天空吸引你展翅飛翔，海洋召喚你揚(yáng)帆啟航，高山激勵(lì)你奮勇攀登，平原等待你信馬由韁……出發(fā)吧，愿你前程無(wú)量,努力備考，考入理想院校！以下是為大家整理的 《2018年10月自考英語(yǔ)（二）閱讀強(qiáng)化輔導(dǎo)【1-4】》供您查閱。
【篇一】
What Is a Decision?
A decision is a choice made from among alternative courses of action that are available. The purpose of making a decision is to establish and achieve organizational goals and objectives. The reason for making a decision is that a problem exists, goals or objectives are wrong, or something is standing in the way of accomplishing them.
Thus the decision-making process is fundamental to management. Almost everything a manager does involves decisions, indeed, some suggest that the management process is decision making. Although managers cannot predict the future, many of their decisions require that they consider possible future events. Often managers must make a best guess at that the future will be and try to leave as little as possible to chance, but since uncertainty is always there, risk accompanies decisions. Sometimes the consequences of a poor decision are slight; at other times they are serious.Choice is the opportunity to select among alternatives. If there is no choice, there is no decision to be made. Decision making is the process of choosing, and many decisions have a broad range of choice.
For example, a student may be able to choose among a number of different courses in order to implement the decision to obtain a college degree. Fox managers, every decision has constraints based on policies, procedures, laws, precedents, and the like. These constraints exist at all levels of the organization.
Alternatives are the possible courses of action from which choices can be made. If there are no alternatives, there is no choice and, therefore, no decision. If no alternatives are seen, often it means that a thorough job of examining the problems has not been done.
For example, managers sometimes treat problems in an eigher/or fashion; this is their way of simplifying complex problems. But the tendency to simplify blinds them to other alternatives.
At the managerial level, decision making includes limiting alternatives as well as identifying them, and the range is from highly limited to practically unlimited.
Decision makers must have some way of determining which of several alternatives is best - that is, which contributes the most to the achievement of organizational goals. An organizational goal is an end or a state of affairs the organization seeks to reach. Because individuals (and organizations) frequently have different ideas about how to attain the goals, the best choice may depend on who makes the decision. Frequently, departments or units within an organization make decisions that are good for them individually but that are less than optimal for the larger organization. Called suboptimization, this is a trade-off that increases the advantages to one unit or function but decreases the advantages to another unit or function. For example, the marketing manager may argue effectively for an increased advertising budget. In the larger scheme of things, however, increased funding for research to improve the products might be more beneficial to the organization.
These trade-offs occur because there are many objectives that organizations wish to attain simultaneously. Some of these objectives are more important than others, but the order and degree of importance often vary from person to person and from department to department.
Different managers define the same problem in different terms. When presented with a common case, sales managers tend to see sales problems, production managers see production problems, and so on.
The ordering and importance of multiple objectives is also based, in part, on the values of the decision maker. Such values are personal; they are hard to understand, even by the individual, because they are so dynamic and complex. In many business situations different people's values about acceptable degrees of risk and profitability cause disagreement about the correctness of decisions.
People often assume that a decision is an isolated phenomenon. But from a systems point of view, problems have multiple causes, and decisions have intended and unintended consequences. An organization is an ongoing entity, and a decision made today may have consequences far into the future. Thus the skilled manager looks toward the future
consequences of current decisions.
什么是決策?
決策是從可供挑選的行動(dòng)方向中作選擇。決策的目的是建立并實(shí)現(xiàn)一個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)的目的和目標(biāo)。之所以要決策是因?yàn)橛袉?wèn)題存在，目標(biāo)或目的的不適當(dāng)，或者有某種東西妨礙了目標(biāo)或目的的實(shí)現(xiàn)。
因此，決策過(guò)程對(duì)于管理非常重要。一個(gè)管理者做的差不多所有事情都離不開(kāi)決策。有人甚至提出管理就是決策。雖然管理者不能預(yù)見(jiàn)未來(lái)，但是他們要做的很多決策需要他們考慮將來(lái)可能發(fā)生的情況。管理者常常必須對(duì)未來(lái)的情況作出佳的猜測(cè)，使偶然性盡可能少地發(fā)生。但是因?yàn)榭偸窃诓淮_定的因素，所以決策往往伴隨著風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。一個(gè)不當(dāng)?shù)臎Q策的后果有時(shí)不嚴(yán)重而有時(shí)嚴(yán)重。
選擇就是從多個(gè)選項(xiàng)中進(jìn)行挑選的機(jī)會(huì)。沒(méi)有選擇就沒(méi)有決策。決策本身就是一個(gè)選擇的過(guò)程。很多決策有很寬的選擇范圍。例如，一個(gè)學(xué)生為了自己獲得學(xué)位的志向，可以在許多不同的課程里作選擇。對(duì)管理者來(lái)說(shuō)，每一個(gè)決策都受著政策、程序、法律、先例等方面的制約。這些制約在一個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)的各個(gè)階層都存在。選擇項(xiàng)就是可供選擇、可能的行動(dòng)方向;沒(méi)有選擇項(xiàng)，就沒(méi)有選擇，也就沒(méi)有了決策。如果看不到有不同的選擇項(xiàng)，說(shuō)明對(duì)問(wèn)題還沒(méi)有進(jìn)行全面的研究。一些管理者有時(shí)用非此即彼的方式處理問(wèn)題，這雖然是他們簡(jiǎn)化復(fù)雜問(wèn)題的方法，但是習(xí)慣了簡(jiǎn)化常使他們看不到別的解決辦法。在管理這個(gè)層次上，決策包括識(shí)別選擇項(xiàng)和減少選擇項(xiàng)兩個(gè)步驟;其范圍可以從極為有限的幾個(gè)選擇項(xiàng)到幾乎無(wú)限多的選擇項(xiàng)。
決策者必須有辦法能從多種選擇里確定一種為佳，也就是說(shuō)哪個(gè)對(duì)實(shí)現(xiàn)機(jī)構(gòu)目標(biāo)幫助大，機(jī)構(gòu)的目標(biāo)也就是此機(jī)構(gòu)所尋求的事態(tài)的結(jié)果。如何實(shí)現(xiàn)目標(biāo)，個(gè)人和組織都有不同的看法。因此，佳選擇可能就取決于決策人了。通常一個(gè)組織內(nèi)的單位或部門(mén)作出的決策可能有利于本部門(mén)、本單位，但對(duì)比它們大的機(jī)構(gòu)來(lái)說(shuō)就不是佳選擇了。這就是所謂的局部?jī)?yōu)化：增加對(duì)一單位或部門(mén)的便利同時(shí)減少對(duì)另一個(gè)單位或部門(mén)的便利，這是在兩利不能兼顧的情況下所做的取舍。例如，經(jīng)理可以把增加廣告預(yù)算的必要性講得頭頭是道，但是從總的布局看，增加改進(jìn)產(chǎn)品的科研費(fèi)用也許對(duì)這個(gè)組織更有好處。
因?yàn)橐粋€(gè)組織希望同時(shí)達(dá)到的目標(biāo)很多，所以就要進(jìn)行權(quán)衡，雖然有些目標(biāo)比另一些重要，但重要程度和次序則常常因人而異，因部門(mén)而異。管理者不同對(duì)同一問(wèn)題所做的解說(shuō)也是不同的。把同樣一種情況擺在他們面前，銷售經(jīng)理看的是銷售問(wèn)題，生產(chǎn)經(jīng)理看的是生產(chǎn)問(wèn)題，如此等等。
多個(gè)目標(biāo)的排序和重要性在某種程度上是以決策者的價(jià)值觀為依據(jù)的。這些價(jià)值觀念是個(gè)性的，很難捉摸，甚至抱有這種觀念的人自己也很難弄清楚;這是因?yàn)閮r(jià)值觀不斷變化，也很復(fù)雜。很多商業(yè)活動(dòng)中，不同的人對(duì)于風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和收益的可接受程度的價(jià)值觀不一樣，這就導(dǎo)致了他們對(duì)決策正確與否的看法也不同。
人們常以為決策是一個(gè)孤立的現(xiàn)象，但從系統(tǒng)的觀念看，問(wèn)題的產(chǎn)生有多種原因，所以決策既有意料中的結(jié)果，又有意料外的結(jié)果。一個(gè)組織是一個(gè)發(fā)展的實(shí)體，所以今天所做的決策對(duì)未來(lái)可能產(chǎn)生意義深遠(yuǎn)的影響。因此一個(gè)老練的管理者常要考慮當(dāng)前決策在將來(lái)產(chǎn)生的結(jié)果。
【篇二】
Secrets of Success at an Interview
The subject of today's talk is interviews.
