonknowledge about this stuff, and until things are tested and until we know what they taste like and how they are, we don‘t want to put them on the menu.There‘s an argument that‘s being made that this could be, I‘ve seen one quotation, ―the biggest boon to corporate profits since frozen food.‖ that this could be that big a breakthrough in the food area.Well, they‘re always worrying about corporate profit. What if the stuff turns out not to be good?I got a letter from a lady the other day, who said she‘s the wife of a scientist, and she would prefer to serve genetically engineered food to her children, and I shouldn‘t worry because it‘s under the wonderful eye of the Food and Drug Administration, and she will boycott my restaurant as long as I boycott these foods. And I started thinking, God, with an attitude like that I certainly don‘t want her eating in my restaurant anyway.But also, I mean the Food and Drug Administration has not been foolproof. I think we just need to see a little bit more data on this, and I think it‘s too soon to tell. //Now you‘re very concerned, I‘m sure, about pesticide residue in the foods that would reduce the dependence on pesticides in the field.I think that‘s a good thing. I‘m just concerned when they start crossing trout with tomatoes as to what happens. I‘m concerned. I will be delighted if they can make something taste wonderful and not have chemicals and pesticides. When you read that the first person that it‘s good for is agribusiness, and that they will put these things at the market or try to sell it to use without letting us know, I thin we are the right to know. I think when we have the choice to say I‘m going to buy it, or I‘m not going to. Joyce Goldstein, the owner and head chef of Square One Restaurant in San Francisco.5 What‘s happening to Home?Hey, come on in.My work came home last week. It‘s not that I‘ve never worked at home, but this was different. This job means out daughter‘s bedroom has been turned into a mini-studio and our house suddenly seems like the Bethesda bureau of NPR. During my recent vacation to get ready to come over to this show, an interview was arranged with Maggie Jackson. Her new book is called What’s happening to home? Balancing Work,life, and refuge in the Information Age. She came into NPR‘s New Work studio while my engineer came to me.The fusion of work and home is not a new phenomenon. In earlier centuries, many families lived above the store. But Maggie Jackson says that while there are similarities, there are also major differences.//Because of technology, we are able to have our bodies at home, but our minds in a different place. When you‘re on the laptop, you mind is in somewhere else, usually. Your body might be home. So you have a different relationship with the people at home. You are doing work that separates you mentally from the home.Your book actually began with your own exploration, right? I mean, as I writer an interviewer…Yes.…and raising two small children, your won lines began to blur at home. You wrote about, for example, trying to hurry your kids to bed so you could get back to work.Yes, that was, although I can‘t say it only happened just once, that was a sort of eureka moment. For me, I was writing about the world of the workplace, the work/ life balance, and noticing that the lines were blurring and also, at the same time at home, I was gaining the technology to be more flexible in my work. O could come home for dinner, put the kids to bed, finish a story or interview people in California- and I‘m on the East Coast- and I had a lot of flexibility. At the same time, I felt as though my work was seeping and leaking and bleeding into the rest of my house. //Let me tell you my situation here. I love the fact that I‘m sitting at home right now. I‘ve had a cup of coffee, I‘m sitting in a very comfortable armchair. I have a beautiful view. Now that being said, I do have a home office now and I feel as if, if I close the door, the officer is going to be…there. How else can one set psychological boundaries in the home to keep work from interfering, aside from a physical boundary?Well, I think that boundary is the perfect word to use because I am certainly not saying that all technology automatically means the work takes over your life or that, in this day and age, all the changes that are going on are bad, I think that the—you know, are making is important, and I think that in this age we don‘t make enough boundaries. //I‘m looking at page 123 of your book, and you quote Olivier Marc, ―Home allows us to create an area of peace, calm and security, for once we have crossed the threshold and shut the door behind us, we can be at one with ourselves, and we‘re notnecessarily talking about architecture and physical doors.Exactly. And I just found so many pieces of the picture al around me that show that that kind of experience of home is being lost if we continue down the road. Not everyone lives in futuristic households. I wrote about an apartment in New York City where a currency trader has video monitors all around the apartment, including in the arm of a sofa, so he can watch the markets. Now this is the kind, again, of sort of scifi apartment that few of us will ever have. But at the same time, I think that we are marching down that road in little daily decisions that we make.Are all Americans facing these sorts of issues? What about those who are not in these maybe high-tech, high-creative, high-paying jobs? Are they facing these same issues?I think in many ways they are, and many more people will be facing these issues as technology, computers, etc., gadgets become smaller and less expensive. I interviewed secretaries all around the country and just in the last few years they have gotten cell phones and they‘re checking their voice mail and e-mail on vacations, on sick days. They really felt often as if their home wasn‘t a refuge as a result, and I think that we are going to find more and more people are going to be facing the kinds of problems and dilemmas I describe.Maggie Jackson, thanks a lot.You‘re welcome. Thank you.Maggie Jackson is the author of What’s happening to home? Balancing Work, life, and refuge in the Information Age.//6 Create Controversy to Generate publicity Benetton has produced a set of controversial ads which, even in these hard times for advertising revenues, magazines are turning down. The three controversial ads depict a very young nun kissing a priest, a newborn baby only seconds old, and a little blonde white girl next to a little black boy whose hair is fashioned into something that looks a little bit like horns. Our own bob Garfield, in his other life, is the advertising critic for Advertising Age magazine, and since he has opinions about practically everything, and professionally he has opinions about advertising, we called in. //Bob, what about these ads? What do nuns and priests and newborns and little toddlers blonde and black have to do with selling T-shirt?Well, they have everything to do with us doing this interview right now. An important element of this whole campaign is to create controversy and to generate publicity, which not only has an immediate value all of its won, it also enhances every consumer exposure to Benettom ads in their natural habitat, so that when you‘re paging through some magazine and run across a picture of this newborn baby covered with the blood and the vernix and with the umbilicus still attached, instead of casually passing it, being aware of the controversy, you‘re apt to look at it more seriously and to react one way or another-probably with anger or disgust, is my guess. //I think that if you were paging through a magazine and saw this picture, you wound stop could, even if you‘d never heard of the ad or Benetton…because it is such an arresting picture, this baby, you could stop cold, even if you‘d never heard of the ad or Benetton…Because it is such an arresting picture, this baby.Well, it is that,…uh, arresting, some would say disgusting. And I suppose the Benetton people would say that it‘s magnificent and natural. Uh I think a large intestine is natural and kind of magnificent in its way, but I sure don‘t want too see it in the middle of a fashion magazine, though I suppose that‘s next. //Essence and Child magazines did not take the ad with the two children. Self, which published the baby, refused the nun. Cosmo decided it did not see itself with a newborn baby in its pages. Now, were you surprised? I mean. I‘m surprised by that. This is a double page ad, and magazines are awfully skinny; it seems to me they‘re being awfully touchy about it.Oh, I don‘t know if awfully touchy is right. I mean, I frankly don‘t think Benetton really expected these ads to be accepted by anyone. I‘m little surprised that the newborn one was in the pages of Self, which published the baby in its pages. The ads were created for the express purpose of ticking people off, for creating controversy, for inflaming consumer outrage, and so forth and so on, an it‘s really very cunning advertising, Linda, for a lot of reasons. Not only is there the publicity benefit, they also are a great example of what I call distraction marketing. And it‘s distracting, because, rather than focus on trying to come up with some sort of rational benefit for buying a $49 cotton T-shirt, which Benetton knows is not a rational kind of consumer behavior, they‘re kind of playing a little three-card monte in creating a distraction over here so you won‘t pay attention to the facts of the matter over on the other side, the facts of the matter being that a $119 cardigan sweater is not a particularly good buy.Thanks very much.My pleasure.Bob Garfield, when he is not appearing on national Public Radio, is the advertising。
高级英语视听说2Chapter4听力原文及翻译
Chapter 4 Family in the United StatesA hundred years ago, one heard the same kinds of comments about the American family that one hears today – in short, that the American family is disintegrating. Proof of this disintegration at the end of the nineteenth century included three points: the declining birth rate, a rising divorce rate, and evidence that women were not completely content with their domestic role. It’s a little surprising to me that the same claim about the family is being made today – that it is disintegrating. And often the same points are mentioned as proof: declining birth rates, increasing divorce rates, and discontent of women with domestic roles. Now, in no way do I mean to imply that cultural, demographic, and economic conditions are the same now as they were 100 years ago. On the contrary, the very nature of the family has changed drastically in the last 50 years, not to mention the last 100 years. But I don’t think the average person’s concept of the family has changed very much over the years. A lot of people have one fixed idea of the family: a married couple where Mother stays home to care for the children and Father works. But this idea is challenged by what we see every day in the U.S. society. To be sure, the family is a very sensitive barometer for what is happening in the society, the culture, and the economy of the United States. To make this point clearer, we’ll take a look at how the American family has changed in the last 50 years by looking at three different time periods: there are the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s; themid-60 to the mid-80s; and finally the present. Sociologist Barbara Dafoe Whitehead labels theses three periods the period of traditional familism, the period of individualism, and the period of the new familism.I will try for each period to show how economic, demographic, and cultural elements interact and, in turn, affect the family.一百年前,一听到关于美国家庭的意见相同种类的人听到今天–总之,美国家庭的解体。
视听说2听力原文及答案
