Directions: For this part, you are allowed 30 minutes to write a short essay entitled Craze for Match-making. You should write at least 150 words following the outline given below :
Craze for Match-making
How to Build a Winning Team
Winning is about leading your people. And about leading them in four very specific ways.
If you travel around the how-to-succeed-in-business lecture circuit enough, which we both happen to do, you end uphearing a lot of interesting stuff about competitive strategy, disruptive (颠倒性的) technologies, resource allocation, asset management, and the like.
Interesting--and sort of beside the point. Because when it's all said and done, winning teams win because they have the best players and a coach who knows how to make the sum greater than the parts.
It's as simple and as complicated as that. Simple because as soon as people hear that statement, they typically mutter, "Oh, yeah." It's hardly a controversial notion that great players plus a great coach equal great performance.
Complicated, though, because actually doing it is so hard. We get distracted. The board wants a presentation, or a customer is getting annoyed. Or we lose our nerve. Or we get tired. Whatever: something, anything, makes us forget that winning is about leading your people. And about leading them in four very specific ways.
FIRST, the leaders of winning teams always--always--let their people know where they stand.
We're not talking about "Good job, Sally", or "Thanks for your hard work, Tom". Effective leaders let their people know whether they are star performers without whom the organization would suffer agony or whether they should bethinking seriously about finding another job.
Amazingly--to us, at least--the habit of continuously evaluating each team member is a rare and wonderful thing. Sure, leaders evaluate their people all the time--but they too seldom share those observations with the team members themselves. In the silence, stars become disaffected and leave seeking more appreciation, either in the soul or the wallet, or both. Mean while, the solid center wanders around in undirected ignorance, and the real underperformers drive their teammates crazy because others must carry their load.
By contrast, on winning teams, leaders spend the vast majority of their time showering love on top performers. Yes, love: rewarding them for every contribution, building their self-confidence so they have the courage to take on even greater challenges, and holding them up as a role model for others on the team. Similarly, on winning teams, leaders devote a lot of energy to middling performers, strictly coaching. And as for the do-nothings: leaders face into these individuals with a sense of reality, spending only the time to help them put together a résué and find a job where they will be more successful.
Unfortunately, in most organizations, managers spend an excessive amount of time working around their worst people, rearranging work to accommodate their incompetence. They also spend a lot of hours worrying about how they can possibly break it to their underperformers that they're terrible at their jobs without hurting their feelings. It's all backward. Rather than hurting their feelings, you're doing your underperformers a favor if you let them know they need to go, and the sooner the better, before they have to look for work in a recession.
SECOND, winning teams know the game plan.
There's never been a Super Bowl team that charged the field thinking. We'll figure this out as it goes along and see what happens. And there will never be a winning business team that lacks a clear sense of how the competition thinks and fights--and how it's going to think and fight better. Nor has there ever been a winning team that didn't believe that winning would make life much, much better in very real ways.
Don't get us wrong. We're not huge fans of strategic planning as it is commonly taught in business school, nor as it is practiced in too many companies. Lengthy reports about strategy from headquarters or consultants--in particular, those that involve PowerPoint slides--frankly scare us. No, in today's global market, strategy means picking a general direction and executing like hell. And that's what winning teams do.
Here's the problem. Most leaders explain the game plan in vague terms. "We need to gain market share. That's going to mean beating Acme Widgets," they might say. "Everybody's quota is going to be doubled, Change is hard, but it's necessary. Go get 'em." Ready, forward--what?
On winning teams, leaders fill their people with crazy-positive enthusiasm about what winning will look like for the company and, more important(as it's often forgotten), for them as individuals. "Look, Acme's killing us," they might say." Their on-time delivering makes us look like we're driving horses and carriages around here. But we can beat them by coming up with a better idea for efficiency every single day. And when that happens, your life is going to change and everything is going to get better. Our company will start to grow again; you'll have more job security and a chance for advancement. Even though we're going to enter into a long, hard period of change ahead, at the other end of it, you'll be smarter, richer, and your life will be more exciting."
Clarity. Direction. Outcome.
Ready, forward, charge.
THIRD, winning teams are honest.
Or let us be more precise. On every single winning team, you will discover that the leader is frank and honest; he rewards everyone else who is frank and honest, and outs the people who aren't candid. Oh, sure, there are exceptions. But in time, they always backfire. Because when people don't say what they mean, play politics, or withhold their ideas, everything gets screwed up. Resentments accumulate. Cliques (小集团)form. Good people leave. Work slows down.