The key words here are preparation and confidence, which will carry you far.
Do your homework first.
Find out all you can about the job you are applying for and the organization you hope to work for.
Many of the employers I interviewed made the same criticism of candidates. "They have no idea what the day to day work of the job brings about. They have vague notions of 'furthering the company's prospects' or of 'serving the community', but have never taken the trouble to find out the actual tasks they will be required to do."
Do not let this be said of you. It shows an unattractive indifference to your employer and to your job.
Take the time to put yourself into the interviewer's place. He wants somebody who is hard-working with a pleasant personality and a real interest in the job.
Anything that you find out about the prospective employer can be used to your advantage during the interview to show that you have bothered to master some facts about the people who you hope to work for.
Write down (and remember) the questions you want to ask the interviewer(s) so that you are not speechless when they invite your questions. Make sure that holidays and pay are not the first things you ask about. If all your questions have been answered during the interview, replay: "I did have several questions, but you have already
answered them all."
Do not be afraid to ask for clarification of something that has been said during the interview if you want to be sure what was implied, but do be polite.
Just before you go to the interview, look again at the original advertisement that you answered, any correspondence from your prospective employer, photocopies of your letter of application or application form and your resume.
Then you will remember what you said and what they want. This is very important if you have applied for many jobs in a short time as it is easy to become confused and give an impression of inefficiency.
Make sure you know where and when you have to report for the interview. Go to the building (but not inside the office) a day or two before, if necessary, to find out how long the journey takes and where exactly the place is.
Aim to arrive five or ten minutes early for the actual interview, then you will have a little time in hand and you will not panic if you are delayed. You start at a disadvantage if you arrive worried and ten minutes late.
Dress in clean, neat, conservative clothes. Now is NOT the time to experiment with the punk look or (girls) to wear low-cut dresses with miniskirts. Make sure that your shoes, hands and hair (and teeth) are clean and neat.
Have the letter inviting you for an interview ready to show in case there is any difficulty in communication.
You may find yourself facing one interviewer or a panel. The latter is far more intimidating, but do not let it worry you too much.
The interviewer will probably have a table in front of him/her. Do not put your things or arms on it.
If you have a bag or a case, put it on the floor beside your chair. Do not clutch it nervously or, worse still, drop it, spilling everything.
Shake hands if the interviewer offers his hand first. There is little likelihood that a panel of five wants to go though the process of all shaking hands with you in turn. So you do not be upset if no one offers.
Shake hands firmly - a weak hand suggests a weak personality, and a crushing grip is obviously painful. Do not drop the hand as soon as yours has touched it as this will seem to show you do not like the other person.
Speak politely and naturally even if you are feeling shy. Think before you answer any questions.
If you cannot understand, ask: "Would you mind rephrasing the question, please?" The question will then be repeated in different words.
If you are not definitely accepted or turned down on the spot, ask: "When may I expect to hear the results of this interview?"
If you do receive a letter offering you the job, you must reply by letter (keep a photocopy) as soon as possible.
Good luck!
面試成功的決竅
我們今天的話題是面試。
這里送你一句話：有備而往，信心當(dāng)強(qiáng)。相信這句話會(huì)讓你受益匪淺。
首先要做好面試之外的工作。
盡可能地了解你所申請(qǐng)的工作和希望為之工作的機(jī)構(gòu)的情況。
我所采訪的許多雇主對(duì)應(yīng)聘人做了相同的批評(píng)："他們對(duì)這項(xiàng)工作的日常事務(wù)會(huì)帶來(lái)什么一無(wú)所知。他們對(duì)'拓展公司的前景'、'進(jìn)行社會(huì)服務(wù)'只有模模糊 糊的認(rèn)識(shí)，但從不下工夫?qū)λ麄円龅膶?shí)際工作作深入的了解。"
不要讓人這樣評(píng)價(jià)自己;那樣的話，說(shuō)明你對(duì)雇主和工作太不在乎，這可不是個(gè)好印象。
不妨設(shè)身處地替雇主和工作太不在乎，他要的是勤奮的、性格讓人喜歡的雇員，而且對(duì)所做的工作真正感興趣。
對(duì)未來(lái)的老板所做的任何了解都可以用于面試上，這對(duì)你有利。表明你對(duì)希望為之效力的雇主的情況曾下過(guò)一番功夫了解。
把要詢問(wèn)考官的問(wèn)題寫(xiě)下來(lái)或記住，這樣當(dāng)他要你提問(wèn)時(shí)不至于無(wú)話可說(shuō)。不要上去就問(wèn)假期如何，工資如何。如果你準(zhǔn)備的所有問(wèn)題在面試過(guò)程中都已 得到了回答，你可以說(shuō)："我剛才確實(shí)有一些什么問(wèn)題要問(wèn)，但您現(xiàn)在已全部解 答過(guò)了。"
如果面試中你想弄明白對(duì)方所說(shuō)的某些話有什么隱含意思，就要請(qǐng)對(duì)方說(shuō)明，不必畏縮，但一定要有禮貌。
去面試前，你應(yīng)把征聘的廣告的原件、未來(lái)雇主給你的復(fù)信、求職書(shū)或申請(qǐng)表及個(gè)人簡(jiǎn)歷的復(fù)印件再看一遍。