Unit1II. Listening Skills1. M: Why don’t we go to the concert today?W: I’ll go get the keys.Q: What does the woman imply?2. W: I can’t find my purse anywhere. The opera tickets are in it.M: Have you checked in the car?Q: What does the man imply?3. M: Are you going to buy that pirated CD?W: Do I look like a thief?Q: What does the woman imply?4. M: Do you think the singer is pretty?W: Let’s just say that I wouldn’t/t vote for her in the local beauty contest.Q: What does the woman imply about the singer?5. M: Have you seen Tom? I can’t find him anywhere.W: The light in his dorm was on just a few minutes ago.Q: What does the woman mean?1.B2.B3.D4.C5.AIII. Listening InTask 1: Encore!As soon as the singer completed the song, the audience cried, “Encore! Encore!” The singer was delighted and sang the song again. She couldn’t believe it when the audience shouted for her to sing it again. The cycle of shouts and songs was repeated ten more times. The singer was overjoyed with the response from the audience. She talked them and asked them why they were so much audience in hearing the same song again and again. One of the people in the audience replied, “We wanted you to improve it; now it is much better.”1.F2.T3.F4.T5.FTask 2: The CarpentersW: They play “Yesterday Once More” all the time on the campus radio. Do you like it?M: I do. I never get tired of it. I like the Carpenters. Their voices are so beautiful and clear. I guess that’s why they’re so popular.W: I like the way their voices blend. There were just two of them, brother and sister, right?M: Yes, Richard and Karen I think they were. She died I think.W: Yes, anorexia. It is hard to believe that someone so beautiful would starve herself to death.M: It’s a problem everywhere in the world, including China, I’m afraid. Women worry too much about their appearances, and are so crazy about losing weight.W: Well, let’s go for lunch before we go to the concert.1. beautiful and clear2. blend well3. sister4. worry too much5. more importantTask 3: MozartMozart was a fascinating musician and composer whose fame continues to grow more than two centuries after his death. He was born in Salzburg, Austria, in 1756. Before the age of four, he had shown great musical talent. His father then decided to let him start taking harpsichord lessons. The boy’s reputation as a musical talent grew fast. At five,he was composing music. Form that time on, Mozart was performing n concerts and writing music. By his early teens, he had mastered the piano, violin and harpsichord, and was writing symphonies and operas.His first major opera was performed in Milan in 1770, when he was only fourteen. At fifteen, Mozart became the conductor for an orchestra in Salzburg. In 1781, he left for Vienna, where he was in great demand as both a performer and a composition teacher. His first opera was a success. But life was not easy because he was a poor businessman, andhis finances were always in a bad state. His music from the next decade was not very popular, and he eventually fell back on his teaching jobsfor a living. In 1788 he stopped performing in public, preferring onlyto compose. He died in 1791 at the age of thirty-five. Although he lived only a short life, he composed over 600 works.1. Which of the following is true of Mozart? D2. How long has Mozart’s fame lasted? A3. Which of the following is true of the four-year-old Mozart? B4. What could Mozart do at the age of six? C5. Which of the following is not mentioned as one of Mozart’s accomplishments while he was in his earlyteens? CIV. Speaking OutModel 1 Do you like jazz?Laura: Hey!Bob: Hello!Laura: Do you like jazz, Bob?Bob: No, not much. Do you like it?Laura: Well, yes, I do. I’m crazy about Wynton Marsalis.Bob: Oh, he’s a piano player, isn’t he?Laura: No, he’s a trumpet player. So, what kind of music do you like?Bob: I like listening to rock.Laura: What group do you like best?Bob: E r, The Cranberries. They’re the greatest. What about you? Don’t you like them?Laura: Ugh! They make my stomach turn!SAMPLE DIALOGA: Do you like classical music?B: No, I don’t like it at all.A: What type of music do you like?B: I’m a real fan of pop songs.A: Who’s your favorite singer or group?B: Jay Chou. What do you think about him?A: I can hardly bear pop songs. They are all noise to me.Model 2 Do you like punk rock?Max: What kind of music do you like?Frannie: Well, I like different kinds.Max: Any in particular?Frannie: Er, I especially like punk rock.Max: Punk rock? You don’t seem like the punk rock type.Frannie: You should have seen me in high school. I had my hair dyed blue.Max: Wow, that must have been a sight!Fra nnie: It sure was. What about you? What’s your favorite music?Max: I guess I like jazz best. Hey, I’m going shopping for CDs tomorrow. Would you like to come along?Frannie: Sure, that sounds great.。
高级英语视听说教程第二册听力文本(2020年九月整理).doc
Book 2 Chapter 1 The PopulationToday we’re going to talk about population in the United States. According to the most recent government census, the population is 281,421,906 people. Now this represents an increase of almost 33 million people since the 1990 census. A population of over 281 million makes the United States the third most populous country in the whole world. As you probably know, the People’s Republic of China is the most populous country in the world. But do you know which is the second most populous? Well, if you thought India, you were right. The fourth, fifth, and sixth most populous countries are Indonesia, Brazil, and Pakistan. Now let’s get back to the United States. Let’s look at the total U. S. population figure of 281 million in three different ways. The first way is by race and origin; the second is by geographical distribution, or by where people live; and the third way is by the age and sex of the population.First of all, let’s take a look at the population by race and origin. The latest U. S. census reports that 75.1 percent of the population is white, whereas 12.3 percent is black. Three percent are of Asian origin, and 1 percent is Native American. 2.4 percent of the population is a mixture of two or more races, and 5.5 percent report themselves as “of some other race”. Let’s make sure your figures are right: OK, white, 75.1 percent; black, 12.3 percent; Asian, 3 percent; Native American, 1 percent; a mixture of two or more races, 2.4 percent; and of some other race, 5.5 percent. Hispanics, whose origins lie in Spanish-speaking countries, comprise whites, blacks, and Native Americans, so they are already included in the above figures. It is important to note that Hispanics make up 12.5 percent of the present U.S. population, however. Finally, the census tells us that 31 million people in the United States were born in another country. Of the 31 million foreign born, the largest part, 27.6 percent are from Mexico. The next largest group, from the Philippines, number 4.3 percent.Another way of looking at the population is by geographical distribution. Do you have any idea which states are the five most populous in the United States? Well, I’ll help you out there. The five most populous states, with population figures, are California, with almost 34 million; New York, with 21 million; Texas, with 19 million; and Florida, with 16 million; and Illinois with 12.5 million people. Did you get all those figures down? Well, if not, I’ll give you a chance later to check your figures. Well, then, let’s move on. All told, over half, or some 58 percent of the population, lives in the South and in the West of the United States. This figure, 58 percent, is surprising to many people. It is surprising because the East is more densely populated. Nevertheless, there are more people alltogether in the South and West. To understand this seeming contradiction, one need only consider the relatively larger size of many southern and western states, so although there are more people, they are distributed over a larger area. To finish up this section on geographical distribution, consider that more than three-quarters of the people live in metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Houston. That means that only 20 percent, or 2 out of 10 people, live in rural areas. An interesting side note is that some 3,800,000 U.S. citizens live abroad, that is, in foreign countries.Before we finish today, I want to discuss the distribution of the U.S. population in terms of age and sex. Just for interest, would you say there are more men or more women in the United States? Well, according to the 2000 census, there are more women. In fact, there are more than five million more women than men in the U.S. population. If we consider that more males than females are born each year, how can this difference be explained? Well, for a variety of complicated reasons that we can’t go into here, there is a progressively higher death rate for males as they get older. This is seen in 2003 life expectancy figures: the life expectancy for women is 80.4 years whereas for men it is only 74.5 years. I don’t know how these life expectancy figures compare to those in your countries, but statistically women generally live longer than men worldwide. Now, to finish up, let’s look at the average age of the whole population. Overall, the average age of the population is increasing: from 33.1 years in 1990 to 35.3 years in 2000. The average age has been slowly, but steadily, increasing over the past several decades. This trend toward a higher average age can be explained by a decreasing birth rate and an increasing life expectancy for the population as a whole. Well, I’d like to investigate these two subjects further, but I see our time is up, so we’ll have to call it quits for today. You may want to pursue the topic of the aging U.S. population further, so there are some suggestions at the end of the lesson to help you do so. Thank you.Chapter Two Immigration: Past and PresentThe act of immigrating, or coming to a new country to live, is certainly nothing new. Throughout history, people have immigrated, or moved to new countries, for many different reasons. Sometimes these reasons were economic or political. Other people moved because of natural disasters such as droughts or famines. And some people moved to escape religious or political persecution. No matter what the reason, most people do not want to leave their native land and do so only under great pressure of some sort, but a few people seem quite adventuresome and restless by nature and like to move a lot. It seems both kinds of people came to America to live. The subject ofimmigration is quite fascinating to most Americans, as they view themselves as a nation of immigrants. However, the early Britons who came to what is today the United States considered themselves “settlers” or “colonists,” rather than immigrants. These people did not exactly think they were moving to a new country but were merely settling new land for the “mother country.” There were also large numbers of Dutch, French, German, and Scotch-Irish settlers, as well as large numbers of blacks brought from Africa as slaves. At the time of independence from Britain in 1776, about 40 percent of people living in what is now the United States were non-British. The majority of people, however, spoke English, and the traditions that formed the basis of life were mainly British traditions. This period we have just been discussing is usually referred to as the Colonial Period. Today, we’re a little more interested in actual immigration after this period. Let’s first look at what is often called the Great Immigration, which began about 1830 and ended in 1930. Then let’s consider the reasons for this so-called Great Immigration and the reasons it ended. Finally, let’s talk about the immigration situation in the United States today, As I said, we’ll begin our discussion today with the period of history called the Great Immigration, which lasted from approximately 1830 to 1930. It will be easier if we look at the Great Immigration in terms of three major stages, or time periods. The first stage was from approximate1y 1830 to 1860. Now, before this time, the number of immigrants coming to the United States was comparatively small, only about 10,000 a year. However, the rate began to climb in the 1830s when about 600,000 immigrants arrived. The rate continued to climb during the 1840s with a tota1 of 1,700,000 people arriving in that decade. The rate continued to climb, and during the 1850s 2,600,000 immigrants arrived. During this first stage of the Great Immigration, that is, between the years 1830 and 1860, the majority of immigrants came from Germany, Great Britain, and Ireland. Now let’s consider the second stage of the Great Immigration. The second stage was from l860 to 1890, during which time another 10,000,000 people arrived. Between l860 and 1890 the majority of immigrants continued to be from Germany, Ireland, and Great Britain. However, during the second stage, a smaller but significant number of immigrants came from the Scandinavian nations of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The third stage of the Great Immigration, which lasted from 1890 to 1930, was the era of heaviest immigration. Between the years l890 and l930, almost 22 million immigrants arrived in the United States. Most of these new arrivals came from the Southern European countries of Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain and the Eastern European countries of Poland and Russia.Now that we know something about the numbers and origins ofimmigrants who came to the States during the Great Immigration, let’s consider the reasons why most of these people immigrated to the United States. Why did such large numbers of Europeans leave their homes for life in an unknown country? It would be impossible to discuss all the complex political and economic reasons in any depth today, but we can touch on a few interesting facts that might help to clarify the situation for you. First of all, one of the most important reasons was that the population of Europe doubled between the years 1750 and 1850. At the same time that the population was growing so rapidly, the Industrial Revolution in Europe was causing widespread unemployment. The combination of increased population and the demand for land by industry also meant that farmland was becoming increasingly scarce in Europe. The scarcity of farmland in Europe meant that the abundance of available land in the growing country of the United States was a great attraction. During these years, the United States was an expanding country and it seemed that there was no end to land. In fact, in 1862, the government offered public land free to citizens and to immigrants who were