-
-
查看答案
正确率：100%
-
2022-12-28 21:43:08
-
-
查看答案
正确率：100%
-
2022-12-28 21:43:01
-
-
查看答案
正确率：100%
-
2022-12-28 21:42:53
-
1[简答题]
Why Go to Canada?
(1) Huge, scenic and sparsely populated, Canada was rated by the United Nations Human Development Index as the best country to live in. The land of new hopes and opportunities attracts people worldwide.
(2) Very few people really understand or know anything about the process of immigration application. First of all a potential immigrant needs to know something about the rules and regulations. The Canadian Government has designed a point system to assess potential independent immigrants. Emphasis is placed on education, practical training, experience and the likelihood of successful settlement in Canada. This means that people with a bachelor degree of some kind and advanced technical or other skills that are in demand in Canada are more likely to be accepted. The Government also adds weight to an application if the individual is fluent in Canada’s official languages, English and French. Therefore someone with a good command of either English or French will have a better chance. Another way to immigrate to Canada is via the immigrant investor program. This provides an opportunity for experienced business persons to immigrate to Canada after making a substantial investment in a provincial government-administered venture capital fund.
( 3 ) If you think you fulfill all the criteria you can easily apply for immigration by yourself. The Canadian Government clearly states: “Any one can apply without the help of a third party”. As often happens in these situations, unscrupulous agents can take advantage of people who think that the only way they can immigrate is by paying huge amounts of money. People who want to become immigrants should carefully investigate the reputation and qualifications of third parties who offer their services for a fee. So why bother to use an immigration agent if application is easy?
( 4 ) Actually there are many good reasons why so many intending migrants use such services. What the least competent and reliable professionals do is simply fill out forms and send them to the Canadian Embassy with the required fees and documents! Some individuals (who can be referred to as “unscrupulous agents”) may fail to send in the correct documents, delay the clients’ application delivery, talk an unqualified candidate into buying their services despite the high possibility that the visa application will be refused or even suggest their clients supply fraudulent documents that are often discovered by the Canadian Embassy. Conversely, a highly qualified and reliable professional service justifies its costs for the comprehensive services it provides. A professional and reliable immigration firm should provide these services for its clients:
(5) Firstly, an intending immigrant must first be well aware of his chances of success. A substantial amount of necessary payment and the potential impact on an applicant’s life can be avoided. A highly experienced immigration professional is capable of assessing a client’s chances of success with an extremely high degree of certainty. In the case of a most unfavorable application, he discourages the client’s application.
(6) Secondly, depending on an effective interpretation of the selection rules as well as accumulated experiences, an experienced immigration professional highlights the applicant’s qualities and helps persuade visa officials that the applicant is worthy of selection and meets all the selection criteria. If a person doesn’t seem qualified, the adviser tries to find out other alternatives that may exist to make him a successful applicant. Such instances where qualified persons were discouraged from making applications are numerous. For example, a computer programmer whose professional skills are highly sought after in the Canadian labor market may be considered unqualified by the variance of their job description to the specifications in the National Occupational Descriptions published by the Canadian Government. An experienced immigration professional avoids areas of potential misunderstanding and best ensures that all the documents submitted and answers given at an interview will support a successful application.
(7) Thirdly, the presentation or package of the application often makes a decisive impression on the visa officer. An experienced immigration professional identifies what type of information can be supplied that is most likely to favorably impress the visa officer considering the application.
( 8 ) Fourthly, in the case of a person who simply does not qualify, an immigration professional indicates the reasons that may lead to their visa application refusal and tries to find out ways to improve their circumstances so they become qualified.
( 9 ) Fifthly, sometimes even highly qualified candidates finally end up in dismay for want of knowledge on migration affairs or misinterpretation of Canadian migration rules. In many cases, due to unnecessary concealing of certain facts that often lead to discovery, a supposedly successful application will be rejected and the applicant’s personal credibility in future applications is ruined. A migration professional explains and convinces the visa officers that a person is highly qualified despite some minor factors that may be unfavorable to his application.
(10) Sixthly, a seasoned immigration professional helps identify potential problems and provides advice in advance. An immigration professional is expected to be familiar with immigration law, she/he advises the applicant whether or not to submit certain complimentary documents, what evidence needs to be acquired to help support the candidate, and what should be avoided that may cause a negative impact on the application.
Answer the following essay question in English within 80-100 words. Write your answers on the Answer Sheet. (10 points)
What’s your view on immigration to Canada?
-
2[简答题]
How America Lives
(1) Americans still follow many of the old ways. In a time of rapid changes it is essential that we remember how much of the old we cling to. Young people still get married. Of course, many do get divorced, but they remarry at astonishing rates. They have children, but fewer than before. They belong to churches, even though they attend somewhat less frequently, and they want their children to have religious instruction. They are willing to pay taxes for education, and they generously support institutions like hospitals, museums and libraries. In fact, when you compare the America of today with that of 1950, the similarities are far greater than the differences.
(2) Americans seem to be growing conservative. The 1980 election, especially for the Senate and House of Representatives, signaled a decided turn to the right insofar as political and social attitudes were concerned. It is as if our country spent the 1960s and 1970s jealously breaking out of old restraints and now wishes to put the brakes on. We should expect to see a reaffirmation of traditional family values, sharp restraints on pornography, a return to religion and a rejection of certain kinds of social legislation.
(3) Patterns of courtship and marriage have changed radically. Where sex was concerned, I was raised in an atmosphere of suspicion, repression and Puritanism, and although husky young kids can survive almost anything, many in my generation suffered grievously. Without reservation, I applaud the freer patterns of today, although I believe that it’s been difficult for some families to handle the changes.