然后記住你講過(guò)的話和對(duì)方要求什么條件。如果你在短時(shí)間內(nèi)應(yīng)聘好幾個(gè)工作，這樣做就很重要，因?yàn)閼?yīng)聘一多就容易搞混，這就給人家留下了工作能力低的印象。
一定要弄清楚何時(shí)何地前去面試。如有必要，可以面試前一兩天去看看辦公樓，看看要走多遠(yuǎn)的路程，詳細(xì)地址在哪兒。
真正面試時(shí)，好提前五至十分鐘趕到;這樣中間你就有點(diǎn)時(shí)間，萬(wàn)一有所耽擱，也不至恐慌，如果慌里慌張地趕去面試，或者遲到了十分鐘，那么一開(kāi)始你就處于不利的境地。著裝要整潔、傳統(tǒng)一些;面試可不是嘗試朋克式打扮的時(shí)候，也不是上穿袒胸上衣，下身穿超短裙的時(shí)候，另外鞋子和頭發(fā)一定要干干凈凈。
帶上約你去面試的信，以備雙方交流方面有問(wèn)題時(shí)用。
面試時(shí)面前可能是一個(gè)雇主或是一個(gè)面試小組。幾個(gè)人一同來(lái)考你的確比單獨(dú)的一個(gè)人考試你叫人害怕，但也不過(guò)分擔(dān)心。
主考官可能在他的對(duì)面放一張桌子，但你可不要把東西或手臂放上去。
如果你帶有手提包或手提箱，就把它放到桌椅旁的地上，不要緊張得抓著不放，更糟糕的是把包或箱子摔在地上，讓東西撒了一地。
對(duì)方先伸出手可以和他握手。如果有五個(gè)考官一起面試你，一般不會(huì)逐個(gè)跟你握手，所以沒(méi)人與你握手也不必感到不安。
握手時(shí)要有力――沒(méi)有力量的手讓人感覺(jué)沒(méi)有個(gè)性，但用力太猛讓人感到疼痛;也不要一觸到對(duì)方的手就馬下放下，那樣的話似乎讓人感到你對(duì)對(duì)方?jīng)]有好感。
就是自己感到不好意思，說(shuō)話也要禮貌、自然。對(duì)任何問(wèn)題都要先想后答。
如果你聽(tīng)不懂對(duì)方的提問(wèn)，就說(shuō)："對(duì)不起，您剛才的問(wèn)題能再說(shuō)一遍嗎? "一般對(duì)方會(huì)換一套說(shuō)法把問(wèn)題重復(fù)一遍。
如果對(duì)方當(dāng)時(shí)既沒(méi)有明確接受你，也沒(méi)有回絕你，你可以問(wèn)："請(qǐng)問(wèn)我什么 時(shí)候能知道面試的結(jié)果?"
如果你真的收到一封信，讓你去工作，你應(yīng)該趕快寫(xiě)封回信。
祝你好運(yùn)!
【篇三】
Euthanasia: For and Against
"We mustn't delay any longer … swallowing is difficult … and breathing, that's also difficult. Those muscles are weakening too … we mustn't delay any longer."These were the words of Dutchman Cees van Wendel de Joode asking his doctor to help him die. Affected with a serious disease, van Wendel was no longer able to speak clearly and he knew there was no hope of recovery and that his condition was rapidly deteriorating.
Van Wendel's last three months of life before being given a final, lethal injection by his doctor were filmed and first shown on television last year in the Netherlands. The programme has since been bought by 20 countries and each time it is shown, it starts a nationwide debate on the subject.
The Netherlands is the only country in Europe which permits euthanasia, although it is not technically legal there. However, doctors who carry out euthanasia under strict guidelines introduced by he Dutch Parliament two years ago are usually not prosecuted.
The guidelines demand that the patient is experiencing extreme suffering, that there is no chance of a cure, and that the patient has made repeated requests for euthanasia. In addition to this, a second doctor must confirm that these criteria have been met and the death must be reported to the police department.
Should doctors be allowed to take the lives of others? Dr.Wilfred van Oijen, Cees van Wendel's doctor, explains how he looks at the question:"Well, it's not as if I'm planning to murder a crowd of people with a machine gun. In that case, killing is the worst thing I can imagine. But that's entirely different from my work as a doctor. I care for people and I try to ensure that they don't suffer too much. That's a very different thing."
Many people, though, are totally against the practice of euthanasia. Dr. Andrew Ferguson, Chairman of the organisation Healthcare Opposed to Euthanasia, says that "in the vast majority of euthanasia cases, what the patient is actually asking for is something else. They may want a health professional to open up communication for them with their loved ones or family - there's nearly always another question behind the question."
Britain also has a strong tradition of hospices - special hospitals which care only for the dying and their special needs.
Cicely Saunders, President of the National Hospice Council and a founder member of the hospice movement, argues that euthanasia doesn't take into account that there are ways of caring for the dying. She is also concerned that allowing euthanasia would undermine the need for care and consideration of a wide range of people: "It's very easy in society now for the elderly, the disabled and the dependent to feel that they are burdens, and therefore that they ought to opt out. I think that anything that legally allows the shortening of life does make those people more vulnerable."
Many find this prohibition of an individual's right to die paternalistic. Although they agree that life is important and should be respected, they feel that the quality of life should not be ignored. Dr. Van Oijen believes that people have the fundamental right to choose for themselves if they want to die: "What those people who oppose euthanasia are telling me is that dying people haven't the right. And that when people are very ill, we are all afraid of their death. But there are situations where death is a friend. And is those cases, why not?"
But "why not?" is a question which might cause strong emotion. The film showing Cees van Wendel's death was both moving and sensitive. His doctor was clearly a family friend; his wife had only her husband's interests at heart. Some, however, would argue that it would be dangerous to use this particular example to support the case for euthanasia. Not all patients would receive such a high level of individual care and attention.