planning to become citizens. In addition to available farmland, there were also plentiful jobs during these years of great economic growth. Other attractions were freedom from religious or political persecution. Some other groups also came to the United States as the direct results of natural disasters that left them in desperate situations. For example, the frequent failure of the potato crop in Ireland between the years 1845 and 1849 led to widespread starvation in that country, and people were driven to immigrate. Another factor that affected the number of immigrants coming to the United States was improved ocean transport beginning in the 1840s. At that time, ships large enough to carry large numbers of people began to make regular trips across the ocean. Now let’s summarize the reasons for the high rate of immigration to the United States during the years we discussed: first, the doubling of the population in Europe between 1750 and 1850; second, the unemployment caused by the Industrial Revolution; and third, the land scarcity in Europe, followed by religious and political persecution and natural disaster. These reasons combined with improved transportation probably account for the largest number of immigrants.I would now like to talk briefly about the period of time following the Great Immigration and the reasons for the decline in the rate of immigration. Although immigration continues today, immigration numbers have never again reached the levels that we discussed previously. There are several reasons for this decline. This decline was in part due to various laws whose aim was to limit the number of immigrants coming from different parts of the world to the UnitedStates. The first such law that limited the number of immigrants coming from a certain part of the world was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This law was followed by many other laws that also tried to limit the numbers of people immigrating from various countries or parts of the world. In addition to such laws, certainly economic and geopolitical events as important as the Great Depression starting in 1929 and World War II also contributed to the decline in immigration.Let’s conclude our talk by discussing the current situation with respect to immigration, which is quite different from that in the past. To understand some of the changes, it’s important to note that in 1965 strict quotas based on nationality were eliminated. Let’s see how different things are today from the past. As I noted, the greatest number of immigrants to the United States have historically been European. According to U.S. Census figures, in 1860, the percentage of immigrants that were European was 92 percent. But by 1960, the percentage of European immigrants had dropped to 74.5 percent, and by the year 2002, it had dropped to 14 percent! In 2002, 52.2 percent of immigrants came from Latin America, that is, from the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. Mexico is ordinarily considered part of North America, but the U.S. Census Bureau considers Mexico as a Central American country in terms of immigration statistics, and estimates that more than one-third of the total of all immigrants to the United States in 2002 came from Mexico or another Central American country. The next largest percentage, 25.5 percent, of immigrants came from Asia, mainly from the Philippines, China, and India.Although immigration dropped sharply when the United States entered World War I and remained low throughout the Depression and World War II years, at the end of the l940s, immigration began to increase again and has, in general, risen steadily since then. It might surprise you to know that the actual number of immigrants coming yearly to the States in recent years is about the same as the numbers coming yearly between 1900 and 1910. Keep in mind, though, that the population of the United States is much larger now than at the turn of the century, so that while the yearly numbers may be similar, the percentage of the population that is foreign-born is considerably smaller today than it was a century ago.It might be interesting to speculate on immigration in the future. Will the trend continue for non-Europeans to immigrate to the United States? The answer is probably yes for the foreseeable future. Do these non-European people come to the United States for the same reasons that Europeans came? Well, land is no longer plentiful and cheap. Industry no longer requires large numbers of unskilled workers. In fact, the government usually tries to restrict immigration to those people who already have the skills to be successful in U.S. society.Still, people come for politica1 and economic reasons and probably will continue to do so.Chapter 3 Americans at WorkWhether you love it or hate it, work is a major part of most people’s lives everywhere in the world. Americans are no exception. Americans might complain about “blue Monday,” when they have to go back to work after the weekend, but most people put a lot of importance on their job, not only in terms of money but also in terms of identity. In fact, when Americans are introduced to a new person, they almost always ask each other, “What do you do?” They are asking, what is your job or profession. Today, however, we won’t look at work in terms of what work means socially or psychologically. Rather, we’re going to take a look at work in the United States today from two perspectives. First, we’ll take a historical look at work in America. We’ll do that by looking at how things changed for the American worker from the beginning to the end of the twentieth century, that is, from the year 1900 to the year 1999. Then we’ll look at how U.S. workers are doing today.As we look at the changes over the last century, we’re going to use a lot of statistics to describe these changes. You will need to write down a lot of numbers in today’s lecture. First, let’s consider how the type of work people were involved in changed. At the beginning of the twentieth century, about 38 percent of the workforce was involved in agriculture; that is, they worked on a farm. By the end of the century, only 3 percent still worked on farms. There was also a large decrease in the number of people working in mining, manufacturing, and construction. The number of workers in mining, manufacturing, and construction went down from 31 percent to 19 percent.While the number of people in these goods producing industries went down, the number of people in the service industries went up. As you may know, a service industry is one that provides a service, rather than goods or products. A few examples include transportation, tourism, banking, advertising, health care, and legal services. I’m sure you can think of more. The service industry workforce jumped from 31 percent of the workforce at the turn of the century to 78 percent in 1999.Let’s recap the numbers: in 1900, 38 percent in agriculture; 31 percent in mining, manufacturing, and construction; and 31 percent in the service industries. That should add up to 100 percent. In 1999, 3 percent in agriculture; 19 percent in mining, manufacturing, and construction; and 78 percent in the service industries. Again, that should add up to 100 percent.The labor force changed in other important ways. For example,child labor was not unusual at the beginning of the twentieth century. In 1900 there were 1, 750, 000 children aged ten to fifteen working full-time in the labor force. This was 6 percent of the labor force. Over the years, child labor laws became much stricter and by 1999, it was illegal for anyone under sixteen to work full-time in any of the fifty states. While the number of children in the workforce went down, the number of women went up dramatically. In 1900, only 19 percent of women were employed; in 1999, 60 percent of women were holding down jobs.Let’s see what has happened to wages and salaries. All the numbers I will give you are in terms of 1999 dollars. Let me explain. In 1900 the average per capita income was $4,200 a year. That does not mean that the average worker in 1900 earned $4,200, a year, but that what he or she earned was equal to $4, 200 in 1999. That is, the amount of money the average worker earned in 1900 was worth the same as $4,200 in 1999. The average per capita income in 1999 was $33, 700. Not only did people earn a lot more money at the end of the century, they also received a lot more in benefits than at the beginning of the century. One of the important benefits most workers received later in the century was health insurance. Whereas wages and salaries rose over the century, the average workweek dropped. That is, workers, in general, did not work as long hours in 1999 as they did in 1900.The last area that I’d like to give you a few statistics about is workplace safety. Most of us who go to work every day don’t think a lot about whether we are safe or not, but in 1900 it was a real concern for a lot of workers. There aren’t many statistics available, but the U.S. government does have statistics on two industries that will give you some idea of the differences today. In 1900 almost 1,500 workers were killed in coal-mining accidents; in 1999, the number was 35. 2,555 railroad workers were killed in 1900, compared to 56 in 1999.People often tend to romanticize the past and talk about “the good old days,” but I think it’s fair to say that by the end of the twentieth century, U.S. workers in general made more money, they enjoyed more benefits, and their working conditions had improved greatly.Now let’s turn our attention to the current situation for U.S. workers. The picture is not so rosy as the one drawn by comparing U.S. workers at the beginning and the end of the twentieth century. I’m going to focus on the current situation in terms of productivity, working hours, and wages and salaries.First let’s consider the number of hours worked. According to a 2003 study released by the United Nations International Labor Organization, U.S. workers are the most productive in the world among industrialized nations, but they work longer hours than Europeanworkers to achieve this productivity. Europeans typically have four to six weeks of vacation a year, whereas the average American worker has only about two weeks. This study points out that the longer working hours in the United States is a rising trend, while the trend in other industrialized countries is the opposite.Workers in some European countries actually outproduce American workers per hour of work. It has been suggested that this higher rate of productivity might be because European workers are less stressed than U.S. workers.At any rate, there seems to be general agreement that U.S. productivity has greatly increased over the last thirty years. However, workers have not seen their wages rise at the same rate. A group of sociologists in their book Inequality by Design point out that there is a growing gap between rich Americans and everyone else in the United States. They write that between 1949 and 1974, increases in productivity were matched by increases in wages for workers in both manufacturing and the service industries, but since 1974, productivity increased 68 percent in manufacturing and 50 percent in services, but real wages stagnated. That is, wages moved up little or not at all. So, where does all the money generated by the increased productivity go then? According to the authors of this book, the money goes to the salaries for CEOs, to the stock market, and to corporate profits. Workers play a great role in increasing productivity, but no longer see their wages connected to increased productivity. In other words, CEOs’ salaries, the stock market, and the corporate profits go up as work productivity goes up, but workers’ wages don’t.What are the reasons why U.S. workers, who are the most productive in the world, have to work longer hours, have fewer vacation days, and see their wages stagnate and not rising at the same rate as productivity? The answer to this question is complex and controversial, but there are two reasons most people who speak or write about these issues mention: The first is that labor unions in the United States have lost great power since the beginning of the 1980s, and the second is that the government has passed laws that favor the rich and weaken the rights of the workers.I see our time is up. So, I’ll see you next time.Chapter 4 Family in the United StatesA hundred years ago, one heard the same kind of comments about the American family that one hears today --- in short, that the American family is disintegrating. Proof of this disintegration at the end of the nineteenth century included three points: the declining birth rate, a rising divorce rate, and evidence that women were not completely content with their domestic role. It’s a little surprisingto me that the same claim about the family is being made today --- that it is disintegrating. And often the same points are mentioned as proof: declining birth rates, increasing divorce rates, and discontent of women with domestic roles. Now, in no way do I mean to imply that cultural, demographic, and economic conditions are the same now as they were 100 years ago. On the contrary, the