Text 3

　　The US $ 3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment, as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’s award in March. And it is far from the only one of its type. As a News Feature article in Nature discusses, a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years. Many, like the Fundamental Physics Prize, are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs. These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields, they say, and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.

　　What’s not to like? Quite a lot, according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature. You cannot buy class, as the old saying goes, and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobles, The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them, say scientists. They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research. They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research. They do not fund peer-reviewed research. They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.

　　The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism. Some want to shock, others to draw people into science, or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.

　　As Nature has pointed out before, there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old—are distributed. The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include. But the Nobel Foundation’s limit of three recipients per prize, each of whom must still be living, has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson. The Nobles were, of course, themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money. Time, rather than intention, has given them legitimacy.

　　As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards, two things seem clear. First, most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one. Second, it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere, It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism—that is the culture of research, after all—but it is the prize-givers’ money to do with as they please. It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.

　　31.The Fundamental Physics Prize is seen as .

　　[A] a symbol of the entrepreneurs’ wealth

　　[B] a possible replacement of the Nobel Prizes

　　[C] an example of bankers’ investments

　　[D] a handsome reward for researchers

　　32.The critics think that the new awards will most benefit .

　　[A] the profit-oriented scientists

　　[B] the founders of the new awards

　　[C] the achievement-based system

　　[D] peer-review-led research

　　33.The discovery of the Higgs boson is atypical case which involves .

　　[A] controversies over the recipients’status

　　[B] the joint effort of modern researchers

　　[C] legitimate concerns over the new prizes

　　[D] the demonstration of research findings

　　34.According to Paragraph 4,which of the following is true of the Nobles?

　　[A] Their endurance has done justice to them.

　　[B] Their legitimacy has long been in dispute.

　　[C] They are the most representative honor.

　　[D] History has never cast doubt on them.

　　35.The author believes that the now awards are .

　　[A] acceptable despite the criticism

　　[B] harmful to the culture of research

　　[C] subject to undesirable changes

　　[D] unworthy of public attention

　　Text 4

　　“The Heart of the Matter,” the just-released report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS), deserves praise for affirming the importance of the humanities and social sciences to the prosperity and security of liberal democracy in America. Regrettably, however, the report’s failure to address the true nature of the crisis facing liberal education may cause more harm than good.

　　In 2010, leading congressional Democrats and Republicans sent letters to the AAAS asking that it identify actions that could be taken by “federal, state and local governments, universities, foundations, educators, individual benefactors and others” to “maintain national excellence inhumanities and social scientific scholarship and education.” In response, the American Academy formed the Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences. Among the commission’s 51 members are top-tier-university presidents, scholars, lawyers, judges, and business executives, as well as prominent figures from diplomacy, filmmaking, music and journalism.

　　The goals identified in the report are generally admirable. Because representative government presupposes an informed citizenry, the report supports full literacy; stresses the study of history and government, particularly American history and American government; and encourages the use of new digital technologies. To encourage innovation and competition, the report calls for increased investment in research, the crafting of coherent curricula that improve students’ ability to solve problems and communicate effectively in the 21st century, increased funding for teachers and the encouragement of scholars to bring their learning to bear on the great challenges of the day. The report also advocates greater study of foreign languages, international affairs and the expansion of study abroad programs.

　　Unfortunately, despite 2½ years in the making, “The Heart of the Matter” never gets to the heart of the matter: the illiberal nature of liberal education at our leading colleges and universities. The commission ignores that for several decades America's colleges and universities have produced graduates who don’t know the content and character of liberal education and are thus deprived of its benefits. Sadly, the spirit of inquiry once at home on campus has been replaced by the use of the humanities and social sciences as vehicles for publicizing “progressive,” or left-liberal propaganda.

　　Today, professors routinely treat the progressive interpretation of history and progressive public policy as the proper subject of study while portraying conservative or classical liberal ideas—such as free markets and self-reliance—as falling outside the boundaries of routine, and sometimes legitimate, intellectual investigation.

　　The AAAS displays great enthusiasm for liberal education. Yet its report may well set back reform by obscuring the depth and breadth of the challenge that Congress asked it to illuminate.

　　36. According to Paragraph 1, what is the author’s attitude toward the AAAS’s report?

　　[A] Critical

　　[B] Appreciative

　　[C] Contemptuous

　　[D] Tolerant

　　37. Influential figures in the Congress required that the AAAS report on how to .

　　[A] retain people’s interest in liberal education

　　[B] define the government’s role in education

　　[C] keep a leading position in liberal education

　　[D] safeguard individuals’ rights to education

　　38. According to Paragraph 3, the report suggests .

　　[A] an exclusive study of American history

　　[B] a greater emphasis on theoretical subjects

　　[C] the application of emerging technologies

　　[D] funding for the study of foreign languages

　　39. The author implies in Paragraph 5 that professors are .

　　[A] supportive of free markets

　　[B] cautious about intellectual investigation

　　[C] conservative about public policy

　　[D] biased against classical liberal ideas

　　40. Which of the following would be the best title for the text?

　　[A] Ways to Grasp “The Heart of the Matter”

　　[B] Illiberal Education and “The Heart of the Matter”

　　[C] The AAAS’s Contribution to Liberal Education

　　[D] Progressive Policy vs. Liberal Education