安樂(lè)死：贊同還是反對(duì)
"我們?cè)僖膊荒艿⒄`了，……我難以咽下食物……呼吸也有困難……，渾身疲乏無(wú)力，……不要再拖了。"荷蘭人齊斯·范·溫德?tīng)柵R死前請(qǐng)求醫(yī)生幫助他一死了之時(shí)說(shuō)了這番話。
他因身患重病，說(shuō)話已經(jīng)不很清楚，他知道自己毫無(wú)康復(fù)的希望了，而且病情正在迅速惡化。在接受醫(yī)生注射那致命的后一針之前，范·溫德康后三個(gè)月的生活被拍成了電影，去年在荷蘭的電視臺(tái)首次播出。此后，有20個(gè)國(guó)家先后購(gòu)買了這個(gè)電視節(jié)目，每在一國(guó)放映，都會(huì)在全國(guó)內(nèi)引起一場(chǎng)對(duì)安樂(lè)死的議論。
荷蘭是歐洲的允許安樂(lè)死的國(guó)家。盡管安樂(lè)死在技術(shù)上還不具有合法性，但如果醫(yī)生按照兩年前荷蘭議會(huì)制定的議案的嚴(yán)格指導(dǎo)原則實(shí)施用安樂(lè)死，但如果醫(yī)生按照兩年前荷蘭議會(huì)制定的議案的嚴(yán)格指導(dǎo)原則實(shí)施用安樂(lè)死，通常是不會(huì)受到法律的追究的。這些指導(dǎo)原則規(guī)定，當(dāng)病人極度痛苦，沒(méi)有治愈的可能，而且一再要求的情況下才能實(shí)施安樂(lè)死。另外，還必須有第二位名醫(yī)生證實(shí)已經(jīng)符合上述條件，并且要向警察機(jī)關(guān)報(bào)告病人的死亡。
能允許醫(yī)生結(jié)束他人的生命嗎?齊斯·范·溫德?tīng)柕乃饺酸t(yī)生威爾弗雷德·馮·奧依金解釋了他對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題的看法"哦，這種情況和我計(jì)劃用機(jī)關(guān)槍殺死一大群人完全不一樣。若是那樣，殺人是我所能想象的可怕的事。但我作為醫(yī)生實(shí)施安樂(lè)死和用槍殺人是絕對(duì)不同的。我是關(guān)心人，我要盡量保證他們不受更多痛苦。這和那種情況完全是兩碼事。"
然而，仍然有很多人堅(jiān)決反對(duì)使用安樂(lè)死。"反安樂(lè)死健康醫(yī)療"組織的主席安德魯·福格森說(shuō)："在使用安樂(lè)死的大多數(shù)病例中，患者實(shí)際上需要的是其他的東西。他們可能需要在健康專家的指導(dǎo)下，與所愛(ài)的人或家人進(jìn)行交流。"英國(guó)晚期病人收容所有著牢固的傳統(tǒng)，一種專門(mén)護(hù)理垂危病人并滿足他們特殊需要的特殊醫(yī)院。國(guó)家收容所委員會(huì)主席和收容運(yùn)動(dòng)的發(fā)起人茜西莉·桑德斯認(rèn)為，使用安樂(lè)死把護(hù)理垂危病人的其他方式都排除了。她還擔(dān)心允許使用安樂(lè)死會(huì)減少很多人對(duì)于照顧和關(guān)心的要求。"在今天的社會(huì)里，這樣很容易使老年人、殘疾人和靠他人生活的人們感到自己是社會(huì)的負(fù)擔(dān)，應(yīng)該從生活中消失掉。我覺(jué)得法律上任何允許縮短人們生命和作法都會(huì)使那些人變得更容易受傷害。"
很多人發(fā)現(xiàn)禁止一個(gè)人選擇死亡的權(quán)利是沒(méi)有道理的。盡管他們也認(rèn)為生命很重要，并且應(yīng)當(dāng)尊重生命，但是生活的質(zhì)量也不容忽視。范·奧依金醫(yī)生認(rèn)為如果人們想死，他們應(yīng)當(dāng)有選擇死亡的權(quán)利："那些反對(duì)使用安樂(lè)死的人們是在告訴我們要死亡的人沒(méi)有這種權(quán)利。當(dāng)他們病重時(shí)，我們害怕他們會(huì)死去。但是有的情況下死亡是人們的朋友。在那種情況下，為什么不使用安樂(lè)死呢?"
但"為什么不呢?"是一個(gè)會(huì)引起強(qiáng)烈的情感的問(wèn)題。那部反映齊斯·范·溫德?tīng)査劳銮榫暗碾娪凹雀腥擞职l(fā)人深醒。很顯然，這位醫(yī)生是他們一家人的朋友;溫德?tīng)柕钠拮右彩且恍臑檎煞蚝?。然而，有些人?zhēng)論說(shuō)用這種特殊事例來(lái)支持安樂(lè)死是危險(xiǎn)的。再說(shuō)，不是所有的病人都會(huì)受到如此周到的個(gè)別護(hù)理和關(guān)注。
【篇四】
Advantage Unfair
According to the writer Walter Ellis, author of a book called the Oxbridge Conspiracy, Britain is still dominated by the old-boy network: it isn't what you know that matters, but who you know. He claims that at Oxford and Cambridge Universities (Oxbridge for short) a few select people start on an escalator ride which, over the years, carries them to the tops of British privilege and power. His research revealed that the top professions all continue to be dominated, if not 90 per cent, then 60 or 65 per cent, by Oxbridge graduates.
And yet ,says Ellis, Oxbridge graduates make up only two per cent of the total number of students who graduate from Britain's universities. Other researches also seem to support his belief that Oxbridge graduates start with an unfair advantage in the employment market. In the law, a recently published report showed that out of 26 senior judges appointed to the High Court last year, all of them went to private schools and 21 of them went to Oxbridge.
But can this be said to amount to a conspiracy? Not according to Dr. John Rae, a former headmaster of one of Britain's leading private schools, Westminster:"I would accept that there was a bias in some key areas of British life, but that bias has now gone. Some time ago - in the 60s and before - entry to Oxford and Cambridge was not entirely on merit. Now, there's absolutely no question in any objective observer's mind that entry to Oxford and Cambridge is fiercely competitive."However, many would disagree with this. For, although over three-quarters of British pupils are educated in state schools, over half the students that go to Oxbridge have been to private, or "public" schools. Is this because pupils from Britain's private schools are more intelligent than those from state schools, or are they simply better prepared?
On average, about ￡5,000 a year is spent on each private school pupil, more than twice the amount spent on state school pupils. So how can the state schools be expected to compete with the private schools when they have far fewer resources? And how can they prepare their pupils for the special entrance exam to Oxford University, which requires extra preparation, and for which many public school pupils traditionally stay at school and do an additional term?
Until recently, many blamed Oxford for this bias because of the university's special entrance exam (Cambridge abolished its entrance exam in 1986). But last February, Oxford University decided to abolish the exam to encourage more state school applicants. From autumn 1996, Oxford University applicants, like applicants to other universities, will be judged only on their A level results and on their performance at interviews, although some departments might still set special tests.
However, some argue that there's nothing wrong in having elite places of learning, and that by their very nature, these places should not be easily accessible. Most countries are run by an elite and have centres of academic excellence from which the elite are recruited.
Walter Ellis accepts that this is true:"But in France, for example, there are something like 40 equivalents of university, which provide this elite through a much broader base. In America you've got the Ivy League, centred on Harvard and Yale, with Princeton and Stanford and others. But again, those universities together - the elite universities - are about ten or fifteen in number, and are being pushed along from behind by other great universities like, for example, Chicago and Berkeley. So you don't have just this narrow concentration of two universities providing a constantly replicating elite."
When it comes to Oxford and Cambridge being elitist because of the number of private school pupils they accept, Professor Stone of Oxford University argues that there is a simple fact he and his associates cannot ignore:"If certain schools do better than others then we just have to accept it. We cannot be a place for remedial education. It's not what Oxford is there to do."