very nature of the family has changed drastically in the last 50 years, not to mention the last 100 years. But I don’t think the average person’s concept of the family has changed very much over the years. A lot of people have on fixed idea of the family: a married couple where Mother stays home to care for the children and Father works. But this idea is challenged by what we see every day in U.S. society. To be sure, the family is a very sensitive barometer for what is happening in the society, the culture, and the economy of the United States. To make this point clearer, we’ll take a look at how the American family has changed in the last 50 years by looking at three different time periods: there are the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s; the mid-60s to the mid-80s; and finally the present. Sociologist Barbara Dafoe Whitehead labels these three periods: the period of traditional familism, the period of individualism, and the period of the new familism. I will try for each period to show how economic, demographic, and cultural elements interact and, in turn, affect the family.Well, let’s proceed in chronological order and start with traditional familism. We’re talking here of the twenty years from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s. This was the period after World War II, a period characterized by a very strong economy. This gave the United States a rising standard of living and a growing middle class. Demographically, the predominant configuration of the family from these years was the traditional one: a married couple with children. Some women worked, but divorce rates were low, and birth rates were high. I guess you could say that the country idealized the family in these years. And what I mean is, there was a commitment to the family from its members and a reverence for it from society. TV programs of the era depicted the family in the classical configuration: working father, housewife, and children. Culturally, three characteristics stand out in this period: conformity to social norms, greater male domination of the family than in the later periods, and clear-cut gender roles, that is, clear and separate roles for men and women at home and at work. Well, things changed quite a bit after this period.Let’s move on to the second period, the period of individualism. This period is from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s. Now, because individualism is so often mentioned in our discussion of U.S. culture and people, I should make a little detour here before we discuss it. Individualism brings to mind two other words: independence andself-reliance. Individualism conveys the idea that one should think and act for himself or herself, according to what one feels is right. Individualism is easily confused with egotism or selfishness, but in its best sense, it is much more. Individualism implies that one has the freedom to decide what is best rather than allowing that decision to be made by a group such as the community or society. Individualism does, of course, conflict with the concept of community, which implies that the group shares in making decisions. And this conflict between the individual and the community is one that comes up again and again in our lecture series about the United States. All right, let’s get back to our discussion about the family.The second period, the period of individualism, saw three important social and political movements. Do you have any idea which movements I might be talking about? Keep in mind that these decades were characterized by a lack of conformity to social norms. Well, the movements have in mind are the sexual revolution, in which sex was clearly no longer reserved for marriage; the women’s liberation movement; and the movement against the war in Vietnam. All three movements---the sexual revolution, woman’s liberation, and the antiwar movement --- were typical of the nonconforming nature of these decades. Now, culturally, it is in this period where we see two important developments: one the idealization of one’s career and work and, two, the drive for self-expression and self-fulfillment. In this period, the feminist movement challenged traditional gender roles and male domination of society. Women began to enter professions previously closed to them like medicine, law, and management. Men, for their part, began at least to consider a more active role in raising their children.These cultural changes occurred during a time of economic changes, too. This was a time of rapidly rising cost of living. Together, these forces changed the demographics of the family. The former picture of the family had only one configuration: a married couple with children where Mother stayed home. The new picture of the family had to include new configurations, like families in which the husband and wife both worked, families of single parents with children, and families of cohabiting couples with or without children. With more women pursuing careers and making money, there was less economic pressure for them to stay in an unsuitable marriage. Therefore, divorce rates doubled in a decade. Rising divorce rates and more financial independence for women made marriage a less attractive arrangement for many women. Consequently, the number of single-parent households tripled. Less conformity to social norms paved the way for cohabitation. So the number of unmarried couples living together in this period quadrupled. Can you see how economic, cultural, and demographic aspects of the。
高级英语视听说教程二册听力文本
—－可编辑修改，可打印——别找了你想要的都有！精品教育资料——全册教案，，试卷，教学课件，教学设计等一站式服务——全力满足教学需求，真实规划教学环节最新全面教学资源，打造完美教学模式Book 2 Chapter 1 The PopulationToday we’re going to talk about population in the United States. According to the most recent government census, the population is 281,421,906 people. Now this represents an increase of almost 33 million people since the 1990 census. A population of over 281 million makes the United States the third most populous country in the whole world. As you probably know, the People’s Republic of China is the most populous country in the world. But do you know which is the second most populous? Well, if you thought India, you were right. The fourth, fifth, and sixth most populous countries are Indonesia, Brazil, and Pakistan. Now let’s get back to the United States. Let’s look at the total U. S. population figure of 281 million in three different ways. The first way is by race and origin; the second is by geographical distribution, or by where people live; and the third way is by the age and sex of the population.First of all, let’s take a look at the population by race and origin. The latest U. S. census reports that 75.1 percent of the population is white, whereas 12.3 percent is black. Three percent are of Asian origin, and 1 percent is Native American. 2.4 percent of the population is a mixture of two or more races, and 5.5 percent report themselves as “of some other race”. Let’s make sure your figures are right: OK, white, 75.1 percent; black, 12.3 percent; Asian, 3 percent; Native American, 1 percent; a mixture of two or more races, 2.4 percent; and of some other race, 5.5 percent. Hispanics, whose origins lie in Spanish-speaking countries, comprise whites, blacks, and Native Americans, so they are already included in the above figures. It is important to note that Hispanics make up 12.5 percent of the present U.S. population, however. Finally, the census tells us that 31 million people in the United States were born in another country. Of the 31 million foreign born, the largest part, 27.6percent are from Mexico. The next largest group, from the Philippines, number 4.3 percent.Another way of looking at the population is by geographical distribution. Do you have any idea which states are the five most populous in the United States? Well, I’ll help you out there. The five most populous states, with population figures, are California, with almost 34 million; New York, with 21 million; Texas, with 19 million; and Florida, with 16 million; and Illinois with 12.5 million people. Did you get all those figures down? Well, if not, I’ll give you a chance later to check your figures. Well, then, let’s move on. All told, over half, or some 58 percent of the population, lives in the South and in the West of the United States. This figure, 58 percent, is surprising to many people. It is surprising because the East is more densely populated. Nevertheless, there are more people all together in the South and West. To understand this seeming contradiction, one need only consider the relatively larger size of many southern and western states, so although there are more people, they are distributed over a larger area. To finish up this section on geographical distribution, consider that more than three-quarters of the people live in metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Houston. That means that only 20 percent, or 2 out of 10 people, live in rural areas. An interesting side note is that some 3,800,000 U.S. citizens live abroad, that is, in foreign countries.Before we finish today, I want to discuss the distribution of the U.S. population in terms of age and sex. Just for interest, would you say there are more men or more women in the United States? Well, according to the 2000 census, there are more women. In fact, there are more than five million more women than men in the U.S. population. If we consider that more males than females are born each year, how can this difference be explained? Well, for a variety of complicated reasons that we can’t go into here, there is a progressively higher death rate for males as they get older. This is seen in 2003 life expectancy figures: the life expectancy for women is 80.4 years whereas for men it is only 74.5 years. I don’t know how these life expectancy figures compare to those in your countries, but statistically women generally live longer than men worldwide. Now, to finish up, let’s look at the average age of the whole population. Overall, the average age of the population is increasing: from 33.1 years in 1990 to 35.3 years in 2000. The average age has been slowly, but steadily, increasing over the past several decades. This trend toward a higher average age can be explained by a decreasing birth rate and an increasing life expectancy for the population as a whole. Well, I’d like to investigate these two subjects further, but I see our time is up, so we’ll have to call it quits for today. You maywant to pursue the topic of the aging U.S. population further, so there are some suggestions at the end of the lesson to help you do so. Thank you.Chapter Two Immigration: Past and PresentThe act of immigrating, or coming to a new country to live, is certainly nothing new. Throughout history, people have immigrated, or moved to new countries, for many different reasons. Sometimes these reasons were economic or political. Other people moved because of natural disasters such as droughts or famines. And some people moved to escape religious or political persecution. No matter what the reason, most people do not want to leave their native land and do so only under great pressure of some sort, but a few people seem quite adventuresome and restless by nature and like to move a lot. It seems both kinds of people came to America to live. The subject of immigration is quite fascinating to most Americans, as they view themselves as a nation of immigrants. However, the early Britons who came to what is today the United States considered themselves “settlers” or “colonists,” rather than immigrants. These people did not exactly think they were moving to a new country but were merely settling new land for the “mother country.” There were also large numbers of Dutch, French, German, and Scotch-Irish settlers, as well as large numbers of blacks brought from Africa as slaves. At the time of independence from Britain in 1776, about 40 percent of people living in what is now the United States were non-British. The majority of people, however, spoke English, and the traditions that formed the basis of life were mainly British traditions. This period we have just been discussing is usually referred to as the Colonial Period. Today, we’re a little more interested in actual immigration after this period. Let’s first look at what is often called the Great Immigration, which began about 1830 and ended in 1930. Then let’s consider the reasons for this so-called Great Immigration and the reasons it ended. Finally, let’s talk about the immigration situation in the United States today, As I said, we’ll begin our discussion today with the period of history called the Great Immigration, which lasted from approximately 1830 to 1930. It will be easier if we look at the Great Immigration in terms of three major stages, or time periods. The first stage was from approximate1y 1830 to 1860. Now, before this time, the number of immigrants coming to the United States was comparatively small, only about 10,000 a year. However, the rate began to climb in the 1830s when about 600,000 immigrants arrived. The rate continued to climb during the 1840s with a tota1 of 1,700,000 people arriving in that decade. The rate continued to climb, and during the 1850s 2,600,000 immigrants