1 . Binge-watching (刷剧) is when a person watches more than one episode of a show in a row. With developments in the speed and connectivity of the Internet, increases in technology and the rise of on-demand entertainment companies, people can now have their favorite shows stream (流播) directly to their television at their convenience.
This behavior is nothing new. In fact, binge-watching has been officially listed in dictionaries since 2015. The entertainment companies recognize this behavior and many take steps to encourage it. Often, instead of releasing each episode on a week-by-week basis, an entire series will become available concurrently. Once the episode finishes, many platforms will display pop-ups with “you might like” suggestions, or will automatically play the next episode.
However, recent research suggests that out of the more than half of British adults who watch more than one episode of a show back-to-back (一集接一集地), almost a third have admitted missing sleep or becoming tired as a result; and 25% have neglected their household chores (家务活). Next we’ll be missing work!
Bingeing has other connections — binge eating, binge drinking and binge smoking. All of them are often associated with a lack of control and a possible route to addiction. Lindsey Fussell, consumer group director, said, “The days of waiting a week for the next episode are largely gone, with people finding it hard to resist (抗拒) watching multiple episodes around the house or on the move.” If people find binge-watching hard to resist, are we witnessing the birth of a new type of addiction?
The countless number of information and entertainment that television and online media can bring us is, many would say, a good thing. However, when the activity begins to bleed into other areas, causing us to stop functioning, then it becomes a problem. So, what’s the answer? Moderation! Neither a tiny amount, nor too much. After all, as the old proverb says, “A little of what you fancy does you good.”
1. How did the writer develop the first paragraph?A.By giving a definition. | B.By telling a story. |
C.By listing some examples. | D.By analyzing the cause and effect. |
A.For convenience. | B.At the same time. |
C.In detail. | D.Free of charge. |
A.people can’t control their feelings | B.people can’t resist the temptation of Bingeing |
C.people have no patience to do work | D.people are addicted to waiting for a new episode |
A.To keep online media from stopping functioning. |
B.To enjoy entertainment as much as possible. |
C.To learn life lessons from the episodes. |
D.To watch episodes in a moderate way. |
2 . After more than a year of pandemic, after months of an aggressive vaccination campaign, the United States should finally be better prepared to protect itself against the coronavirus. Nearly all of our long-term-care residents are vaccinated. Tens of millions of other people have been vaccinated, and tens of millions more have some level of immunity from previous infection. With more people protected, a new surge could behave differently, but early signals from the states with rising case numbers suggest that this will not universally be the case.
Just look at Michigan, the leading edge of this new surge. Cases are going up quickly, and hospital admissions are moving in lockstep (步伐一致) —just as they have in past surges. This is a bit of a surprise. The United States is entering a new phase of the pandemic. Although we’ve previously described the most devastating (毁灭性的) periods as “waves” and “surges,” the more proper metaphor now is a tornado: Some communities won’t see the storm, others will be well fortified against disaster, and the most at-risk places will be crushed. The virus has never hit all places equally, but the remarkable protection of the vaccines, combined with the new attributes of the variants. has created a situation where the pandemic will disappear, but only in some places. The pandemic is or will soon be over for a lot of people in well-resourced (实力雄厚的), heavily vaccinated communities. In places where vaccination rates are low and risk remains high, more people will join the 550,000 who have already died.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky spent her weekly press conference on Monday pleading with the American people, noting “the recurring feeling I have of coming doom (厄运).” She asked the country to “work together to prevent a fourth surge.” Three distinct factors are now shaping this country’s pandemic experience.
First, the United States did a terrible job preventing transmission (传染) of the disease. The country’s level of excess death has been high, signaling that the pandemic’s true toll has been even steeper than the officially released COVID-19 deaths. Most other countries did not experience the same levels of consistent transmission. Most estimates place the number closer to 100 million, and possibly tens of millions more.
Second, the U.S. is vaccinating people quite efficiently. It has given out the largest absolute number of doses (药的一剂) in the world. Almost three-quarters of the U.S. population over 65 has received at least one dose of the vaccine, with nearly half now fully vaccinated. On a percentage basis, the U.S. has immunized nearly three times the number of people that Germany, Italy, and France have, and in two months, the U.S. will almost certainly have a very large percentage of vaccinated adults.
Third, the virus has had staggeringly unequal effects on the American population. For a person of a given age, the risk for certain racial and ethnic groups is several times that of a white person. Native American, Latino, Pacific Islander, and Black communities have suffered large and deadly outbreaks across the country. Racialized economic hierarchy (等级制度) as well as, perhaps, distrust of the medical establishment-are holding down vaccination rates in poorer places with less access to care. So some communities have both higher risk and fewer fully protected people.