However, since academic excellence does appear to be related to the amount of money spent per pupil. This does seem to imply that Prime Minister John Major's vision of Britain as a classless society is still a long way off. And it may be worth remembering that while John Major didn't himself go to Oxbridge, most of his ministers did.
【篇一】
What Is a Decision?
A decision is a choice made from among alternative courses of action that are available. The purpose of making a decision is to establish and achieve organizational goals and objectives. The reason for making a decision is that a problem exists, goals or objectives are wrong, or something is standing in the way of accomplishing them.
Thus the decision-making process is fundamental to management. Almost everything a manager does involves decisions, indeed, some suggest that the management process is decision making. Although managers cannot predict the future, many of their decisions require that they consider possible future events. Often managers must make a best guess at that the future will be and try to leave as little as possible to chance, but since uncertainty is always there, risk accompanies decisions. Sometimes the consequences of a poor decision are slight; at other times they are serious.Choice is the opportunity to select among alternatives. If there is no choice, there is no decision to be made. Decision making is the process of choosing, and many decisions have a broad range of choice.
For example, a student may be able to choose among a number of different courses in order to implement the decision to obtain a college degree. Fox managers, every decision has constraints based on policies, procedures, laws, precedents, and the like. These constraints exist at all levels of the organization.
Alternatives are the possible courses of action from which choices can be made. If there are no alternatives, there is no choice and, therefore, no decision. If no alternatives are seen, often it means that a thorough job of examining the problems has not been done.
For example, managers sometimes treat problems in an eigher/or fashion; this is their way of simplifying complex problems. But the tendency to simplify blinds them to other alternatives.
At the managerial level, decision making includes limiting alternatives as well as identifying them, and the range is from highly limited to practically unlimited.
Decision makers must have some way of determining which of several alternatives is best - that is, which contributes the most to the achievement of organizational goals. An organizational goal is an end or a state of affairs the organization seeks to reach. Because individuals (and organizations) frequently have different ideas about how to attain the goals, the best choice may depend on who makes the decision. Frequently, departments or units within an organization make decisions that are good for them individually but that are less than optimal for the larger organization. Called suboptimization, this is a trade-off that increases the advantages to one unit or function but decreases the advantages to another unit or function. For example, the marketing manager may argue effectively for an increased advertising budget. In the larger scheme of things, however, increased funding for research to improve the products might be more beneficial to the organization.
These trade-offs occur because there are many objectives that organizations wish to attain simultaneously. Some of these objectives are more important than others, but the order and degree of importance often vary from person to person and from department to department.
Different managers define the same problem in different terms. When presented with a common case, sales managers tend to see sales problems, production managers see production problems, and so on.
The ordering and importance of multiple objectives is also based, in part, on the values of the decision maker. Such values are personal; they are hard to understand, even by the individual, because they are so dynamic and complex. In many business situations different people's values about acceptable degrees of risk and profitability cause disagreement about the correctness of decisions.
People often assume that a decision is an isolated phenomenon. But from a systems point of view, problems have multiple causes, and decisions have intended and unintended consequences. An organization is an ongoing entity, and a decision made today may have consequences far into the future. Thus the skilled manager looks toward the future
consequences of current decisions.
什么是決策?
決策是從可供挑選的行動(dòng)方向中作選擇。決策的目的是建立并實(shí)現(xiàn)一個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)的目的和目標(biāo)。之所以要決策是因?yàn)橛袉?wèn)題存在，目標(biāo)或目的的不適當(dāng)，或者有某種東西妨礙了目標(biāo)或目的的實(shí)現(xiàn)。
因此，決策過(guò)程對(duì)于管理非常重要。一個(gè)管理者做的差不多所有事情都離不開(kāi)決策。有人甚至提出管理就是決策。雖然管理者不能預(yù)見(jiàn)未來(lái)，但是他們要做的很多決策需要他們考慮將來(lái)可能發(fā)生的情況。管理者常常必須對(duì)未來(lái)的情況作出佳的猜測(cè)，使偶然性盡可能少地發(fā)生。但是因?yàn)榭偸窃诓淮_定的因素，所以決策往往伴隨著風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。一個(gè)不當(dāng)?shù)臎Q策的后果有時(shí)不嚴(yán)重而有時(shí)嚴(yán)重。
選擇就是從多個(gè)選項(xiàng)中進(jìn)行挑選的機(jī)會(huì)。沒(méi)有選擇就沒(méi)有決策。決策本身就是一個(gè)選擇的過(guò)程。很多決策有很寬的選擇范圍。例如，一個(gè)學(xué)生為了自己獲得學(xué)位的志向，可以在許多不同的課程里作選擇。對(duì)管理者來(lái)說(shuō)，每一個(gè)決策都受著政策、程序、法律、先例等方面的制約。這些制約在一個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)的各個(gè)階層都存在。選擇項(xiàng)就是可供選擇、可能的行動(dòng)方向;沒(méi)有選擇項(xiàng)，就沒(méi)有選擇，也就沒(méi)有了決策。如果看不到有不同的選擇項(xiàng)，說(shuō)明對(duì)問(wèn)題還沒(méi)有進(jìn)行全面的研究。一些管理者有時(shí)用非此即彼的方式處理問(wèn)題，這雖然是他們簡(jiǎn)化復(fù)雜問(wèn)題的方法，但是習(xí)慣了簡(jiǎn)化常使他們看不到別的解決辦法。在管理這個(gè)層次上，決策包括識(shí)別選擇項(xiàng)和減少選擇項(xiàng)兩個(gè)步驟;其范圍可以從極為有限的幾個(gè)選擇項(xiàng)到幾乎無(wú)限多的選擇項(xiàng)。
決策者必須有辦法能從多種選擇里確定一種為佳，也就是說(shuō)哪個(gè)對(duì)實(shí)現(xiàn)機(jī)構(gòu)目標(biāo)幫助大，機(jī)構(gòu)的目標(biāo)也就是此機(jī)構(gòu)所尋求的事態(tài)的結(jié)果。如何實(shí)現(xiàn)目標(biāo)，個(gè)人和組織都有不同的看法。因此，佳選擇可能就取決于決策人了。通常一個(gè)組織內(nèi)的單位或部門(mén)作出的決策可能有利于本部門(mén)、本單位，但對(duì)比它們大的機(jī)構(gòu)來(lái)說(shuō)就不是佳選擇了。這就是所謂的局部?jī)?yōu)化：增加對(duì)一單位或部門(mén)的便利同時(shí)減少對(duì)另一個(gè)單位或部門(mén)的便利，這是在兩利不能兼顧的情況下所做的取舍。例如，經(jīng)理可以把增加廣告預(yù)算的必要性講得頭頭是道，但是從總的布局看，增加改進(jìn)產(chǎn)品的科研費(fèi)用也許對(duì)這個(gè)組織更有好處。
因?yàn)橐粋€(gè)組織希望同時(shí)達(dá)到的目標(biāo)很多，所以就要進(jìn)行權(quán)衡，雖然有些目標(biāo)比另一些重要，但重要程度和次序則常常因人而異，因部門(mén)而異。管理者不同對(duì)同一問(wèn)題所做的解說(shuō)也是不同的。把同樣一種情況擺在他們面前，銷售經(jīng)理看的是銷售問(wèn)題，生產(chǎn)經(jīng)理看的是生產(chǎn)問(wèn)題，如此等等。
多個(gè)目標(biāo)的排序和重要性在某種程度上是以決策者的價(jià)值觀為依據(jù)的。這些價(jià)值觀念是個(gè)性的，很難捉摸，甚至抱有這種觀念的人自己也很難弄清楚;這是因?yàn)閮r(jià)值觀不斷變化，也很復(fù)雜。很多商業(yè)活動(dòng)中，不同的人對(duì)于風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和收益的可接受程度的價(jià)值觀不一樣，這就導(dǎo)致了他們對(duì)決策正確與否的看法也不同。
人們常以為決策是一個(gè)孤立的現(xiàn)象，但從系統(tǒng)的觀念看，問(wèn)題的產(chǎn)生有多種原因，所以決策既有意料中的結(jié)果，又有意料外的結(jié)果。一個(gè)組織是一個(gè)發(fā)展的實(shí)體，所以今天所做的決策對(duì)未來(lái)可能產(chǎn)生意義深遠(yuǎn)的影響。因此一個(gè)老練的管理者常要考慮當(dāng)前決策在將來(lái)產(chǎn)生的結(jié)果。
【篇二】
Secrets of Success at an Interview
The subject of today's talk is interviews.
