题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
Many Ph. D. s are out of job because ______.
A．their degree is too high
B．they are of little industrial value to society
C．they are poor in communication
D．there are too many people unemployed
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
更多“Many Ph. D. s are out of job b…”相关的问题
Laura's daughter Jenna has got a Ph. D. degree from the University of Texas.
A．Y
B．N
C．NG
What was recommended for Ph. D. s and postdoctoral researchers？
A.They meet the urgent needs of the corporate world.
B.A long-term career goal be set as early as possible
C.An IDP be made in consultation with an adviser.
D.They acquire an explicit tool to help obtain jobs.
听力原文： Most American university students study for 4 years or more to get a college degree. During this time, they are called undergraduate students. When a student completes his courses, he earns a bachelor's degree which will help him find jobs.
Many students postpone finding jobs. They stay at the university and work for a higher degree. Other students take a job for a few years. When they quit working, they resume studying at the university. These students work to earn higher degrees, a master's or a doctorate. They are called graduate students.
Graduate students specialize in a particular field of study. They study to become experts in this field and to learn new advances in their fields while they earn an M.A. or Ph. D. Sometimes when they get an M.A. in one field, they begin studying in another field. They hope to get jobs that are interesting and high paying.
The life of a graduate student is often difficult. They are usually too busy studying to make a good living. Often they have to pay high tuition fees for their education. Some give up studying before they get their degrees. But most keep on working at their studies until they graduate. In today's world, most graduate students don't regret spending time on their studies. They are finding that things are changing very fast and study has become a necessity.
(33)
A．Three years or more.
B．Four years or more.
C．Five years or more.
D．Six years or more.
听力原文： In 1963 the leader of the Labor Party made a speech explaining plans for a "university of the air"-- an educational system which would make use of television, radio and correspondence courses. Many people laughed at the idea, but it became part of the Labor Party's program to give educational opportunity to people who had not had a chance to receive further education.
By 1969 plans were well advanced and by August 1970 the Open University, as it is now called, had received 400 000 applications. Only 25 000 could be accepted for the four "foundation" courses offered: social sciences, arts, science and mathematics. Unsuccessful candidates were told to apply again the following year, when a foundation course in technology would also be offered.
The first teaching programs appeared on the air and screen in January 1971, with clerks, farm workers, housewives, teachers, policemen and many others as students. Correspondence units had been carefully prepared and science students were given devices for a small home laboratory. Study centers have been set up all over the country so that students can attend once a week, and once a year they will spend a week at one of the university's summer schools.
It has been nearly 40 years since the Open University started to offer courses. Now it is a very important part of the British educational system. Not only does it offer foundation courses like those mentioned above, it also carries out very advanced scientific researches, some of which will lead to Master's or PH. D Degrees.
32. How did people in the 1960's like the idea of establishing a "university of the air"？
33.Which course was one of the four "foundation" courses offered in the Open University？
34.When did the first teaching programs appear on the air and screen？
35.What's the current situation with the Open University？
(33)
A．Many thought it was ridiculous.
B．Some expected it to replace traditional ones.
C．Most regarded it as a convenient educational channel.
D．No one took it very seriously.
Get a high school diploma, at least. Without that, you will be occupationally dead unless your name happens to be George Bernard Shaw or Thomas Alva Edison, and you can successfully dropout in grade school.
Get a college degree, if possible. With a B. A. , you are on the launching pad. But now you have to start to put on the brakes (刹车器，闸). If you go for a master's degree, make sure it is an M. B. A. , and is famous law of diminishing returns begins to take effect.
Do you know, for instance, that long-haul truck drivers earn more per year than full professors？ Yes, the average 1977 salary for those truckers was $ 24000. While the full professors managed to earn just $ 23030.
A Ph. D. is the highest degree you can get. Except for a few specialized fields such as physics or chemistry where the degree can quickly be turned to industrial or commercial purposes, if you pursue such a degree in any other field, you will face a dim future. There are more Ph. D. s unemployed or underemployed in this country than any other part of the world.
If you become a doctor of philosophy in English or history or anthropology or political science or languages or-worst of all-in philosophy, you run the risk of becoming overeducated for our national demands. Not for our needs, mind you, but for our demands.
Thousands of Ph. D. s are selling shoes, driving cars, waiting on table, and endlessly filling out applications month after month. They may also take a job in some high school or backwater college that pays much less than the janitor earns.
You can equate the level of income with the level of education only so far. Far enough, that is, to make you useful to the gross national product, but not so far that nobody can turn much of a profit on you.
According to the first paragraph, the real reason for people to receive education is that they ______.
A．will earn s lot of money
B．will lead a happy life
C．will become more intelligent
D．can meet the demands of society as a source of manpower
At 19, when I began studying astrophysics, it did not bother me in the least to be the only woman in the classroom. But while earning my Ph. D. at MIT and then as a post-doctor doing space research, the issue started to bother me. My every achievement—jobs, research papers, awards—was viewed through the lens of gender(性别) politics. So were my failures. Sometimes, when I was pushed into an argument on left brain versus(相对于) right brain, or nature versus nurture(培育), I would instantly fight fiercely on my behalf and all womankind.
Then one day a few years ago, out of my month came a sentence that would eventually become my reply to any and all provocations: I don't talk about that anymore. It took me 10 years to get back the confidence I had at 19 and to realize that I didn't want to deal with gender issues. Why should curing sexism be yet another terrible burden on every female scientist？ After all, I don't study sociology or political theory.