By contrast, the simple truth is that frankness breeds trust. And when a team is filled with trust, people play to their better angels. They share ideas freely. They help their colleagues when they're stuck and need an insight. What they do every day then becomes about the group's success, not their own. They're not worried about not getting the credit for some big win; they know a teammate will say something like," Hey, don't thank me. Cary was the one that set the whole thing in motion." And Cary will say, "Thanks. I may have had the idea, but you executed."
The honesty-trust connection has another benefit., it promotes an environment of risk-taking. Who wants to try something new if they sense they'll get a stick in the eye(or worse)should they fail? Leaders of winning teams encourage their people to take on huge challenges and let them know that they're safe no matter what happens. And then they make good on their word.
Only in such environments will people be bold. And only bold teams win. FOURTH, and finally, winning teams celebrate.
No idea we talk about gives people trouble more than this one. Maybe it has something to do with the recession" How can you party in times of bleak economic conditions?"--but people stopped celebrating even before the economy went worse.
Most leaders don't understand the tight link between celebrating small successes along the way and achieving the big one at the end. But it's beyond question. Teams that get pizza when they land a new client, or go on trips when they hit a sales milestone create a delicious dynamic. They teach people what it feels like to win, which is, well, a very good feeling. It makes people want to win more. In fact, they never want the feeling to go away. So they do everything to keep winning.
We would call it magic, except there's nothing mysterious about it. Like all four of our sayings here, the only mystery about winning teams, really, is why there aren't more of them.
What is the main topic of this passage?
A How to become a best player in your team.
B How to become successful in business.
C How to lead your team to achieve success.
D How to make your team win in a match.
Why is it hard to succeed in reality even with great players and a great coach?
A Something always makes us forget what winning is about.
B There are always some angry customers complaining.
C We are often asked to make presentations by the board.
D We cannot remember all the keys to success.
What is the consequence if a leader doesn't tell his people about his evaluation of them?
A All the team members will judge each other by themselves.
B Top employees will get disappointed and leave the company.
C Worst employees will get more encouragement to work harder.
D All the team members will work in a harmonious atmosphere.
As for the do-nothings, a great leader would______.
A spend more time to help them deal with great challenges
B rearrange the work to accommodate their incompetence
C help them find a new job where they will be more successful
D be careful not to hurt their feeling by saying something awful
The leaders on winning teams should not explain their plan______.
A in vague terms
B with clarity
C in a positive way
D too specifically
The simple truth of being frank is that______.
A teammates understand each other
B the leader can have an insight into the real problems
C team members can enjoy an open environment
D team members trust each other
Another advantage of establishing an honest team is that______.
A all members trust and help each other
B it encourages people to face new challenges
C it promotes friendship among team members
D no one lies to their partners in the team
Only in an honest team can people become______, which is a significant element of success.
People's not celebrating their successes has something to do with______.
Celebrating small successes teaches people how good winning feels like and this feeling makes people______.
A It took a long time to finish the building.
B He was too busy to notice the opening of the hotel.
C He did not know the hotel had a restaurant.
D He would like to meet the woman for brunch next Sunday.
A She admires Steven's relationship with his father.
B She does not know Steven or his father.
C Her daughter is older than Steven.
D She disagrees with the man.
A Buy stamps at the post office.
B Mail the woman's bill.
C Drive to the woman's house.
D Pick up a package from the post office.
A She reads more slowly than the man does.
B She has a lot of material to read before she has coffee.
C The man does more work than is necessary.
D The man is taking a long time preparing for philosophy class.
A He'll move into his new apartment in a couple of months.
B He'd like the woman to help him move into the apartment.
C He hopes Peter will move into the apartment soon.
D The apartment might be too expensive for him.
A Take a shorter route.
B Buy new sunglasses.
C Drive on a different road.
D Consider using Route 27.
A They should turn left when they see a stop sign.
B Fie does not have the directions with him.
C He does not see the stop sign yet.
D He does not know which way to go.
A The man and the woman use the same computer.
B The man can not help the woman.
C The woman can not turn off the computer.
D The man has helped the woman with her computer before.
A They may exaggerate the actual sports achievements.
B They can't get the exact first-hand information.
C They try to create images for artistic works.
D They can't distinguish right from wrong.
A Devoting full time to training.
B Altering genes to produce better athletes
C Developing new types of hi-tech equipments.
D Applying new ways in training athletes.
A The achievement athletes make.
B Sports achievement and human potential.
C Newspapers and TV reports.
D A science fiction about sports.
A He had a pilot's uniform.
B He had an ID for Pan Am Airline.