The key words here are preparation and confidence, which will carry you far.
Do your homework first.
Find out all you can about the job you are applying for and the organization you hope to work for.
Many of the employers I interviewed made the same criticism of candidates. "They have no idea what the day to day work of the job brings about. They have vague notions of 'furthering the company's prospects' or of 'serving the community', but have never taken the trouble to find out the actual tasks they will be required to do."
Do not let this be said of you. It shows an unattractive indifference to your employer and to your job.
Take the time to put yourself into the interviewer's place. He wants somebody who is hard-working with a pleasant personality and a real interest in the job.
Anything that you find out about the prospective employer can be used to your advantage during the interview to show that you have bothered to master some facts about the people who you hope to work for.
Write down (and remember) the questions you want to ask the interviewer(s) so that you are not speechless when they invite your questions. Make sure that holidays and pay are not the first things you ask about. If all your questions have been answered during the interview, replay: "I did have several questions, but you have already
answered them all."
Do not be afraid to ask for clarification of something that has been said during the interview if you want to be sure what was implied, but do be polite.
Just before you go to the interview, look again at the original advertisement that you answered, any correspondence from your prospective employer, photocopies of your letter of application or application form and your resume.
Then you will remember what you said and what they want. This is very important if you have applied for many jobs in a short time as it is easy to become confused and give an impression of inefficiency.
Make sure you know where and when you have to report for the interview. Go to the building (but not inside the office) a day or two before, if necessary, to find out how long the journey takes and where exactly the place is.
Aim to arrive five or ten minutes early for the actual interview, then you will have a little time in hand and you will not panic if you are delayed. You start at a disadvantage if you arrive worried and ten minutes late.
Dress in clean, neat, conservative clothes. Now is NOT the time to experiment with the punk look or (girls) to wear low-cut dresses with miniskirts. Make sure that your shoes, hands and hair (and teeth) are clean and neat.
Have the letter inviting you for an interview ready to show in case there is any difficulty in communication.
You may find yourself facing one interviewer or a panel. The latter is far more intimidating, but do not let it worry you too much.
The interviewer will probably have a table in front of him/her. Do not put your things or arms on it.
If you have a bag or a case, put it on the floor beside your chair. Do not clutch it nervously or, worse still, drop it, spilling everything.
Shake hands if the interviewer offers his hand first. There is little likelihood that a panel of five wants to go though the process of all shaking hands with you in turn. So you do not be upset if no one offers.
Shake hands firmly - a weak hand suggests a weak personality, and a crushing grip is obviously painful. Do not drop the hand as soon as yours has touched it as this will seem to show you do not like the other person.
Speak politely and naturally even if you are feeling shy. Think before you answer any questions.
If you cannot understand, ask: "Would you mind rephrasing the question, please?" The question will then be repeated in different words.
If you are not definitely accepted or turned down on the spot, ask: "When may I expect to hear the results of this interview?"
If you do receive a letter offering you the job, you must reply by letter (keep a photocopy) as soon as possible.
Good luck!
面試成功的決竅
我們今天的話題是面試。
這里送你一句話：有備而往，信心當(dāng)強(qiáng)。相信這句話會(huì)讓你受益匪淺。
首先要做好面試之外的工作。
盡可能地了解你所申請(qǐng)的工作和希望為之工作的機(jī)構(gòu)的情況。
我所采訪的許多雇主對(duì)應(yīng)聘人做了相同的批評(píng)："他們對(duì)這項(xiàng)工作的日常事務(wù)會(huì)帶來(lái)什么一無(wú)所知。他們對(duì)'拓展公司的前景'、'進(jìn)行社會(huì)服務(wù)'只有模模糊 糊的認(rèn)識(shí)，但從不下工夫?qū)λ麄円龅膶?shí)際工作作深入的了解。"
不要讓人這樣評(píng)價(jià)自己;那樣的話，說(shuō)明你對(duì)雇主和工作太不在乎，這可不是個(gè)好印象。
不妨設(shè)身處地替雇主和工作太不在乎，他要的是勤奮的、性格讓人喜歡的雇員，而且對(duì)所做的工作真正感興趣。
對(duì)未來(lái)的老板所做的任何了解都可以用于面試上，這對(duì)你有利。表明你對(duì)希望為之效力的雇主的情況曾下過(guò)一番功夫了解。
把要詢問(wèn)考官的問(wèn)題寫(xiě)下來(lái)或記住，這樣當(dāng)他要你提問(wèn)時(shí)不至于無(wú)話可說(shuō)。不要上去就問(wèn)假期如何，工資如何。如果你準(zhǔn)備的所有問(wèn)題在面試過(guò)程中都已 得到了回答，你可以說(shuō)："我剛才確實(shí)有一些什么問(wèn)題要問(wèn)，但您現(xiàn)在已全部解 答過(guò)了。"
如果面試中你想弄明白對(duì)方所說(shuō)的某些話有什么隱含意思，就要請(qǐng)對(duì)方說(shuō)明，不必畏縮，但一定要有禮貌。
去面試前，你應(yīng)把征聘的廣告的原件、未來(lái)雇主給你的復(fù)信、求職書(shū)或申請(qǐng)表及個(gè)人簡(jiǎn)歷的復(fù)印件再看一遍。