Today I research and teach at Barnard, a women's college in New York City. Recently, someone asked me how many of the 45 students in my class were women. You cannot imagine my satisfaction at being able to answer, 45. I know some of my students worry how they will manage their scientific research and a desire for children. And I don't dismiss those concerns. Still, I don't tell them "war" stories. Instead, I have given them this: the visual of their physics professor heavily pregnant doing physics experiments. And in turn they have given me the image of 45 women driven by a love of science. And that's a sight worth talking about.
Why doesn't the author want to talk about being a woman scientist again？
A．She feels unhappy working in male-dominated fields.
B．She is fed up with the issue of gender discrimination.
C．She is not good at telling stories of the kind.
D．She finds space research more important.
Foods That Fight Disease
With remarkable consistency, recent research has found that a diet high in plant -based foods—fruits, vegetables, dried peas and beans, grains, and starchy staples such as potatoes — is the body's best weapon in thwarting many health - related problems. These foods work against so many diseases that the same healthy ingredients you might use to protect your heart or ward off cancer will also benefit your intestinal tract and bones.
Here's what is currently known about these different disease -fighting foods. Cancer Fighters
Preventing cancer is a compelling reason to load up your cart in the produce department. Scientists have recently estimated that approximately 30 to 40 percent of all cancers could be averted if people ate more fruits, vegetables, and plant - based foods and minimized high -fat, high -calorie edibles that have scant nutritional value. Up to 70 percent of cancers might be eliminated if people also stopped smoking, exercised regularly, and controlled their weight.
In the past, researchers had linked fat consumption with the development of cancers, but they currently believe that eating fruits, vegetables, and grains may be more important in preventing the disease than not eating fat. "The evidence about a high- fat diet and cancer seemed a lot stronger several years ago than it does now," says Melanie Polk, a registered dietitian and director of nutrition education at the American Institute for Cancer Research.
Although scientists are still not certain about the specifics, they're beginning to close in on the healthful constituents of plant- based foods. In particular, they're looking closely at two components antioxidants and phytochemicals.
Antioxidants. The antioxidants (carotenoids, such as beta carotene and lycopene, and vitamins C and E) found in fruits, vegetables, and other plant -based foods fight free radicals, which are compounds in the body that attack and destroy cell membranes. The uncontrolled activity of free radicals is believed to cause many cancers.
The carotenoids, in particular, which give fruits and vegetables their bright yellow, orange, and red colors, are now gaining recognition for their nutritional worth. Numerous studies have extolled the virtues of lycopene (the carotenoid that makes tomatoes red) in preventing prostate cancer. One such study at Harvard University found that men who include tomato products in their meals twice a week could reduce their risk of developing prostate cancer by one third compared with men who never touch tomatoes.
Other lycopene - rich foods, such as watermelon, red grapefruit, and guava, are now piquing the interest of researchers. Watermelon not only yields more lycopene per serving (15 mg in 11/2 cups) than raw tomatoes (11 mg per 11/2 cups), but it's also a rich source of vitamins A and C.
Can watermelon help reduce the incidence of cancer？ No one knows for sure because there haven' t been sufficient studies. "We assume that we'll see benefits," says Penelope Perkins Veazie, Ph. D., a research scientist with the USDA's Agricultural Research Service. Researchers there plan to compare people who eat watermelon with those who eat processed tomatoes because cooking enhances lycopene absorption—o see which group absorbs more lycopene. (A 11/2 cup serving of tomato sauce packs 53 mg of lycopene. )
Phytochemicals. The phytochemicals present in fruits and vegetables protect the body by stunting the growth of malignant cells. Phytochemicals, naturally occurring substances, include indoles ([生化]吲哚) in cabbage or cauliflower, saponins ([生化]皂角苷 ) in peas and beans, and isoflavones (异黄酮) in soy milk and tofu. Investigators have only an inkling of how many phytochemicals exist and how they work. They are confident, however, that you can get a basketful of anti- cancer nutrients by mi
A．Y
B．N
C．NG
A.It's very kinf of y ou to say so
B.Yes,very good
C.No.not good
D.Really
Passage 3
Some marriages seem to collapse so suddenly that you’d need a crystal ball to predict their demise (灭亡).In other cases, though, the seeds of marital _1_ are not only easier to see but they may be planted even before the honeymoon bills come _2_ . According to UCLA psychologist Thomas Bradbury, Ph. D., the way a newlywed _3_ when his or her spouse is facing a personal problem is a surprisingly good window into their marital future. Bradbury and Lauri Pasch, Ph. D., invited 57 couples, all married less than six months, to discuss a difficulty that each partner was having. While some couples proved to be superstars at providing emotional support, others were _4_ inept (笨拙的). Two years later, nine of the couples had already _5_ and five other marriages were intact but hanging by a thread. These 14 couples, it turned out, had been far less likely to provide support to one another as newlyweds than the other 43 couples whose marriages were _6_ Bradbury thinks a couple’s _7_ to help each other through tough times is what often blossoms into full-fledged marital discord—and _8_ divorce. All of which suggests an obvious antidote to the sky-high divorce rate: if couples can learn how to provide emotional support before they marry, they _9_ a better chance of staying together. The trouble, Bradbury says, is that couples who go for premarital _10_ —where they can learn such skills—tend to be the ones with a lesser risk for marital problems in the first place.
A) thriving
B) comments
C) inability
D) regretfully
E) committing
F) dissolution
G) stand
H) intends
I) due
J) reacts
K) ultimately
L) durable
M) split
N) regularly
O) counseling
第1空答案是：