C He had a pilot bank account.
D He had gray hair.
A His successful release from arrest in Miami.
B His ambition to become successful in career.
C The pursuit of great fortune in his life.
D The suggestion from his lawyer when in prison.
A He worked in a consultant company.
B He worked in a government law office.
C He worked as a doctor.
D He worked as an official.
A Teach people how to avoid fraud,
B Train officials for the government.
C Train secret agents for FBI.
D Provide assistance for making laws.
A Junk food is connected with depression.
B Junk food can bring us much fun.
C Fats are harmful to human beings.
D Fats make people feel excited.
A None of them became the sufferers of depression.
B Most of them were troubled by depression.
C Some of them were diagnosed with depression.
D All of them were diagnosed with depression.
A Only 0.4 % of the Europeans' depression are caused by taking in trans-fats.
B Nearly 50% Europeans are suffering depression.
C Around 150 million people are depression sufferers now.
D Heart disease is caused by great depression.
A He was bit to death by a shark.
B He was drawn to death in the sea.
C He was attacked and hurt by a shark.
D His left leg was bit off by a shark.
A He caught the shark and pulled it onto the beach.
B He shot the shark dead.
C He split the shark's throat.
D He called the policeman.
A Sharks are always dangerous to attack.
B Man has infinite potentials facing danger.
C People should be careful when swimming.
D It's dangerous to swim in the sea.
There are four main learning styles: imaginative, analytic, common sense and dynamic. None of these four styles will fit a student perfectly. We are all(1)________of the four styles, but most of us will have one that feels like our best fit.
Imaginative learners are feeling people who get (2)________with others and learn best in (3)________that allow interpersonal relationships to develop. These (4)________and questioning learners learn by listening and sharing ideas. They see the broad (5)________or big picture much more easily than small details.
Analytic learners learn by watch and listening. They expect a teacher to be (6)________information giver, while they sit and carefully assess the value of the information presented. They are the students who learn in the way most teachers have (7)________taught, and so they are often considered the best learners.
Common sense learners like to play with ideas to see if they are rational and workable. These students want to test theory in the real world, to (8)________what has been learned. They love to get the job done. They are hands-on people who, using their ideas, can analyze problems and solve or fix them. (9)______________________________________________________________________
Dynamic learners (10)______________________________________________________________________. Dynamic learners excel in following hunches and sensing new directions and possibilities. (11)______________________________________________________________________ or putting their personal stamp of originality on an idea.
This week a new enrollment study by the Council of Graduate Schools confirmed that American women are now earning more doctoral degrees than men. The report notes that men continue to dominate in engineering, mathematics, and the physical and computer sciences.
These new numbers continue a trend that began in the late 1960s and early '70s,when more women started attending college with an eye toward a career rather than marriage immediately after graduation. As their numbers increased, more women also showed more interest in majors beyond teaching, nursing, and social work.
Between 1970 and 2000, the number of women in graduate and professional schools was also rapidly expanding. By the '90s,women were earning the majority of master's degrees, and over the last 10 years, became the majority in both medical and law schools. "This is part of a trend that we're seeing across education," says Hill. "More and more women are investing in education, in part because more and more women need to bring income into their households."
One place where women continue to be underrepresented, however, is among the nation's tenured (终身的)professors. Part of the problem, Hill says, is that "universities and colleges are replacing more of their primarily male full-time faculty with assistant and temporary positions" to save money. The result is that the few tenured positions that open up are more competitive than ever. "Tenure (教教授终身职位) is now set at a very high standard, "she says. "You can't just be good, you have to be exceptional."
"The main years when they are being evaluated for tenure--the first five to six years of their academic careers—tend to coincide with their early 30s, when many women want to start a family. They find themselves in a very tough time-squeeze," she says. "Some of the best scholars are excluded from the tenured ranks, not because they aren't the most talented or productive, but because these years are not representative of their entire career."
Now that women dominate the Ph. D. ranks, and more women are taking jobs as university presidents, maybe they can exert more influence over how tenure decisions are made in coming years, Hill adds. Even among the universities that are starting to offer some family flexibility to both male and female candidates, she says, many women are still waiting for proof that administrators "will honor those policies and won't unfairly treat people who take time to raise a family.
In the late 1960s and early '70s,more women attended college aiming at ______after graduation.
More and more women are investing in education, partly because they are expected to ______ into their family.
The replacement of universities' full-time faculty for assistants and temporary positions makes today's tenured positions more ______.
Some best female scholars are not tenured professors because the main evaluating years cannot represent ______.