然后記住你講過(guò)的話和對(duì)方要求什么條件。如果你在短時(shí)間內(nèi)應(yīng)聘好幾個(gè)工作，這樣做就很重要，因?yàn)閼?yīng)聘一多就容易搞混，這就給人家留下了工作能力低的印象。
一定要弄清楚何時(shí)何地前去面試。如有必要，可以面試前一兩天去看看辦公樓，看看要走多遠(yuǎn)的路程，詳細(xì)地址在哪兒。
真正面試時(shí)，好提前五至十分鐘趕到;這樣中間你就有點(diǎn)時(shí)間，萬(wàn)一有所耽擱，也不至恐慌，如果慌里慌張地趕去面試，或者遲到了十分鐘，那么一開(kāi)始你就處于不利的境地。著裝要整潔、傳統(tǒng)一些;面試可不是嘗試朋克式打扮的時(shí)候，也不是上穿袒胸上衣，下身穿超短裙的時(shí)候，另外鞋子和頭發(fā)一定要干干凈凈。
帶上約你去面試的信，以備雙方交流方面有問(wèn)題時(shí)用。
面試時(shí)面前可能是一個(gè)雇主或是一個(gè)面試小組。幾個(gè)人一同來(lái)考你的確比單獨(dú)的一個(gè)人考試你叫人害怕，但也不過(guò)分擔(dān)心。
主考官可能在他的對(duì)面放一張桌子，但你可不要把東西或手臂放上去。
如果你帶有手提包或手提箱，就把它放到桌椅旁的地上，不要緊張得抓著不放，更糟糕的是把包或箱子摔在地上，讓東西撒了一地。
對(duì)方先伸出手可以和他握手。如果有五個(gè)考官一起面試你，一般不會(huì)逐個(gè)跟你握手，所以沒(méi)人與你握手也不必感到不安。
握手時(shí)要有力――沒(méi)有力量的手讓人感覺(jué)沒(méi)有個(gè)性，但用力太猛讓人感到疼痛;也不要一觸到對(duì)方的手就馬下放下，那樣的話似乎讓人感到你對(duì)對(duì)方?jīng)]有好感。
就是自己感到不好意思，說(shuō)話也要禮貌、自然。對(duì)任何問(wèn)題都要先想后答。
如果你聽(tīng)不懂對(duì)方的提問(wèn)，就說(shuō)："對(duì)不起，您剛才的問(wèn)題能再說(shuō)一遍嗎? "一般對(duì)方會(huì)換一套說(shuō)法把問(wèn)題重復(fù)一遍。
如果對(duì)方當(dāng)時(shí)既沒(méi)有明確接受你，也沒(méi)有回絕你，你可以問(wèn)："請(qǐng)問(wèn)我什么 時(shí)候能知道面試的結(jié)果?"
如果你真的收到一封信，讓你去工作，你應(yīng)該趕快寫(xiě)封回信。
祝你好運(yùn)!
【篇三】
Euthanasia: For and Against
"We mustn't delay any longer … swallowing is difficult … and breathing, that's also difficult. Those muscles are weakening too … we mustn't delay any longer."These were the words of Dutchman Cees van Wendel de Joode asking his doctor to help him die. Affected with a serious disease, van Wendel was no longer able to speak clearly and he knew there was no hope of recovery and that his condition was rapidly deteriorating.
Van Wendel's last three months of life before being given a final, lethal injection by his doctor were filmed and first shown on television last year in the Netherlands. The programme has since been bought by 20 countries and each time it is shown, it starts a nationwide debate on the subject.
The Netherlands is the only country in Europe which permits euthanasia, although it is not technically legal there. However, doctors who carry out euthanasia under strict guidelines introduced by he Dutch Parliament two years ago are usually not prosecuted.
The guidelines demand that the patient is experiencing extreme suffering, that there is no chance of a cure, and that the patient has made repeated requests for euthanasia. In addition to this, a second doctor must confirm that these criteria have been met and the death must be reported to the police department.
Should doctors be allowed to take the lives of others? Dr.Wilfred van Oijen, Cees van Wendel's doctor, explains how he looks at the question:"Well, it's not as if I'm planning to murder a crowd of people with a machine gun. In that case, killing is the worst thing I can imagine. But that's entirely different from my work as a doctor. I care for people and I try to ensure that they don't suffer too much. That's a very different thing."
Many people, though, are totally against the practice of euthanasia. Dr. Andrew Ferguson, Chairman of the organisation Healthcare Opposed to Euthanasia, says that "in the vast majority of euthanasia cases, what the patient is actually asking for is something else. They may want a health professional to open up communication for them with their loved ones or family - there's nearly always another question behind the question."
Britain also has a strong tradition of hospices - special hospitals which care only for the dying and their special needs.
Cicely Saunders, President of the National Hospice Council and a founder member of the hospice movement, argues that euthanasia doesn't take into account that there are ways of caring for the dying. She is also concerned that allowing euthanasia would undermine the need for care and consideration of a wide range of people: "It's very easy in society now for the elderly, the disabled and the dependent to feel that they are burdens, and therefore that they ought to opt out. I think that anything that legally allows the shortening of life does make those people more vulnerable."
Many find this prohibition of an individual's right to die paternalistic. Although they agree that life is important and should be respected, they feel that the quality of life should not be ignored. Dr. Van Oijen believes that people have the fundamental right to choose for themselves if they want to die: "What those people who oppose euthanasia are telling me is that dying people haven't the right. And that when people are very ill, we are all afraid of their death. But there are situations where death is a friend. And is those cases, why not?"
But "why not?" is a question which might cause strong emotion. The film showing Cees van Wendel's death was both moving and sensitive. His doctor was clearly a family friend; his wife had only her husband's interests at heart. Some, however, would argue that it would be dangerous to use this particular example to support the case for euthanasia. Not all patients would receive such a high level of individual care and attention.