arrived. During this first stage of the Great Immigration, that is, between the years 1830 and 1860, the majority of immigrantscame from Germany, Great Britain, and Ireland. Now let’s consider the second stage of the Great Immigration. The second stage was from l860 to 1890, during which time another 10,000,000 people arrived. Between l860 and 1890 the majority of immigrants continued to be from Germany, Ireland, and Great Britain. However, during the second stage, a smaller but significant number of immigrants came from the Scandinavian nations of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The third stage of the Great Immigration, which lasted from 1890 to 1930, was the era of heaviest immigration. Between the years l890 and l930, almost 22 million immigrants arrived in the United States. Most of these new arrivals came from the Southern European countries of Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain and the Eastern European countries of Poland and Russia.Now that we know something about the numbers and origins of immigrants who came to the States during the Great Immigration, let’s consider the reasons why most of these people immigrated to the United States. Why did such large numbers of Europeans leave their homes for life in an unknown country? It would be impossible to discuss all the complex political and economic reasons in any depth today, but we can touch on a few interesting facts that might help to clarify the situation for you. First of all, one of the most important reasons was that the population of Europe doubled between the years 1750 and 1850. At the same time that the population was growing so rapidly, the Industrial Revolution in Europe was causing widespread unemployment. The combination of increased population and the demand for land by industry also meant that farmland was becoming increasingly scarce in Europe. The scarcity of farmland in Europe meant that the abundance of available land in the growing country of the United States was a great attraction. During these years, the United States was an expanding country and it seemed that there was no end to land. In fact, in 1862, the government offered public land free to citizens and to immigrants who were planning to become citizens. In addition to available farmland, there were also plentiful jobs during these years of great economic growth. Other attractions were freedom from religious or political persecution. Some other groups also came to the United States as the direct results of natural disasters that left them in desperate situations. For example, the frequent failure of the potato crop in Ireland between the years 1845 and 1849 led to widespread starvation in that country, and people were driven to immigrate. Another factor that affected the number of immigrants coming to the United States was improved ocean transport beginning in the 1840s. At that time, ships large enough to carry large numbers of people began to make regular trips across the ocean. Now let’s summarize the reasons for the high rate ofimmigration to the United States during the years we discussed: first, the doubling of the population in Europe between 1750 and 1850; second, the unemployment caused by the Industrial Revolution; and third, the land scarcity in Europe, followed by religious and political persecution and natural disaster. These reasons combined with improved transportation probably account for the largest number of immigrants.I would now like to talk briefly about the period of time following the Great Immigration and the reasons for the decline in the rate of immigration. Although immigration continues today, immigration numbers have never again reached the levels that we discussed previously. There are several reasons for this decline. This decline was in part due to various laws whose aim was to limit the number of immigrants coming from different parts of the world to the United States. The first such law that limited the number of immigrants coming from a certain part of the world was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This law was followed by many other laws that also tried to limit the numbers of people immigrating from various countries or parts of the world. In addition to such laws, certainly economic and geopolitical events as important as the Great Depression starting in 1929 and World War II also contributed to the decline in immigration.Let’s conclude our talk by discussing the current situation with respect to immigration, which is quite different from that in the past. To understand some of the changes, it’s important to note that in 1965 strict quotas based on nationality were eliminated. Let’s see how different things are today from the past. As I noted, the greatest number of immigrants to the United States have historically been European. According to U.S. Census figures, in 1860, the percentage of immigrants that were European was 92 percent. But by 1960, the percentage of European immigrants had dropped to 74.5 percent, and by the year 2002, it had dropped to 14 percent! In 2002, 52.2 percent of immigrants came from Latin America, that is, from the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. Mexico is ordinarily considered part of North America, but the U.S. Census Bureau considers Mexico as a Central American country in terms of immigration statistics, and estimates that more than one-third of the total of all immigrants to the United States in 2002 came from Mexico or another Central American country. The next largest percentage, 25.5 percent, of immigrants came from Asia, mainly from the Philippines, China, and India.Although immigration dropped sharply when the United States entered World War I and remained low throughout the Depression and World War II years, at the end of the l940s, immigration began to increase again and has, in general, risen steadily since then. It might surprise you to know that the actual number of immigrants comingyearly to the States in recent years is about the same as the numbers coming yearly between 1900 and 1910. Keep in mind, though, that the population of the United States is much larger now than at the turn of the century, so that while the yearly numbers may be similar, the percentage of the population that is foreign-born is considerably smaller today than it was a century ago.It might be interesting to speculate on immigration in the future. Will the trend continue for non-Europeans to immigrate to the United States? The answer is probably yes for the foreseeable future. Do these non-European people come to the United States for the same reasons that Europeans came? Well, land is no longer plentiful and cheap. Industry no longer requires large numbers of unskilled workers. In fact, the government usually tries to restrict immigration to those people who already have the skills to be successful in U.S. society. Still, people come for politica1 and economic reasons and probably will continue to do so.Chapter 3 Americans at WorkWhether you love it or hate it, work is a major part of most people’s lives everywhere in the world. Americans are no exception. Americans might complain about “blue Monday,” when they have to go back to work after the weekend, but most people put a lot of importance on their job, not only in terms of money but also in terms of identity. In fact, when Americans are introduced to a new person, they almost always ask each other, “What do you do?” They are asking, what is your job or profession. Today, however, we won’t look at work in terms of what work means socially or psychologically. Rather, we’re going to take a look at work in the United States today from two perspectives. First, we’ll take a historical look at work in America. We’ll do that by looking at how things changed for the American worker from the beginning to the end of the twentieth century, that is, from the year 1900 to the year 1999. Then we’ll look at how U.S. workers are doing today.As we look at the changes over the last century, we’re going to use a lot of statistics to describe these changes. You will need to write down a lot of numbers in today’s lecture. First, let’s consider how the type of work people were involved in changed. At the beginning of the twentieth century, about 38 percent of the workforce was involved in agriculture; that is, they worked on a farm. By the end of the century, only 3 percent still worked on farms. There was also a large decrease in the number of people working in mining, manufacturing, and construction. The number of workers in mining, manufacturing, and construction went down from 31 percent to 19 percent.While the number of people in these goods producing industrieswent down, the number of people in the service industries went up. As you may know, a service industry is one that provides a service, rather than goods or products. A few examples include transportation, tourism, banking, advertising, health care, and legal services. I’m sure you can think of more. The service industry workforce jumped from 31 percent of the workforce at the turn of the century to 78 percent in 1999.Let’s recap the numbers: in 1900, 38 percent in agriculture; 31 percent in mining, manufacturing, and construction; and 31 percent in the service industries. That should add up to 100 percent. In 1999, 3 percent in agriculture; 19 percent in mining, manufacturing, and construction; and 78 percent in the service industries. Again, that should add up to 100 percent.The labor force changed in other important ways. For example, child labor was not unusual at the beginning of the twentieth century. In 1900 there were 1, 750, 000 children aged ten to fifteen working full-time in the labor force. This was 6 percent of the labor force. Over the years, child labor laws became much stricter and by 1999, it was illegal for anyone under sixteen to work full-time in any of the fifty states. While the number of children in the workforce went down, the number of women went up dramatically. In 1900, only 19 percent of women were employed; in 1999, 60 percent of women were holding down jobs.Let’s see what has happened to wages and salaries. All the numbers I will give you are in terms of 1999 dollars. Let me explain. In 1900 the average per capita income was $4,200 a year. That does not mean that the average worker in 1900 earned $4,200, a year, but that what he or she earned was equal to $4, 200 in 1999. That is, the amount of money the average worker earned in 1900 was worth the same as $4,200 in 1999. The average per capita income in 1999 was $33, 700. Not only did people earn a lot more money at the end of the century, they also received a lot more in benefits than at the beginning of the century. One of the important benefits most workers received later in the century was health insurance. Whereas wages and salaries rose over the century, the average workweek dropped. That is, workers, in general, did not work as long hours in 1999 as they did in 1900.The last area that I’d like to give you a few statistics about is workplace safety. Most of us who go to work every day don’t think a lot about whether we are safe or not, but in 1900 it was a real concern for a lot of workers. There aren’t many statistics available, but the U.S. government does have statistics on two industries that will give you some idea of the differences today. In 1900 almost 1,500 workers were killed in coal-mining accidents; in 1999, the number was 35. 