Many women hope that the policies offering family flexibility can be honored and bring fair treatment to people who______.
Children who are verbally abused may suffer lasting negative effects in their brain's ability to process language, researchers report. They say the new findings illustrate the seriousness of this type of abuse and should encourage greater action to combat it.
Martin Teicher at Harvard Medical School and colleagues used an exhaustive questionnaire to select 17 people who had suffered severe verbal abuse in childhood but not other forms of abuse.
Experts define verbal abuse as frequent critical comments that are intended to diminish the victim's self-esteem, he explains. The team recruited 17 additional participants for the trial, who had suffered no such abuse.
Brain scans revealed that those who had experienced verbal abuse had a 10% reduction in the size of a brain region known as the right superior temporal gyrus (颞上回,形成大脑半球的组织), compared with those who had not been abused. This part of the brain contains a section responsible for auditory (听觉的)processing and is believed to help the brain understand the tone of speech.
Teicher speculates that verbal abuse might inhibit development in the superior temporal gyrus, perhaps by triggeringa pathway that stops growth hormones from reaching it.
The new experiment does not necessarily establish a causal link., the abnormalities could be a genetically inheritedtrait. But Teicher suspects the relationship is causal. For example, previous research has shown that victims of sexual abuse by non-relatives have decreased development in the visual processing parts of the brain, compared with people who have not suffered such abuse.
The brain abnormalities seen in the verbal abuse victims appear to be related to reduced language skills, Teicher adds. The subjects in the study who had experienced verbal abuse scored about 112 on a test of verbal IQ, on average, while their control counterparts had a score of about 124.
"I think they didn't reach their full potential," he says of the students who suffered verbal abuse and scored lower on the test.
The results are important because they contribute to a growing body of evidence that the stress caused by early abuse can disrupt the normal development of brain "circuits", says Barbara Rawn of Prevent Child Abuse America.
Teicher believes that parents have begun to grasp the negative effects of physically criticising their children, but he fears that parents may feel that no harm is done by frequently criticising their children with insulting comments.
"Verbal abuse really has a long-term effect on a child," says Rawn. "There's a lot of incredible anger that shows up in kids that have been told they are worth nothing." She adds that some children who have been verbally abused sometimes develop behavioural traits such as extreme aggression, or instead become overly obedient.
What can we learn about the new findings of the researchers?
A They call for tougher measures to fight against verbal abuse to children.
B The findings show no connection between verbal abuse and language processing ability.
C Those who are verbally abused only suffer temporary negative effects.
D The seriousness of verbal abuse has led researchers to do deeper research about it.
What do the brain scans tell us?
A People who were once verbally-abused had an increase in the brain size.
B Verbal abuse inhibits growing hormones from reaching to the brain.
C Verbal abuse keeps the brain from development.
D The verbally-abused may be worse in understanding the tone of speech.
Why does Teicher think there may be a causal link between the abnormalities and verbal abuse'?
A Similar relationships have been confirmed by previous research.
B The abnormalities seem to be related to the reduced language skills.
C The verbally-abused students scored lower in the verbal IQ test.
D The abnormalities could be a genetically inherited trait.
What is Teicher's concern about parents?
A Parents can't be responsible for raising a child both mentally and physically healthy.
B Parents haven't realized the importance of stopping criticizing child physically.
C Many parents may not realize the negative effects of verbal abuse.
D Parents may not want to pay much attention to children's mental health.
According to Rawn,what might be a long-term effect of verbal abuse on children?
A They may have extreme behavioural characters.
B They may conceal their emotions.
C They will not obey others.
D They may feel they worth nothing.
With the super-sizing of meals, restaurants found easy profits from consumers willing to pay a little extra to get what seemed like a lot more. Now, to appeal to health-conscious consumers who'd happily pass along the responsibility of trimming calories to someone else, restaurants and food manufacturers are rolling out snacks, beverages, and meals in tiny portions. And miniaturizing (小型化) could prove to be just as profitable as super-sizing.
Dairy Queen and Starbucks are among the eateries to have recently launched tiny menu item treats. These treats aren't expensive, but you get what you pay for. Actually, considering how small these menu items are, customers arguably get less than what they're paying for. But that seems to be OK to many consumers who accept the tradeoff of paying a premium in order to avoid eating more than they'd hope.