安樂(lè)死：贊同還是反對(duì)
"我們?cè)僖膊荒艿⒄`了，……我難以咽下食物……呼吸也有困難……，渾身疲乏無(wú)力，……不要再拖了。"荷蘭人齊斯·范·溫德?tīng)柵R死前請(qǐng)求醫(yī)生幫助他一死了之時(shí)說(shuō)了這番話。
他因身患重病，說(shuō)話已經(jīng)不很清楚，他知道自己毫無(wú)康復(fù)的希望了，而且病情正在迅速惡化。在接受醫(yī)生注射那致命的后一針之前，范·溫德康后三個(gè)月的生活被拍成了電影，去年在荷蘭的電視臺(tái)首次播出。此后，有20個(gè)國(guó)家先后購(gòu)買了這個(gè)電視節(jié)目，每在一國(guó)放映，都會(huì)在全國(guó)內(nèi)引起一場(chǎng)對(duì)安樂(lè)死的議論。
荷蘭是歐洲的允許安樂(lè)死的國(guó)家。盡管安樂(lè)死在技術(shù)上還不具有合法性，但如果醫(yī)生按照兩年前荷蘭議會(huì)制定的議案的嚴(yán)格指導(dǎo)原則實(shí)施用安樂(lè)死，但如果醫(yī)生按照兩年前荷蘭議會(huì)制定的議案的嚴(yán)格指導(dǎo)原則實(shí)施用安樂(lè)死，通常是不會(huì)受到法律的追究的。這些指導(dǎo)原則規(guī)定，當(dāng)病人極度痛苦，沒(méi)有治愈的可能，而且一再要求的情況下才能實(shí)施安樂(lè)死。另外，還必須有第二位名醫(yī)生證實(shí)已經(jīng)符合上述條件，并且要向警察機(jī)關(guān)報(bào)告病人的死亡。
能允許醫(yī)生結(jié)束他人的生命嗎?齊斯·范·溫德?tīng)柕乃饺酸t(yī)生威爾弗雷德·馮·奧依金解釋了他對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題的看法"哦，這種情況和我計(jì)劃用機(jī)關(guān)槍殺死一大群人完全不一樣。若是那樣，殺人是我所能想象的可怕的事。但我作為醫(yī)生實(shí)施安樂(lè)死和用槍殺人是絕對(duì)不同的。我是關(guān)心人，我要盡量保證他們不受更多痛苦。這和那種情況完全是兩碼事。"
然而，仍然有很多人堅(jiān)決反對(duì)使用安樂(lè)死。"反安樂(lè)死健康醫(yī)療"組織的主席安德魯·福格森說(shuō)："在使用安樂(lè)死的大多數(shù)病例中，患者實(shí)際上需要的是其他的東西。他們可能需要在健康專家的指導(dǎo)下，與所愛(ài)的人或家人進(jìn)行交流。"英國(guó)晚期病人收容所有著牢固的傳統(tǒng)，一種專門(mén)護(hù)理垂危病人并滿足他們特殊需要的特殊醫(yī)院。國(guó)家收容所委員會(huì)主席和收容運(yùn)動(dòng)的發(fā)起人茜西莉·桑德斯認(rèn)為，使用安樂(lè)死把護(hù)理垂危病人的其他方式都排除了。她還擔(dān)心允許使用安樂(lè)死會(huì)減少很多人對(duì)于照顧和關(guān)心的要求。"在今天的社會(huì)里，這樣很容易使老年人、殘疾人和靠他人生活的人們感到自己是社會(huì)的負(fù)擔(dān)，應(yīng)該從生活中消失掉。我覺(jué)得法律上任何允許縮短人們生命和作法都會(huì)使那些人變得更容易受傷害。"
很多人發(fā)現(xiàn)禁止一個(gè)人選擇死亡的權(quán)利是沒(méi)有道理的。盡管他們也認(rèn)為生命很重要，并且應(yīng)當(dāng)尊重生命，但是生活的質(zhì)量也不容忽視。范·奧依金醫(yī)生認(rèn)為如果人們想死，他們應(yīng)當(dāng)有選擇死亡的權(quán)利："那些反對(duì)使用安樂(lè)死的人們是在告訴我們要死亡的人沒(méi)有這種權(quán)利。當(dāng)他們病重時(shí)，我們害怕他們會(huì)死去。但是有的情況下死亡是人們的朋友。在那種情況下，為什么不使用安樂(lè)死呢?"
但"為什么不呢?"是一個(gè)會(huì)引起強(qiáng)烈的情感的問(wèn)題。那部反映齊斯·范·溫德?tīng)査劳銮榫暗碾娪凹雀腥擞职l(fā)人深醒。很顯然，這位醫(yī)生是他們一家人的朋友;溫德?tīng)柕钠拮右彩且恍臑檎煞蚝?。然而，有些人?zhēng)論說(shuō)用這種特殊事例來(lái)支持安樂(lè)死是危險(xiǎn)的。再說(shuō)，不是所有的病人都會(huì)受到如此周到的個(gè)別護(hù)理和關(guān)注。
【篇四】
Advantage Unfair
According to the writer Walter Ellis, author of a book called the Oxbridge Conspiracy, Britain is still dominated by the old-boy network: it isn't what you know that matters, but who you know. He claims that at Oxford and Cambridge Universities (Oxbridge for short) a few select people start on an escalator ride which, over the years, carries them to the tops of British privilege and power. His research revealed that the top professions all continue to be dominated, if not 90 per cent, then 60 or 65 per cent, by Oxbridge graduates.
And yet ,says Ellis, Oxbridge graduates make up only two per cent of the total number of students who graduate from Britain's universities. Other researches also seem to support his belief that Oxbridge graduates start with an unfair advantage in the employment market. In the law, a recently published report showed that out of 26 senior judges appointed to the High Court last year, all of them went to private schools and 21 of them went to Oxbridge.
But can this be said to amount to a conspiracy? Not according to Dr. John Rae, a former headmaster of one of Britain's leading private schools, Westminster:"I would accept that there was a bias in some key areas of British life, but that bias has now gone. Some time ago - in the 60s and before - entry to Oxford and Cambridge was not entirely on merit. Now, there's absolutely no question in any objective observer's mind that entry to Oxford and Cambridge is fiercely competitive."However, many would disagree with this. For, although over three-quarters of British pupils are educated in state schools, over half the students that go to Oxbridge have been to private, or "public" schools. Is this because pupils from Britain's private schools are more intelligent than those from state schools, or are they simply better prepared?
On average, about ￡5,000 a year is spent on each private school pupil, more than twice the amount spent on state school pupils. So how can the state schools be expected to compete with the private schools when they have far fewer resources? And how can they prepare their pupils for the special entrance exam to Oxford University, which requires extra preparation, and for which many public school pupils traditionally stay at school and do an additional term?
Until recently, many blamed Oxford for this bias because of the university's special entrance exam (Cambridge abolished its entrance exam in 1986). But last February, Oxford University decided to abolish the exam to encourage more state school applicants. From autumn 1996, Oxford University applicants, like applicants to other universities, will be judged only on their A level results and on their performance at interviews, although some departments might still set special tests.
However, some argue that there's nothing wrong in having elite places of learning, and that by their very nature, these places should not be easily accessible. Most countries are run by an elite and have centres of academic excellence from which the elite are recruited.
Walter Ellis accepts that this is true:"But in France, for example, there are something like 40 equivalents of university, which provide this elite through a much broader base. In America you've got the Ivy League, centred on Harvard and Yale, with Princeton and Stanford and others. But again, those universities together - the elite universities - are about ten or fifteen in number, and are being pushed along from behind by other great universities like, for example, Chicago and Berkeley. So you don't have just this narrow concentration of two universities providing a constantly replicating elite."
When it comes to Oxford and Cambridge being elitist because of the number of private school pupils they accept, Professor Stone of Oxford University argues that there is a simple fact he and his associates cannot ignore:"If certain schools do better than others then we just have to accept it. We cannot be a place for remedial education. It's not what Oxford is there to do."
However, since academic excellence does appear to be related to the amount of money spent per pupil. This does seem to imply that Prime Minister John Major's vision of Britain as a classless society is still a long way off. And it may be worth remembering that while John Major didn't himself go to Oxbridge, most of his ministers did.