This all makes for an extremely messy and volatile (不稳定的) current situation. The first two factors mean that some places, such as California, will see the pandemic’s worst pressures fade. But where the virus is already spreading quickly, the danger is still high, and the days are running out to slow transmission via vaccination. So far, the fatality (死亡) numbers have not turned upward. Now we can only wait to see if deaths will follow hospital admissions at the pace of past surges—or if something has changed.
1. It can be inferred from the case of Michigan that _________.A.Michigan has an edge in bringing the pandemic under control |
B.more patients are receiving proper medical treatment in hospitals |
C.a new surge in cases and hospital admissions is unexpected and scary |
D.a growing number of residents have been immune to the infection |
A.the tornado that strikes during the pandemic makes people suffer more |
B.the measures to fight the coronavirus produce uneven results in different areas |
C.some poor communities are protected while some areas most at-risk are crushed |
D.the crushing effects of the pandemic will last as long as the tornado effects do |
①less access to medical care
②inaccurate estimates of death tolls
③distrust of governmental policies
④disadvantaged socio-economic status of ethnic groups
⑤a larger percentage of vaccinated adults
⑥efficient prevention of the transmission
A.①②③④⑤ | B.①②③④ | C.①②④⑤ | D.①②③④⑥ |
A.Frustrated. | B.Optimistic. | C.Indifferent. | D.Desperate. |
3 . Moving around Bogota can be a bit of a Jekyll-or-Hyde experience. On the one hand, the city is infamous (声名狼藉的)for having the world’s worst traffic. Yet, on the other, its cycling infrastructure is considered a good model of sustainable urban mobility, according to the Copenhagenize Index, which ranks bike-friendly cities. The Colombian capital generated a now-international movement in the 1970s called Ciclovia, which sees 1.5 million people cycle across 128km of car-free streets each Sunday morning.
So, when the pandemic reached its shores in mid-March, Bogota Mayor Claudia Lopez, an avid cyclist herself, introduced one of the world’s first plans to encourage bike travel, using traffic cones to create 76 km of temporary lanes.
“Everyone started using a bicycle, and they already knew how to get around on one because we have this bike culture thanks to the Ciclovia,” says Carlos Pardo, a local cycling advocate and senior advisor at the New Urban Mobility Alliance. Pardo got involved at the beginning of the pandemic by partnering with a local bikeshare company to provide 400 free e-bikes to health workers. Now, he’s busy persuading the public that the government’s new bike lanes should become permanent fixture (固定设施).
“Some drivers say, ‘you took away our lane’, but we’re saying, we took one car lane and made a two-lane bidirectional bike lane,” he explains. “So, you’re duplicating the effectiveness of the space, and moving more people per hour, per direction.”
Biking has enjoyed a renaissance (复兴) around the world as urban citizens avoid public transport for the relative safety of a two-wheeled commute. Now, many advocates like Pardo are working with local governments in the hope of turning these pandemic-response measures into lasting changes—ones that are more plausible now than ever after lockdowns provided an unprecedented (空前的)opportunities to fast-track infrastructure trials. The results of these urban planning experiments could not only radically shape the way we commute across global cities, but also make them more adaptable to future shocks.
1. What can best illustrate the underlined sentence?A.Much knowledge that is of help in learning about a new place. |
B.A mixed feeling that is too confusing to express themselves. |
C.An understanding that everything has both advantages and disadvantages. |
D.An idea that human beings are born somewhere between good and evil. |
A.The outbreak of the pandemic in mid-March. |
B.The worldwide bike culture dating back to the 1970s. |
C.The government’s support for the temporary bike lanes. |
D.The local bike company’s contribution to health workers. |
A.The increasing number of cyclists. | B.Duplicated effectiveness of road use. |
C.A well-rounded city expansion plan. | D.The growth of car ownership. |
A.Urban life. | B.Politics. | C.Sports | D.Advice column. |
4 . In the days before the Internet, critical thinking was the most important skill of informed citizens. But in the digital age, according to Anastasia Kozyreva, a psychologist at the Max Planck Institute of Human Development, and her colleagues, an even more important skill is critical ignoring.