In terms of unit-size pricing, larger containers generally give more bang for the money. Everyone of a certain age must recall that 3-liter bottles of soda used to be the best drink choice at kids' birthday parties--because they offered better value than handing out individual cans to each child. Now you might be worried that each child would drink an entire 3-liter bottle himself. But with items in small containers, you're paying more for the packaging and less for the actual product. And why do we want that? "Americans don't want to think about it," says Carolyn Costin, a food psychologist. "We'd like to be able to stop in a place and have our food made, packaged and certified for us as just enough." He further explains.
In purely financial terms, the mini-treats, mini-meals, and mini-cans are bad deals. The trend is mostly good regardless. For decades, American consumers have gotten used to portions getting bigger and bigger, and the extras that used to be brought home in doggie bags seem to increasingly wind up finished in one sitting.
So, in the same way the best way to stop snacking, or smoking, or drinking is to get the snacks(or cigarettes or vodka)out of the house, there's some logic to handing off the calorie-intake responsibility to someone else. If the option to indulge and overdo things is removed, more people will refrain from indulging and overdoing things. That's good for their health, though not so good for getting the most value for their money.
Whether the goal is to save more or cut calories, self-control often comes up short. That's why every little bit of help helps.
Why do restaurants and food manufacturers make food in small portions?
A They can make more profits from it than from super-sizing one.
B They want to attract customers who are health-conscious.
C They would like to help the customers to lose weight.
D They do not have enough materials to produce large one for now.
What does the author mean by "larger containers generally give more bang for the money"(Line 1,Para. 3)?
A Larger containers are so fragile that they are easy to break.
B Larger containers usually cost more money.
C Larger containers can offer people more value than smaller ones.
D Larger containers enjoy great popularity among the people.
What do we learn about 3-liter bottles of soda according to the author?
A People of all age have memories of them.
B They are more expensive than actually valued.
C They used to be the most common beverage at kids' birthday parties.
D People always worry that children may drink too much of them.
According to Carolyn Costin, why do people don't care to pay more than what a smaller portion of food actually costs?
A Americans like mini-packed food and beverage more.
B Americans like to intake high-calorie and fast food.
C Americans do not care about money to some extent.
D Americans prefer food that is well-prepared and just enough.
Why does the author think getting the snacks out of house is the best way to stop snacking'?
A It deprives people of chances to indulge things.
B It help rid people out of calorie-intake responsibility.
C It adheres to the logic of saving money.
D It can give people choices of eating out.
As secretary of education, Arne Duncan is over ally responsible for grades K (kindergarten)through 12.
Some of the $ 4 billion funding-- (1) for innovations--has been used to encourage states to abolish laws that prohibited (2) teacher evaluations to students' achievements. It is, Duncan acknowledges, unfair for teachers to be held (3) for test scores of students from poor or broken homes, but it can be fair to link teachers' evaluations to students' improvements.
Children can meet many states' standards for (4) , Duncan says, and yet have no realistic (5) of flourishing in college. Indeed, he says," most " U. S. high-school graduates are "unprepared" for college.
Funding for grades K through 12 comes in large (6) from property taxes, and the housing crash (7) property valuations. But budget problems (8) municipalities (市政当局) can, Duncan thinks, have benefits because "when you're flush, you keep doing the same things".
America's per-pupil spending is higher than that of the other OECD(经合组织)nations (9) Luxembourg. "Students in Estonia and Poland, "Duncan says," (10) at roughly the same level as those in the U.S., (11) Estonia and Poland spend less than half as much per student." But many higher-performing countries (12) higher teacher salaries rather than smaller class sizes.
Although teachers' unions are eager to (13) class sizes, thereby increasing the demand for more dues-paying (付会费的) teachers, Duncan knows there is no strong (14) between smaller class sizes and increased learning.
The "Economist recently reported that in Singapore, (15) to the teacher-training program must be in the top 30 percent of their (16) class. In South Korea, teachers are drawn from the top 10percent of college (17) . While in America, only23 percent of new teachers come from the top third.
A (18) of excellent replacements is Teach for America, which Duncan says has "broken the monopoly" of education schools and departments over the (19) of teachers. Teach for America last year received (20) from 12 percent of Ivy League seniors. There are 95, 000 schools in America, and, Duncan says, "if we had 95,000 good principals, we'd be done." Done, that is, worrying about K-through-12 education.
A except for
B because of
C in the case of
D as a result of
A even though
B after all
C on the contrary
D on the whole
By being as volunteers in the trade fair,______(学生们不仅锻炼了口语), but they also widened their sight.
Tortured by long-lasting civil war, ______(人们热切盼望和平).
He set out early this morning______(唯恐高考迟到).
______(谈及哲学), I'm all thumbs.
The descriptions are so vivid that readers feel______(仿佛自己就在现场).