Text 4

It’s no surprise that Jennifer Senior’s insightful, provocative magazine cover story, “I love My Children, I Hate My Life,” is arousing much chatter – nothing gets people talking like the suggestion that child rearing is anything less than a completely fulfilling, life-enriching experience. Rather than concluding that children make parents either happy or miserable, Senior suggests we need to redefine happiness: instead of thinking of it as something that can be measured by moment-to-moment joy, we should consider being happy as a past-tense condition. Even though the day-to-day experience of raising kids can be soul-crushingly hard, Senior writes that “the very things that in the moment dampen our moods can later be sources of intense gratification and delight.”

The magazine cover showing an attractive mother holding a cute baby is hardly the only Madonna-and-child image on newsstands this week. There are also stories about newly adoptive – and newly single – mom Sandra Bullock, as well as the usual “Jennifer Aniston is pregnant” news. Practically every week features at least one celebrity mom, or mom-to-be, smiling on the newsstands.

In a society that so persistently celebrates procreation, is it any wonder that admitting you regret having children is equivalent to admitting you support kitten-killing ? It doesn’t seem quite fair, then, to compare the regrets of parents to the regrets of the children. Unhappy parents rarely are provoked to wonder if they shouldn’t have had kids, but unhappy childless folks are bothered with the message that children are the single most important thing in the world: obviously their misery must be a direct result of the gaping baby-size holes in their lives.

Of course, the image of parenthood that celebrity magazines like Us Weekly and People present is hugely unrealistic, especially when the parents are single mothers like Bullock. According to several studies concluding that parents are less happy than childless couples, single parents are the least happy of all. No shock there, considering how much work it is to raise a kid without a partner to lean on; yet to hear Sandra and Britney tell it, raising a kid on their “own” (read: with round-the-clock help) is a piece of cake.

It’s hard to imagine that many people are dumb enough to want children just because Reese and Angelina make it look so glamorous: most adults understand that a baby is not a haircut. But it’s interesting to wonder if the images we see every week of stress-free, happiness-enhancing parenthood aren’t in some small, subconscious way contributing to our own dissatisfactions with the actual experience, in the same way that a small part of us hoped getting “ the Rachel” might make us look just a little bit like Jennifer Aniston.

36.Jennifer Senior suggests in her article that raising a child can bring

[A]temporary delight

[B]enjoyment in progress

[C]happiness in retrospect

[D]lasting reward

37.We learn from Paragraph 2 that

[A]celebrity moms are a permanent source for gossip.

[B]single mothers with babies deserve greater attention.

[C]news about pregnant celebrities is entertaining.

[D]having children is highly valued by the public.

38.It is suggested in Paragraph 3 that childless folks

[A]are constantly exposed to criticism.

[B]are largely ignored by the media.

[C]fail to fulfill their social responsibilities.

[D]are less likely to be satisfied with their life.

39.According to Paragraph 4, the message conveyed by celebrity magazines is

[A]soothing.

[B]ambiguous.

[C]compensatory.

[D]misleading.

40.Which of the following can be inferred from the last paragraph?

[A]Having children contributes little to the glamour of celebrity moms.

[B]Celebrity moms have influenced our attitude towards child rearing.

[C]Having children intensifies our dissatisfaction with life.

[D]We sometimes neglect the happiness from child rearing.

Part B

Directions:

The following paragraph are given in a wrong order. For Questions 41-45, you are required to reorganize these paragraphs into a coherent text by choosing from the list A-G to filling them into the numbered boxes. Paragraphs E and G have been correctly placed. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1. (10 points)

[A] No disciplines have seized on professionalism with as much enthusiasm as the humanities. You can, Mr Menand points out, became a lawyer in three years and a medical doctor in four. But the regular time it takes to get a doctoral degree in the humanities is nine years. Not surprisingly, up to half of all doctoral students in English drop out before getting their degrees.

[B] His concern is mainly with the humanities: Literature, languages, philosophy and so on. These are disciplines that are going out of style: 22% of American college graduates now major in business compared with only 2% in history and 4% in English. However, many leading American universities want their undergraduates to have a grounding in the basic canon of ideas that every educated person should posses. But most find it difficult to agree on what a “general education” should look like. At Harvard, Mr Menand notes, “the great books are read because they have been read”-they form a sort of social glue.

[C] Equally unsurprisingly, only about half end up with professorships for which they entered graduate school. There are simply too few posts. This is partly because universities continue to produce ever more PhDs. But fewer students want to study humanities subjects: English departments awarded more bachelor’s degrees in 1970-71 than they did 20 years later. Fewer students requires fewer teachers. So, at the end of a decade of theses-writing, many humanities students leave the profession to do something for which they have not been trained.

[D] One reason why it is hard to design and teach such courses is that they can cut across the insistence by top American universities that liberal-arts educations and professional education should be kept separate, taught in different schools. Many students experience both varieties. Although more than half of Harvard undergraduates end up in law, medicine or business, future doctors and lawyers must study a non-specialist liberal-arts degree before embarking on a professional qualification.

[E] Besides professionalizing the professions by this separation, top American universities have professionalised the professor. The growth in public money for academic research has speeded the process: federal research grants rose fourfold between 1960and 1990, but faculty teaching hours fell by half as research took its toll. Professionalism has turned the acquisition of a doctoral degree into a prerequisite for a successful academic career: as late as 1969a third of American professors did not possess one. But the key idea behind professionalisation, argues Mr Menand, is that “the knowledge and skills needed for a particular specialization are transmissible but not transferable.”So disciplines acquire a monopoly not just over the production of knowledge, but also over the production of the producers of knowledge.

[F] The key to reforming higher education, concludes Mr Menand, is to alter the way in which “the producers of knowledge are produced.”Otherwise, academics will continue to think dangerously alike, increasingly detached from the societies which they study, investigate and criticize.”Academic inquiry, at least in some fields, may need to become less exclusionary and more holistic.”Yet quite how that happens, Mr Menand dose not say.

[G] The subtle and intelligent little book The Marketplace of Ideas: Reform and Resistance in the American Universityshould be read by every student thinking of applying to take a doctoral degree. They may then decide to go elsewhere. For something curious has been happening in American Universities, and Louis Menand, a professor of English at Harvard University, captured it skillfully.

G → 41. →42. → E →43. →44. →45.