Text 2
All around the world, lawyers generate more hostility than the members of any other profession --- with the possible exception of journalism. But there are few places where clients have more grounds for complaint than America.
During the decade before the economic crisis, spending on legal services in America grew twice as fast as inflation. The best lawyers made skyscrapers-full of money. Tempting ever more students to pile into law schools. But most law graduates never get a big-firm job. Many of them instead become the kind of nuisance-lawsuit filer that makes the tort system a costly nightmare.
There are many reasons for this. One is the excessive costs of a legal education. There is just one path for a lawyer in most American states; a four-year undergraduate degree in some unrelated subject, then a three-year law degree at one of 200 law schools authorized by the American Bar Association and an expensive preparation for the bar exam. This leaves today’s average law-school graduate with $100,000 of debt on top of undergraduate debts. Law-school debt means that they have to work fearsomely hard.
Reforming the system would help both lawyers and their customers. Sensible ideas have been around for a long time, but the state-level bodies that govern the profession have been too conservative to implement them. One idea is to allow people to study law as an undergraduate degree. Another is to let students sit for the bar after only two years of law school. If the bar exam is truly a stern enough test for a would-be lawyer, those who can sit it earlier should be allowed to do so. Students who do need the extra training could cut their debt mountain by a third.
The other reason why costs are so high is the restrictive guild-like ownership structure of the business. Except in the District of Columbia, non-lawyers may not own any share of a law firm. This keeps fees high and innovation slow. There is pressure for change from within the profession, but opponents of change among the regulators insist that keeping outsiders out of a law firm isolates lawyers from the pressure to make money rather than serve clients ethically.
In fact, allowing non-lawyers to own shares in law firms would reduce costs and improve services to customers, by encouraging law firms to use technology and to employ professional managers to focus on improving firms’ efficiency . After all, other countries, such as Australia and Britain, have stared liberalizing their legal professions. America should follow.
26. A lot of students take up law as their profession due to
[A] the growing demand from clients
[B] the increasing pressure of inflation
[C] the prospect of working in big firms
[D] the attraction of financial rewards
27. which of the following adds to the costs of legal education in most American states?
[A] Higher tuition fees for undergraduate studies
[B] Receiving training by professional associations
[C] Admissions approval from the bar association
[D] Pursuing a bachelors degree in another major
28. Hindrance to the reform of the legal system originates from
[A] the rigid bodies governing the profession
[B] lawyers’ and clients’ strong resistance
[C] the stern exam for would-be lawyers.
[D] non-professionals’ sharp criticism
29. The guild-like ownership structure is considered “restrictive”partly because
[A] prevents lawyers from gaining due profits.
[B] bans outsiders’ involvement in the profession.
[C] aggravates the ethical situation in the trade.
[D] keeps lawyers form lidding law-firm shares.
30. In the text ,the author mainly discusses.
[A] the factors that help make a successful lawyer in America.
[B] a problem in America’s legal profession ard solutions to it.
[C] the role undergraduate studies in America’s legal education.
[D] flawed ownership of America’s law firms and its causes.
Text 3
The US$3 million Fundamental Physics is indeed an interesting experiment, as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’s award in March. And it is fair from the only one of this type. As a New Feature article in Nature discusses, a string of lucrative awards for research have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years. Many, like the Fundamental Physics Prize, are funded from the telephones-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 Nobels. 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 ere some legitimate concerns about how science prize-both new and old –are distributed. The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what the life science include. But the Nobel Foundation’s limit 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 Nobel 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 science may complain about the new awards, two things seem clear. First, most researchers would accept such a prize of they were offered one. Second, it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather 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 handsome reward for researchers.
[C] a possible replacement of the Nobel Prizes.
[D] an example of bankers’investments.
32. The critics think that the new awards will most benefit
[A] the profit-oriented scientists.
[B] the achievement-based system.
[C] the founders of the new awards
[D] peer-review-led research.
33. The discovery of the Higgs boson is a typical case which involves
[A] legitimate concerns over the new prizes.
[B] controversies over the recipients's status.
[C] the joint effort of modern researchers.
[D] the demonstration of research finding.
34. According to Paragraph 4, which of the following is true of the Nobels?
[A] History has never cast doubt on them.
[B] their endurance has done justice to them.
[C] They are the most representative honor.
[D] Their legitimacy has long been in dispute.
35. The author believes that the new awards are
[A] unworthy of public attention.
[B] subject to undesirable changes .
[C] harmful to the culture of research.
[D] acceptable despite the criticism.
考研频道推荐链接：
| 考研英语真题 | 考研数学真题 | 政治真题 | 专业课真题 | ||||
| 英语一真题 | 英语二真题 | 数学一真题 | 数学二真题 | 数学三真题 | 数农真题 | ||
| 考研英语答案 | 考研数学答案 | 政治答案 | 专业课答案 | ||||
| 英语一答案 | 英语二答案 | 数学一答案 | 数学二答案 | 数学三答案 | 数农答案 | ||