2,555 railroad workers were killed in 1900, compared to 56 in 1999.People often tend to romanticize the past and talk about “the good old days,” but I think it’s fair to say that by the end of the twentieth century, U.S. workers in general made more money, they enjoyed more benefits, and their working conditions had improved greatly.Now let’s turn our attention to the current situation for U.S. workers. The picture is not so rosy as the one drawn by comparing U.S. workers at the beginning and the end of the twentieth century. I’m going to focus on the current situation in terms of productivity, working hours, and wages and salaries.First let’s consider the number of hours worked. According to a 2003 study released by the United Nations International Labor Organization, U.S. workers are the most productive in the world among industrialized nations, but they work longer hours than European workers to achieve this productivity. Europeans typically have four to six weeks of vacation a year, whereas the average American worker has only about two weeks. This study points out that the longer working hours in the United States is a rising trend, while the trend in other industrialized countries is the opposite.Workers in some European countries actually outproduce American workers per hour of work. It has been suggested that this higher rate of productivity might be because European workers are less stressed than U.S. workers.At any rate, there seems to be general agreement that U.S. productivity has greatly increased over the last thirty years. However, workers have not seen their wages rise at the same rate. A group of sociologists in their book Inequality by Design point out that there is a growing gap between rich Americans and everyone else in the United States. They write that between 1949 and 1974, increases in productivity were matched by increases in wages for workers in both manufacturing and the service industries, but since 1974, productivity increased 68 percent in manufacturing and 50 percent in services, but real wages stagnated. That is, wages moved up little or not at all. So, where does all the money generated by the increased productivity go then? According to the authors of this book, the money goes to the salaries for CEOs, to the stock market, and to corporate profits. Workers play a great role in increasing productivity, but no longer see their wages connected to increased productivity. In other words, CEOs’ salaries, the stock market, and the corporate profits go up as work productivity goes up, but workers’ wages don’t.What are the reasons why U.S. workers, who are the most productive in the world, have to work longer hours, have fewer vacation days, and see their wages stagnate and not rising at the same rate asproductivity? The answer to this question is complex and controversial, but there are two reasons most people who speak or write about these issues mention: The first is that labor unions in the United States have lost great power since the beginning of the 1980s, and the second is that the government has passed laws that favor the rich and weaken the rights of the workers.I see our time is up. So, I’ll see you next time.Chapter 4 Family in the United StatesA hundred years ago, one heard the same kind of comments about the American family that one hears today --- in short, that the American family is disintegrating. Proof of this disintegration at the end of the nineteenth century included three points: the declining birth rate, a rising divorce rate, and evidence that women were not completely content with their domestic role. It’s a little surprising to me that the same claim about the family is being made today --- that it is disintegrating. And often the same points are mentioned as proof: declining birth rates, increasing divorce rates, and discontent of women with domestic roles. Now, in no way do I mean to imply that cultural, demographic, and economic conditions are the same now as they were 100 years ago. On the contrary, the very nature of the family has changed drastically in the last 50 years, not to mention the last 100 years. But I don’t think the average person’s concept of the family has changed very much over the years. A lot of people have on fixed idea of the family: a married couple where Mother stays home to care for the children and Father works. But this idea is challenged by what we see every day in U.S. society. To be sure, the family is a very sensitive barometer for what is happening in the society, the culture, and the economy of the United States. To make this point clearer, we’ll take a look at how the American family has changed in the last 50 years by looking at three different time periods: there are the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s; the mid-60s to the mid-80s; and finally the present. Sociologist Barbara Dafoe Whitehead labels these three periods: the period of traditional familism, the period of individualism, and the period of the new familism. I will try for each period to show how economic, demographic, and cultural elements interact and, in turn, affect the family.Well, let’s proceed in chronological order and start with traditional familism. We’re talking here of the twenty years from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s. This was the period after World War II, a period characterized by a very strong economy. This gave the United States a rising standard of living and a growing middle class. Demographically, the predominant configuration of the family from these years was the traditional one: a married couple with children. Some women worked, but divorce rates were low, and birth rates werehigh. I guess you could say that the country idealized the family in these years. And what I mean is, there was a commitment to the family from its members and a reverence for it from society. TV programs of the era depicted the family in the classical configuration: working father, housewife, and children. Culturally, three characteristics stand out in this period: conformity to social norms, greater male domination of the family than in the later periods, and clear-cut gender roles, that is, clear and separate roles for men and women at home and at work. Well, things changed quite a bit after this period.Let’s move on to the second period, the period of individualism. This period is from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s. Now, because individualism is so often mentioned in our discussion of U.S. culture and people, I should make a little detour here before we discuss it. Individualism brings to mind two other words: independence and self-reliance. Individualism conveys the idea that one should think and act for himself or herself, according to what one feels is right. Individualism is easily confused with egotism or selfishness, but in its best sense, it is much more. Individualism implies that one has the freedom to decide what is best rather than allowing that decision to be made by a group such as the community or society. Individualism does, of course, conflict with the concept of community, which implies that the group shares in making decisions. And this conflict between the individual and the community is one that comes up again and again in our lecture series about the United States. All right, let’s get back to our discussion about the family.The second period, the period of individualism, saw three important social and political movements. Do you have any idea which movements I might be talking about? Keep in mind that these decades were characterized by a lack of conformity to social norms. Well, the movements have in mind are the sexual revolution, in which sex was clearly no longer reserved for marriage; the women’s liberation movement; and the movement against the war in Vietnam. All three movements---the sexual revolution, woman’s liberation, and the antiwar movement --- were typical of the nonconforming nature of these decades. Now, culturally, it is in this period where we see two important developments: one the idealization of one’s career and work and, two, the drive for self-expression and self-fulfillment. In this period, the feminist movement challenged traditional gender roles and male domination of society. Women began to enter professions previously closed to them like medicine, law, and management. Men, for their part, began at least to consider a more active role in raising their children.These cultural changes occurred during a time of economic changes, too. This was a time of rapidly rising cost of living. Together, theseforces changed the demographics of the family. The former picture of the family had only one configuration: a married couple with children where Mother stayed home. The new picture of the family had to include new configurations, like families in which the husband and wife both worked, families of single parents with children, and families of cohabiting couples with or without children. With more women pursuing careers and making money, there was less economic pressure for them to stay in an unsuitable marriage. Therefore, divorce rates doubled in a decade. Rising divorce rates and more financial independence for women made marriage a less attractive arrangement for many women. Consequently, the number of single-parent households tripled. Less conformity to social norms paved the way for cohabitation. So the number of unmarried couples living together in this period quadrupled. Can you see how economic, cultural, and demographic aspects of the society interact with each other? I hope so. Well, let’s continue with our agenda.The third period, the new familism, is harder to see because we are living in this period now. And because we are constantly informed by the media about the deteriorating American family, it’s hard to get an objective view of the state of the family. I think that today most people applaud the social changes that came about in the second period of individualism. They are not willing to give up gender equality, the freedom to leave an unsuitable marriage, or the self-fulfillment of an interesting job. At the same time, most experts, if not most people, admit that children paid a high price for the social changes that took place in the second period. It was the children who spent long days in day care or after-school hours home alone while both parents worked. And it was the children who grew up with only one parent or with stepparents in many cases.Some experts see changes occurring now in U.S. society, changes that affect the family. They see a continuing decline inn divorce rates since the 1980s but also a decline in birth rates after an initial increase in 1980s. The decline in divorce rates could be due to families’ better financial situations. Despite the decline in divorce, a quarter of U.S children today live with only one parent. The birth rate is probably declining because an increasing life span results in fewer women of childbearing age. A more encouraging reason is the reduction in unmarried teen pregnancies. Experts also report an attempt by people to balance work with family obligations, especially the care of children. They see the individualism of the middle period changing somewhat; the concern seems in many cases to be shifting from one’s career to one’s family, from individualism to the new familism. The most optimistic view of this third period would be that Americans have learned from past mistakes: they want。
高级英语视听说下册听力原文
高级英语视听说下册听力原文Lincoln and Kennedy: Similar DestiniesJohn F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln lived in different times and had very different family and educational backgrounds. Kennedy lived in the 20th century; Lincoln lived in the 19th century. Kennedy was born in 1917, whereas Lincoln was born more than a hundred years earlier, in 1809. As for their family backgrounds, Kennedy came from a rich family, but Lincoln’s family was not wealthy. Because Kennedy came from a wealthy family, he was able to attend expensive private schools. He graduated from Harvard University. Lincoln, on the other hand, had only one year of formal schooling. In spite of his lack of formal schooling, he became a well-known lawyer. He taught himself law by reading law books. Lincoln was, in other words, a self-educated man.In spite of these differences in Kennedy and Lincoln’s backgrounds, some interesting similarities between the 2 men are evident. In fact, books have been written about the strange coincidences in the lives of these 2 men. For example, take their political careers. Lincoln began his political career as a congressman. Similarly, Kennedy also began his political career as a congressman. Lincoln was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1847, and Kennedy was elected to the House in 1947. They went to Congress just 100 years apart. Another interestingcoincidence is that each man was elected president of the United States in a year ending with the number 60. Lincoln was elected president in 1860, and Kennedy was elected in 1960; furthermore, both men were president during years of civil unrest in the country. Lincoln was president during the American Civil War. During Kennedy’s term of office, civil unrest took the form of civil rights demonstrations.Another striking similarity between the 2 men was that, as you probably know, neither president lived to complete his tern in office. Lincoln and Kennedy were both assassinated while in office. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas, after only 1,000 days in office. Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 a few days after the end of the American Civil War. It’s rather curious to note that both presidents were shot while they were sitting next to their wives.These are only a few examples of the uncanny, or unusual similarities in the destinies of these 2 Americans –men who had a tremendous impact on the social and political life in the United States and the imagination of the American people.。