As the researchers point out, we live in an attention economy where content producers on the Internet compete for our attention. They attract us with a lot of emotional and eye-catching stories while providing little useful information, so they can expose us to profit-generating advertisements. Therefore,we are no longer customers but products, and each link we click is a sale of our time and attention. Toprotect ourselves from this, Kozyreva advocates for learning the skill of critical ignoring, in which readers intentionally control their information environment to reduce exposure to false and low-quality information.
According to Kozyreva, critical ignoring comprises three strategies. The first is to design ourenvironments, which involves the removal of low-quality yet hard-to-resist information from around. Successful dieters need to keep unhealthy food out of their homes. Likewise, we need to set up a digital environment where attention-grabbing items are kept out of sight. As with dieting, if one tries to bank onwillpower not to click eye-catching “news”, he’ll surely fail. So, it’s better to just keep them out of sightto begin with.
The next is to evaluate the reliability of information, whose purpose is to protect you from false and misleading information. It can be realized by checking the source in the mainstream news agencies which have their reputations for being trustworthy.
The last goes by the phrase “do not feed the trolls.” Trolls are actors who internationally spread false and hurtful information online to cause harm. It may be appealing to respond to them to set the facts straight, but trolls just care about annoying others rather than facts. So, it’s best not to reward their bad behaviour with our attention.
By sharpening our critical ignoring skills in these ways, we can make the most of the Internet while avoiding falling victim to those who try to control our attention, time, and minds.
1. What can we learn about the attention economy from paragraph 2?A.It offers little information. | B.It features depressing stories. |
C.It saves time for Internet users. | D.It seeks profits from each click. |
A.To discuss the quality of information |
B.To prove the benefits of healthy food. |
C.To show the importance of environments. |
D.To explain the effectiveness of willpower. |
A.Reveal their intention. | B.Turn a deaf ear to them. |
C.Correct their behaviour. | D.Send hard facts to them. |
A.Reasons for critical thinking in the attention economy. |
B.Practising the skill of critical ignoring in the digital age. |
C.Maximizing the benefits of critical ignoring on the Internet. |
D.Strategies of abandoning critical thinking for Internet users |
5 . For every one article on some positive aspect, some positive element of life, wellbeing, satisfaction, joy, happiness, you get 21 articles on depression, anxiety and so on. Ratio of 21 to 1. Studies focus primarily on what doesn’t work. And this is not a new phenomenon. The science of psychology (心理) has been far more successful on the negative than on the positive side. It has revealed to us much more about man’s shortcomings, his illnesses, but little about his potentialities, his virtues or his psychological height. We study a lot of depression and anxiety, misjudgments and errors, very much focusing on this aspect and very little on the positive. If you had a person who 21 hours in a day was depressed and one hour in a day felt good or one day feeling good and then 21 days feeling anxious and depressed, you would say that this person would need help. And I think psychology needs help.
Today depression is 10 times higher than it was in 1960. Now part of it is because there’s more awareness, because we measure better. But that’s not all. It’s also simply because objectively there’s more depression. The average age for depression today is less than 15. Kids at very young age are introduced to the “information highway”. And very often, they are not prepared, not able to deal with it in an effective way.
As a result, when we look at this data, we say we do need more research to help people overcome depression or anxiety. And there seems nothing wrong about that.
According to the studies, 47% Harvard students over the past year have experienced depression to the point of not functioning. So they couldn’t leave home. They were really struggling to just basically get through the day. Now this is not unique to United States. We have a global epidemic here. And once again going back: Is the 21: 1 ratio good? How can we even think about studying happiness and well-being and love and joy?
What I’m going to argue for is that we do need to also focus on the positive. I am going to talk about three reasons why we should do that. The first reason is that it is important to focus on what works, because what works or what we focus on rather creates reality. If we focus on what is working, we’ll have more working in our world, more working in ourselves, more working in our relationships. The second reason why positive psychology as an independent field of study is important is that being happy is not just the negative statement of depression. It doesn’t mean just getting rid of depression or anxiety that I am experiencing so I spontaneously (自然而然) become happy. That’s not the case. That’s not how it works. And finally, prevention, which is the most effective way of preventing hardship, is actually realized by focusing on and cultivating the positive. So for these three reasons, we need positive psychology.