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Chapter 9 Lecture: Public Education: Philosophy and FundingMost young people in the United States, like most young people around the world, attend public school. Indeed, young people in the U.S. have to attend school because education is compulsory, in most states to the age of sixteen or until the students reach ninth grade.A small percentage of American youth attend private schools, wither religious or secular schools, but the vast majority attend public schools. One distinguishing feature of U.S. public education that surprises many foreigners is that although there are some standardized examinations, there is no nationwide curriculum set by the government ministry of education determines the curriculum that all students study and the examinations that all the students take at a set time. Of course, U.S. students follow a curriculum, and they take examinations as all students do. Although the federal government does influence public education by providing funds to schools for special programs such as education for the handicapped and for bilingual education, the federal government does not determine the curriculum or the examinations. Today I’d like to talk about the three levels of control within each state and then spend some time discussing where the money for education comes from and three issues related to funding.Control of education in the United States is mainly exercised locally at three levels. Let’s begin with the state department of education. The department of education of each of the fifty states has two basic functions. First, each state department of education sets basic curriculum requirements for all the schools in its state. For example, a high school might require four years of English, three years of math, two years of social science, and so forth. The state also sets the number of credits a student must complete in order to graduate from a high school. This total number of credits includes both required courses and electives. So much for the state part in education.The second level of control is the school district. The number of school districts a state has depends on the size of its population and the size of the state. A large metropolitan area would have several school districts. A smaller community might have only one district. Each school district is run by a school board that is elected by the citizens of the district. The school district is responsible for the specific content of courses taught in its schools. In other words, the school district determines what the students will study in each of their, let’s say, four years of high school English. The school district also decides what electives will be available for students. Besides determining course content, the school district is responsible for the operation of the schools in its district, for example, the hiring if teachers and administrators. The third level of control is the individual school itself, where teachers have primary responsibility for deciding how to teach the content of each course and for preparing and giving examinations to the students.Local control of schools may seem very strange to some of you, but it will seem less strange if you consider how public schools in the United States are funded- that is, where money to run the schools comes from. Only about 7 percent of the money comes from the federal government. The rest of the money comes from state and local taxes. The percentages supplied by the state and by the local districts fluctuate over tome and from state to state. Currently appropriately 49 percentage of school funding comes from the states and about 44 percent comes from the local communities, that is, the school districts.Finally, I’d like to discuss three issues related to the funding of schools that have been receiving a lot of attention recently in the United States. The first issue deals with theinequality of educational opportunity that students face. Because public schools are funded to a great degree by local taxes, this means that schools in poorer communities or poorer parts of large cities do not have the same amount of money as schools located in richer communities. This, in turn, means that children from poorer areas are less likely to receive a good education than children from wealthier areas. The second issue, one that has been controversial since the beginning of public education, is the issue of funding for private schools, which are generally run by religious organizations. As you already know, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates separation of church and state. A little background on the history and development of public education will be useful here.During colonial times, education was largely a religious concern and most schools were supported by religious organizations. However, during the nineteenth century, there was widespread support and acceptance of public education paid for by taxes as the best way to provide equal educational opportunity for all children. Nevertheless, some parents have always chosen to send their children to either private religious schools or private schools devoted to academic excellence. Because private schools are not funded by the government, parents have had to pay tuition to send their children to private schools. People who have wanted to send their children to private schools have long questioned why they should have to pay taxes for public schools at the same time as they pay private tuition for their children’s education.Although this issue is not new, during the last twenty years or so, more parents have become unhappy about what they perceive to be the increasingly secular nature of public education and prefer to send their children to schools where they will receive an education more in line with their religious beliefs. Other parents are concerned about the questionable quality of education in public schools. These concerns have led to efforts by the school system, and the government, to offer alternative educational opportunities, that is, educational choices. Two of the most important responses to these concerns have been charter schools and school vouchers. Both of these alternatives to regular public education are based on the idea that competition in the educational market is a good thing, but otherwise, they differ quite a bit. Charter schools are nonsectarian public schools that compete with regular public for students. Charter schools operate under contract to a sponsor, usually a state or local school board. Charter schools are accountable to their sponsors, the parents who choose to send their children to them, and the public that funds them through their tax money. In turn, charter schools generally have greater autonomy, that is, independence, over selection of teachers, curriculum, resources, and so on, than regular public schools. The first charter schools came into existence toward the end if the 1980s. By 2003, there were 2,695 charter schools with almost 685,000 students enrolled. This was a 15 percent increase over the year 2003, which shows how fast these schools are growing. There are many issues surrounding charter schools, but a study published in 2003 found that charter school students did a little better than their public school counterparts on a standardized exams.The school voucher concept is a much more controversial one than charter schools. The idea behind school vouchers is that the government provides students with a certain amount of money each year that they can use to attend whatever school they choose, public or private. The idea again is that competition will improve the education students receive. Voucher schools in reality are largely private schools, and most often religiously based schools. They are quite different from charter schools, which as public schools are first of all, nonsectarian, that is, not religious. Second, charter schools cannot apply restrictive admission standards, as publicschools do. To date, voucher programs funded by taxpayers are operating in only three U.S. cities, and there are many court battles over the voucher system. Supporters of the voucher system feel very strongly that private schools offer better education than public schools. Those opposed to the voucher system claim that vouchers rob public schools of needed funding and that voucher schools do not truly provide school choice because of restrictive admissions standards, which can include academic performance, religion, sex, and other factors. Opponents of vouchers also strongly believe that using taxpayer funds for private religious schools violates the separation of church and state built into the U.S. Constitution.The third and final issue I’d like to touch on today is also very controversial. I mentioned earlier that United States does not have a nationwide curriculum nor nationwide exams set by the government. However, in the past fifteen or twenty years, there has been an increased emphasis in various states on raising standards and on giving students standardized exams to monitor their progress. The federal government in 2002 passed a sweeping education bill that requires states that wish to receive certain federal funding to develop and put in place extensive testing programs and other systems to ensure adequate yearly progress of students. Although the percentage of funding for schools from the federal government is relatively small, it still represents a lot of money that schools do not want to lose. Some people support this movement toward standardization and accountability in the educational system, while others see it as a dangerous step away from local control of schools.No one can predict the future of public education in the United States, but it appears that emphasis on educational choice and on accountability of educational system for student results will be with us for a long time.Chapter 10 Postsecondary Education: AdmissionsIn this lecture, I’m going to talk to you about postsecondary education in the United States. Today I’ll give you some facts and figures about colleges and universities in the United States and some general information about admission policies. I will also make a few remarks about community colleges and finish up by giving you an idea of what kinds of students make up the student body on a typical U.S. campus.Let’s begin with some facts and figures. The most recent figures I have reveal there are 4,182 public and private four-year and two-year colleges in the United States. These range from full universities with diverse programs to smaller four-year colleges to two-year community colleges. Most of them are accredited, which means the schools meet certain standards set by institutional and private evaluators. When applying to a school, you would probably want to make sure it was accredited. Even though there are more private colleges than public ones, over three-quarters of students, precisely 78 percent, are enrolled at public colleges and universities. Some of the small private schools may have fewer than 100 students, whereas some of the large state university systems may have 50,000 or more students. Most of these schools are coeducational although some of them are primarily for women and others are primarily for men. Some schools may offer only one program of study and others have a great variety of programs. The total cost for attending one of these schools may be less than $5,000 a year or as much as 30 or 40 thousand dollars a year for one of the prestigious private schools. These schools are located all over—in industrial areas, agricultural areas, large cities, and small towns in a wide variety of climates.With such a wide variety of sizes, kinds, and locations of schools, it probably won’t surpriseyou to find out that admissions requirements at these colleges and universities vary greatly also. Some are relatively easy to be admitted to whereas others are highly competitive. However, most schools will ask undergraduate applicants to submit their high school transcripts with a record of their grades and test results from one of the standardized tests regularly offered to high school students. The most common of these standardized exams is the Scholastic Aptitude Test, commonly known as the SAT. Students who are applying to graduate school are usually asked to take other, more specific standardized exams depending on which college they are applying to. For example, some students are required to take the Graduate Record Exam, or the GRE. Students applying to a business college will probably have to take the GMAT, and students applying to law college will have to take the LSAT. You probably know about the TOEFL exam, which most foreign students have to take before being admitted to American colleges or universities. These exams, including the TOEFL, are all prepared by a company that is independent of the school system. These exams have come under a lot of criticism lately, but they are still widely used as one way to determine who will be admitted to various schools. However, most schools try to look at the whole student and consider factors other than simply grades and test scores. Some of these factors may be extracurricular activities in school, ethnic background, work experience, and so on. Some schools will have personal interviews with students they are considering for admission. Many schools, private as well as public, try very hard to have a student population with a wide variety of backgrounds and ages. Even the most prestigious and most highly competitive colleges and universities will not take only those students with the highest grades and standardized test scores but will consider these other factors. Nevertheless, schools of this type, such as Stanford and Harvard, have so many more people applying than they can possibly accept that students who want to get into such schools take grades and SAT exams very seriously. In general, medical and law colleges, both private and public, are very difficult to get into, and, once again, test scores on standardized exams can be extremely important to those applying to these schools.However, for students who want to attend a state college or university