1. By using the ratio of 21 to 1, the author means in fact that ________.A.on an average a person is depressed 21 hours a day and feels good one hour |
B.most articles and studies focus primarily on what goes wrong |
C.the science of psychology has revealed human’s nature |
D.nearly half of Harvard and nationwide students suffer from depression |
A.The reason for more measures. | B.The need for doing with depression. |
C.The reason for more depression. | D.The need for taking some measures. |
A.Prevention by focusing on and cultivating the positive feelings. |
B.Offering various ways of overcoming the negative feelings. |
C.Focusing on what is working to have more working in our life. |
D.Being happy is not equal to avoiding being unhappy. |
A.It is essential for our research to focus more on the bright side. |
B.There is no need for the science of psychology to deal with the negative side. |
C.The conflict between the negative psychology and positive one can’t be avoided. |
D.We have to remove depression completely for the purpose of being happy. |
6 . Social media is taking over our lives: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and now, TikTok. These social media platforms have changed from a way to stay connected to an industry where even kids can make money off their posts. While this may seem like another opportunistic innovation, it’s really full of hidden false realities.
The median income (中位收入) recorded in the United States of America was about $63,000 in 2018. TikTokers can make anywhere from $50,000 to $150,000 for a TikTok brand partnership, and TikTokers with over a million followers can make up to $30,000 a month—$360,000 a year. They are making more than the average person trying to feed their family and keep a roof over their heads simply by posting a 15-second video.
This is mad in more ways than one. Not only is it an overpaid “job”, it promotes undeserved admiration from viewers and a false sense of reality. Many of these famous TikTokers are still teens and the effects of fame at such an early stage in life might cause issues later in life, such as mental illness. Teens between the ages of 13 and 17 make up 27% of TikTok viewers, who can be easily influenced by what they are watching. They can put a false sense of self-value into who they look up to and what they represent: money, fame, being considered conventionally attractive.
While TikTok has become a great tool for marketing, it’s important to understand how this content affects young viewers. If we’re constantly consuming content that shows us all we need to do to be successful is be conventionally attractive and post a 15-second video featuring a new dance, it will challenge our knowledge of what really makes someone successful and will in turn affect our individual work ethnics (伦理). What about the people who miss birthdays and family holidays due to their jobs and aren’t getting paid nearly as much as these TikTokers?
Richard Colyer, president and creator of Metaphor, Inc, had his own view on this issue. “It sounds great that kids can make money for doing the latest dance moves in a 15-second video, but we should feed the minds of kids and not just their bank accounts. TikTok can be great if used properly. Money alone is not good; technology alone is not good and connectedness can be bad if it is only online.”
Again, as a fellow consumer of TikTok, I do enjoy the app when I have some time to kill and need a good laugh. I’m not against someone making a living on entertainment, but what does getting famous by posting a 15-second video teach young people?
1. What does the underlined word “this” in Paragraph 1 refer to?A.Social networking. |
B.A job offered by TikTok. |
C.Making money on social media. |
D.Staying connected to the Internet. |
A.TikTokers can hardly make ends meet. |
B.Social media platforms like TikTok can make people overpaid. |
C.Teens are wise to make a huge amount of money from TikTok. |
D.TikTokers earn such a high income that they can support their family. |
A.They are likely to develop false values. |
B.They tend to live an adult life too soon. |
C.They are forced to pay for certain services. |
D.They may stop believing other social media. |
A.Contents of videos need checking before their release online. |
B.We have a responsibility to supply teens with food for thought. |
C.Young TikTokers should be banned from opening bank accounts. |
D.Money and technology can be good if used properly by TikTokers. |
7 . Have you ever made your life look a little more attractive on social media than it actually is? If so, you may be damaging your mental health.
The posts we make on social media platforms allow us to look back and see what we did on a given day. But what happens when, in an effort to impress our online friends, photos and videos we post become beautiful versions of the things we did?
A young girl named Sophia went out to a romantic anniversary dinner with her boyfriend, had a near relationship-ending fight during dessert, then came home and posted, “Had the best time out with the love of my life!”—even with a photo of the meal. No surprise, but according to a new study, Sophia was by no means unique. Two-thirds of users admit lying about their lives on social media with 20 percent of young people between the ages of 18 and 24 stating that they edit their own stories by frequently lying about relationships and promotions.
By beautifying our online stories, we are harming our memories. We start believing the stories we tell rather than remembering what really has happened. Soon, the real experience is lost and all that remains is the beautified version of history.
Scientists fear that these edited stories will end up changing our memories. It’s well confirmed through research that our own memories are often unreliable and can be easily controlled. Writing down one’s life in the form of a journal, or even on social media can help us keep our memories undamaged, but only if we tell the truth. And recording our experiences through whatever medium, to later recall lessons we have learned, is not only acceptable but desirable. In fact, looking back on our own past—however embarrassing or uncomfortable—is not just healthy but can be enjoyable.
1. Why did Sophia post her story with a photo of the meal?A.To make herself attractive. | B.To show her photography skill. |
C.To convince others of her story. | D.To show how amazing the meal was. |
A.Encouraging. | B.Critical. | C.Humorous. | D.Enthusiastic. |
A.recalling the unpleasant past can also be enjoyable |
B.writing down our life on social media does no good to us |
C.recording our experiences through media is unacceptable |
D.editing our own stories will make us unreliable |
A.Leaving others a good impression is desirable. |
B.Editing our online stories weakens our memory. |
C.Posting our experiences on social media is risky. |
D.Beautifying our history ends up hurting ourselves. |
8 . Public distrust of scientists stems in part from the blurring of boundaries between science and technology, between discovery and manufacture. Most governments, perhaps all governments, justify public expenditure on scientific research in terms of the economic benefits the scientific enterprise has brought in the past and will bring in the future. Politicians remind their voters of the splendid machines “our scientists” have invented, the new drugs to relieve old disorders, and the new surgical equipment and techniques by which previously unmanageable conditions may now be treated and lives saved. At the same time, the politicians demand of scientists that they tailor their research to “economics needs”, and that they award a higher priority to research proposals that are “near the market” and can be translated into the greatest return on investment in the shortest time. Dependent, as they are, on politicians for much of their funding, scientists have little choice but to comply. Like the rest of us, they are members of a society that rates the creation of wealth as the greatest possible good. Many have reservations, but keep them to themselves in what they perceive as a climate hostile to the pursuit of understanding for its own sake and the idea of an inquiring, creative spirit.
In such circumstances no one should be too hard on people who are suspicious of conflicts of interest. When we learn that the distinguished professor assuring us of the safety of a particular product holds a consultancy with the company making it, we cannot be blamed for wondering whether his fee might conceivably cloud his professional judgment. Even if the professor holds no consultancy with any firm, some people may still distrust him because of his association with those who do, or at least wonder about the source of some of his research funding.
This attitude can have damaging effects. It questions the integrity of individuals working in a profession that prizes intellectual honesty as the supreme virtue, and plays into the hands of those who would like to discredit scientists by representing them as corruptible. This makes it easier to dismiss all scientific pronouncements, but especially those made by the scientists who present themselves as “experts”. The scientist most likely to understand the safety of a nuclear reactor, for example, is a nuclear engineer, and a nuclear engineer is most likely to be employed by the nuclear industry. If a nuclear engineer declares that a reactor is unsafe, we believe him, because clearly it is not to his advantage to lie about it. If he tells us it is safe, on the other hand, we distrust him, because he may well be protecting the employer who pays his salary.
1. What is the chief concern of most governments when it comes to scientific research?A.The decline of public expenditure. | B.Quick economic returns. |
C.The budget for a research project. | D.Support from the voters. |
A.They realize they work in an environment hostile to the free pursuit of knowledge. |
B.They know it takes incredible patience to win support from the public. |
C.They think compliance with government policy is in the interests of the public. |
D.They are accustomed to keeping their opinions secrets to themselves. |
A.some of them do not give priority to intellectual honesty |
B.sometimes they hide the source of their research funding |
C.they could be influenced by their association with the project concerned |
D.their pronouncements often turn out to be short-sighted and absurd |
A.Scientists themselves may doubt the value of their research findings. |
B.It may wear out the enthusiasm of scientists for independent research. |
C.It makes things more trivial for scientists to seek research funds. |
D.People will not believe scientists even when they tell the truth. |
9 . You are given many opportunities in life to choose to be a victim or creator. When you choose to be a victim, the world is a cold and difficult place. “They” did things to you which caused all of your pain and suffering. “They” are wrong and bad, and life is terrible as long as “they” are around. Or you may blame yourself for all your problems, thus internalizing (内化) your victimization (受害). The truth is, your life is likely to stay that way as long as you feel a need to blame yourself or others.
Those who choose to be creators look at life quite differently. They know there are individuals who might like to control their lives, but they don’t let this get in the way. They know they have their weaknesses, yet they don’t blame themselves when they fail. Whatever happens, they have choice in the matter. They believe their dance with each sacred (神圣的) moment of life is a gift and that storms are a natural part of life which can bring the rain needed for emotional and spiritual growth.
Victims and creators live in the same physical world and deal with many of the same physical realities, yet their experience of life is worlds apart. Victims relish (沉溺) in anger, guilt, and other emotions that cause others—and even themselves—to feel like victims, too. Creators consciously choose love, inspiration, and other qualities which inspire not only themselves, but all around them. Both victims and creators always have choice to determine the direction of their lives.