in their own state, it may be enough to graduate from high school in the upper third or even upper half of their high school class. This may surprise those of you who come from an educational system that is highly competitive, a system in which only a small percentage of students who pass a very difficult nationwide standardized high school examination can enter a university. You may be even more surprised by what I have to tell you about community colleges.An interesting feature of education in the United States is the two-year community college. Community colleges that are publicly supported offer somewhat different educational opportunities than those offered by a senior college or a university. First, admissions requirements at public community colleges are usually much more lenient than those at a four-year college or university. It’s usually enough to have graduated from an American high school to be admitted. Second, it is also cheaper to attend a community college. The tuition and fees are usually quite a bit lower. Students often live at home because this type of school does not have dormitories. For these two reasons, many people who are unable to go to a four-year college or university can have an opportunity to take classes for college credit. Finally, community colleges offer two-year programs that can lead to an Associate of Arts degree. Many of these programs, but not all of them, are vocational in nature. People attend community colleges for many different purposes. Some people may be taking on a course or two in some field that particularly interests them and may not be planning on getting a degree. Other people may be going to community collegefull-time and planning to transfer to a four-year college or university upon successful completion of two years at a community college. Well, so much for community colleges.I promised to tell you a little about the actual student body on a typical U.S. campus. Let’s start with some statistics, and then we’ll discuss two items that surprise many foreign students. Among the 2.8 million high school graduates in 2002, 65.2 percent were enrolled in college the following October. More than 90 percent of those attended full time. Young men represented half of the high school graduates, but more women than men went on to college. The exact statistics are:68.4 percent of female high school graduates and 62.1 percent of male high school graduates. If we break down the statistics racially, we find that white students enrolled in college in greater proportions than black or Hispanic students. The figures are 66.7 percent for white graduates, 58.7 percent of black graduates, and 53.5 percent of Hispanic students. My next statistic may be surprising. 42.6 percent of full-time students in 2002 were either employed or looking for work. That number jumps to 75.7 percent for part-time students. That last statistic makes more sense when we consider that besides the students who are from eighteen to twenty-two years old that one expects to find on a college campus, there are also many older married students. They may be people who attend part-time to upgrade their skills, people who are changing careers, or retired people who still have a desire to learn. Also, foreign students are often surprised at how poorly prepare American students are when they enter a university. Actually, at very select schools the students are usually very well prepared, but at less selective schools, they may not be as well prepared as students in your country are. If you will remember the educational philosophy we discussed in the last lecture, you will understand why. Schools in the States simply admit a lot more students than is usual in most other countries. Also, most young American university students have not traveled in other countries and are not very well versed in international matters and do not know a lot about people from other countries. Foreign students usually find them friendly but not very well informed about their countries or cultures.In brief, you can see that educational opportunities and admissions standards vary greatly in the United States. While it may be quite difficult to gain admission to some colleges and universities because of the very large number of applicants, probably any student graduating from high school with reasonable grades can find some accredited university or college to attend. Those students hoping to enter graduate school will often face very stiff competition, whether at private or public schools. Many students who start at a college or university will not finish in four years. Some will drop out to work or travel and may never finish. Others will return to school a few months or a few years later. Some will go to school full-time and others part-time. Some will not work while going to school, but most will work at some time or other during their school years.We’re out of time, I see. In my next lecture, I’ll talk to you about a relatively new development in education, distance learning. It should be of interest to those of you who want to attend college but can’t because of living far from a college, busy schedules, or for other reasons.Chapter 11 Lecture: Distance educationOne of the most exciting changes in education in the United States today is the incredible growth of distance education at the post-secondary level. Let me begin the lecture by asking you a couple of questions. First, can you imagine getting a college, or university, degree, without ever once setting foot on a college campus? Second, would you believe me if I told you thereare a few higher education institutions that grant degrees that don’t even have a campus? Some of these schools even grant graduate degrees, that is, a master’s degree or even a Ph.D.What is distance education? A publication called Distance Education: A Consumer’s Guide defines distance education this way:” Distance education is instruction that occurs when the instructor and student are separated by distance or time, or both,” That sounds a little strange, but it’s not really new.As early as 1840, it was possible to take a correspondence course in shorthand; that is, a student could learn shorthand by mail. And the University of Wisconsin offered the first correspondence catalog in 1892. This meant that a student could take university courses by mail over 100 years ago. So distance education is not really new; however, modern technology, such as audio, video, and computer technology, has changed distance education a great deal. Today almost all distance education programs are online or have an online learning component to take advantage of the technology.As I mentioned, distance education is now growing at an incredible rate, Peterson’s 1994 Guide to Distance Learning listed 93 accredited distance education programs available at community colleges and universities across the United States and Canada, whereas its 1997 guide listed more than 700 programs. In 2003, almost 1,100 programs were listed. According to the U.S. college and universities with 10.000 students or more offer distance education programs with new ones coming online continuously.Distance education is quite a complex subject with many aspects to look at. Today let’s look at the reasons why distance education is growing so rapidly, how distance education works, that is, what the modes of delivery are, and some things people considering distance education need to be aware of.To start with, why is distance education growing at such an incredible rate?First, rapidly changing economic conditions require many professional people to upgrade their knowledge or skills on an almost continuous basis. For example, a person who graduates with a degree in engineering or computer science may find it necessary to take courses to upgrade his or her skills every few year. Or a person who begins his or her career with a B.A. or B.S. degree may find it desirable to pursue an M.A. after some time, or even a Ph.D. Busy working people often find it difficult or even impossible to take courses they need or to pursue degrees on campus. Thus, there are a lot of people wanting post-secondary education who don’t find it convenient to study in the traditional on-campus setting.At the same time that demand for postsecondary education is growing, many U.S. colleges and universities are facing budget crunches; many U.S. colleges and universities are facing budget crunches; that is , they just don’t have as much money as they had in the past, but at the same time they have more students. They have to find ways to deliver instruction in the most economical way possible.The final reason is modern technology, which is the key to making the desired postsecondary education available to the millions of people who have access to audio, video, and computer technology. Many institutions offer distance education courses, certificate programs, and degree programs. How does distance education work at the postsecondary level? What are the usual modes of delivery?The modes of instruction can vary greatly and different courses in a program may use different modes. And any given course may use several different modes. Some of the modes include video,audio, CD-ROM, Internet, bulletin boards, chat rooms, and e-mail. Let’s consider some of the possibilities among these technologies. Video, for example, can be as simple as videotape the student plays on his or her VCR. Or it could involve video conferencing where the student is able to see and interact with the instructor and other students. Audio works similarly. A student may have a set of audiotapes to play on a cassette player or may be connected to an audio conference where he or she interacts with other students and the instructor. When students study on their own, at a time convenient to them to them, from a video-or audiotape, it is asynchronous learning, asynchronous meaning not at the same time. Video and audio conferencing, on the other hand, are called synchronous learning; that is, the instructor and the students are engaged in the teaching and learning process at the same time. Let’s look at two other popular modes used in distance learning: bulletin board anytime of the day and night, read what other students have written, and respond, by either adding his or her ideas or asking a question. Chat rooms, on the other hand, offer a discussion forum where students can interact in real time, that is, synchronously. CD-ROMs may come to the student via mail or the student may download materials from the Internet. E-mail provides a very convenient way for students to submit assignments or to ask the instructor questions. There are many more modes of instruction, but this should give you an idea of the possibilities.Students interested in pursuing distance education degrees need to consider the following six points:Number 1. Many distance education programs have a residency requirement. The students may be required to take two courses on campus, that is, six hours of credit, or students may be required to spend several days on campus several times during the program.Number 2. Distance education courses generally have time limits. Courses and programs must be completed within a certain time limit. Assignments must be submitted on time.Number 3. Admissions requirements are the same as those of an on-campus education.Number 4. Distance education can save students money in terms of not having to travel to campus for classes, and the like, but the academic fees about the same as for traditional education. Fulfilling the residency requirements may be quite costly in terms of travel and lodging for students who live far from the campus.Number 5. Online study requires students to have access to a computer that meets minimum requirements such as the latest version of Windows, a microphone, sound card and speakers, adequate hard drive and RAM, a modern, browser (Internet Explorer or Netscape), and Internet connection. Connection speed is very important and many schools recommend having high-speed Internet access like a cable modern or DSL.And finally Number 6. Distance learning requires that students be disciplined and independent learners. Distance education is not easier than traditional education. Not everyone is temperamentally suited for distance education. The dropout rate from distance education courses and programs is higher than for traditional courses and programs.Before I close today, let me just say that many people are still suspicious of distance education believing that it cannot possibly be equivalent to a traditional classroom education, although there are studies that indicate that distance education can be as effective as traditional education and some times even more effective. However, some suspicions are well founded. There are many unscrupulous and disreputable universities advertising on the Internet with very alluring Web sites. Therefore, it is important for everyone wishing to take a courseor pursue a degree to check out the credentials of the school they are considering very carefully.We have an expression: Let the buyer beware. That means that anyone who wishes to buy something should be very careful! And that includes online or distance eductation.。