In reality, all of us play the victim or the creator at various points in our lives. One person, on losing a job or a special relationship, may feel as if it is the end of the world and sink into terrible suffering for months, years, or even a lifetime. Another with the same experience may choose to first experience the grief, then accept the loss and soon move on to be a powerful creative force in his life.
In every moment and every circumstance, you can choose to have a fuller, richer life by setting a clear intention to transform the victim within, and by inviting into your life the powerful creator that you are.
1. In what way is a creator different from a victim?A.A creator is given more challenges. |
B.Failure seldom comes to a creator. |
C.Storms are beneficial in a creator’s eyes. |
D.A victim hardly blames others for their own faults. |
A.They seldom make careless mistakes. |
B.The world seems a cold and difficult place. |
C.Life is blessed with fewer opportunities than expected. |
D.They don’t care what happens to them but think positively. |
A.Tim failed his exam and thought he would never pass it. |
B.Sam lost his job and abandoned himself to drinking for months. |
C.J. K. Rowling was rejected by a publisher and yet went on writing. |
D.Jessica broke up with her husband and chose to give up her own life. |
A.Benefits Of Being A Creator | B.Creators: Act Now Or Never |
C.Creator Or Victim: Up To You | D.Ways To Transform A Victim Into A Creator |
10 . Women are still underrepresented in top academic positions. One of the possible explanations for this is the increasing importance of obtaining research funding. Women are often less successful in this than men. Psychology researchers Dr. Romy van der Lee and professor Naomi Ellemers investigated whether this difference also occurs at the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and examined potential explanations.
The researchers were assigned by NWO to carry out this study as part of the broader evaluation of NWO’s procedures and its gender diversity policy. The aim was to gain more insight into the causes of the differences in awarding rates for male and female applicants for research funding. The analysis addressed an important “talent programme” of NWO, the Veni grant. “Whoever receives this grant has a greater chance of obtaining an important appointment at a university, ” says Naomi Ellemers.
Van der Lee and Ellemers investigated all the applications submitted by male and female researchers over a period of three years: a total of 2823 applications. Under the direction of NWO these applications were assessed by scientific committees consisting of men and women. The results demonstrate that the awarding rates for female applicants (14.9%) are systematically lower than those for male applicants (17.7%). “If we compare the proportion of women among the applicants with the proportion of women among those awarded funding, we see a loss of 4%,” said Ellemers.
The study reveals that women are less positively evaluated for their qualities as researcher than men are, “Interestingly the research proposals of women and men are evaluated equally positively. In other words, the reviewers see no difference in the quality of the proposals that men and women submit,” says Romy van der Lee.
In search for a possible cause for the differences in awarding rates and evaluations, the researchers also investigated the language use in the instructions and forms used to assess the quality of applications. This clearly revealed the occurrence of gendered language. The words that are used to indicate quality are frequently words that were established in previous research as referring mainly to the male gender stereotype (such as challenging and excellent). Romy van der Lee explains: “As a result, it appears that men more easily satisfy the assessment criteria, because these better fit the characteristics stereoty-pically associated with men.”
In response to the results of this research, NWO will devote more attention to the gender awareness of reviewers in its methods and procedures. It will also be investigated which changes to the assessment procedures and criteria can most strongly contribute to more equal chances for men and women to obtain research funding. This will include an examination of the language used by NWO. NWO chair Jos Engelens said, “The research has yielded valuable results and insights. Based on the recommendations made by the researchers we will therefore focus in the coming period on the development of evidence-based measures to reduce the difference in awarding rates.”
1. Van der Lee and Ellemers carried out the research to find out whether _________.A.women are less successful than men in top academic positions |
B.female applicants are at a disadvantage in getting research funding |
C.NOW’s procedures and gender diversity policy enhance fair play |
D.there are equal chances for men and women to be admitted to a university |
A.grant receivers were more likely to get appointments at universities |
B.men applicants for research funding outnumbered women applicants |
C.the research proposals of women are equally treated with those of men |
D.the reviewers have narrow, prejudiced conceptions of women candidates |
A.The words used in the instructions and forms. |
B.The reviewers’ preference to applications. |
C.The methods and procedures for evaluation. |
D.The vague and unclear assessment criteria. |
A.Eliminate possibilities for difference in awarding rates. |
B.Design a language examination for all the reviewers. |
C.Emphasize the importance of gender awareness. |
D.Improve the assessment procedures and criteria. |