(4) American women are changing the rules. Thirty years ago I could not have imagined a group of women employees suing a major corporation for millions of dollars of salary which, they alleged, had been denied them because they had been discriminated against. Nor could I imagine women in universities going up to the men who ran the athletic programs and demanding a just share of the physical education budget. At work, at play, at all levels of living women are suggesting new rules.
(5) America is worried about its schools. If I had a child today, I would send her or him to a private school for the sake of safety, for the discipline that would be enforced and for the rigorous academic requirements. But I would doubt that the child would get any better education than l did in my good public school. The problem is that good public schools are becoming pitifully rare, and I would not want to take the chance that the one I sent my children to was inadequate.
(6) Some Americans must live on welfare. Since it seems obvious that our nation can produce all its needs with only a part of the available work force, some kind of social welfare assistance must be doled out to those who cannot find jobs. When I think of a typical welfare recipient I think of a young neighbor woman whose husband was killed in a tragic accident, leaving her with three young children. In the bad old days she might have known destitution, but with family assistance she was able to hold her children together and produced three fine, tax-paying citizens. America is essentially a compassionate society.
(7) America cannot find housing for its young families. I consider this the most serious danger confronting family life in America, and I am appalled that the condition has been allowed to develop. For more than a decade, travelers like me have been aware that in countries like Sweden, Denmark, Russia and India young people have found it almost impossible to acquire homes. In Sweden the customary wait was 11 years of marriage, and we used to ask, “what went wrong?” It seemed to us that a major responsibility of any nation would be to provide homes for its young people starting their families. Well, this dreadful social sickness has now overtaken the United States, and for the same reasons. The builders in our society find it profitable to erect three-bathroom homes that sell for $220,000 with a mortgage at 19 percent but find it impossible to erect small homes for young marrieds. For a major nation to show itself impotent to house its young people is admitting a failure that must be corrected.
(8) Our prospects are still good. We have a physical setting of remarkable integrity, the world’s best agriculture, a splendid wealth of minerals, great rivers for irrigation and an unsurpassed system of roads for transportation. We also have a magnificent mixture of people from all the continents with varied traditions and strengths. But most of all, we have a unique and balanced system of government.
(9) I think of America as having the oldest form of government on earth, because since we started our present democracy in 1789, every other nation has suffered either parliamentary change or revolutionary change. It is our system that has survived and should survive, giving the maximum number of people a maximum chance for happiness.
Answer the following essay question in English within 80-100 words. Write your answers on the Answer Sheet. (10 points)
What do you think are the merits that we could learn from Americans?
-
3[简答题]
(1) Freedom’s challenge in the Atomic Age is a sobering topic. We are facing today a strange new world and we are all wondering what we are going to do with it. What are we going to do with one of our most precious possessions, freedom? The world we know, our Western world, began with something as new as the conquest of space.
(2) Some 2,500 years ago Greece discovered freedom. Before that there was no freedom. There were great civilizations, splendid empires, but no freedom anywhere. Egypt, Babylon, Nineveh, were all tyrannies, one immensely powerful man ruling over helpless masses. In Greece, in Athens, a little city in a little country, there were no helpless masses, and a time came when the Athenians were led by a great man who did not want to be powerful. Absolute obedience to the ruler was what the leaders of the empires insisted on. Athens said no, there must never be absolute obedience to a man except in war. There must be willing obedience to what is good for all. Pericles, the great Athenian statesman, said: “We are a free government, but we obey the laws, more especially those which protect the oppressed, and the unwritten laws which, if broken, bring shame.”
(3) Athenians willingly obeyed the written laws which they themselves passed, and the unwritten, which must be obeyed if free men live together. They must show each other kindness and pity and the many qualities without which life would be intolerable except to a hermit in the desert. The Athenians never thought that a man was free if he could do what he wanted. A man was free if he was self-controlled. To make yourself obey what you approved was freedom. They were saved from looking at their lives as their own private affair. Each one felt responsible for the welfare of Athens, not because it was imposed on him from the outside, but because the city was his pride and his safety. The creed of the first free government in the world was liberty for all men who could control themselves and would take responsibility for the state. This was the conception that underlay the lofty reach of Greek genius.
(4) But discovering freedom is not like discovering atomic bombs. It cannot be discovered once for all. If people do not prize it, and work for it, it will depart. Eternal vigilance is its price. Athens changed. It was a change that took place unnoticed though it was of the utmost importance, a spiritual change which penetrated the whole state. It had been the Athenians’ pride and joy to give to their city. That they could get material benefits from her never entered their minds. There had to be a complete change of attitude before they could look at the city as an employer who paid her citizens for doing her work. Now instead of men giving to their state, the state was to give to them. What the people wanted was a government which would provide a comfortable life for them; and with this as the foremost object, ideas of freedom and self-reliance and responsibility were obscured to the point of disappearing. Athens was more and more looked on as a cooperative business possessed of great wealth in which all citizens had a right to share.
(5) She reached the point when the freedom she really wanted was freedom from responsibility. There could be only one result. If men insisted on being free from the burden of self-dependence and responsibility for the common good, they would cease to be free. Responsibility is the price every man must pay for freedom. It is to be had on no other terms. Athens, the Athens of Ancient Greece, refused responsibility, she reached the end of freedom and was never to have it again.
(6) But, “the excellent becomes the permanent,” Aristotle said. Athens lost freedom forever, but freedom was not lost forever for the world. A great American statesman, James Madison, in or near the year 1776 A.D. referred to “the capacity of mankind for self-government”. No doubt he had not an idea that he was speaking Greek. Athens was not in the farthest background of his mind, but once a great and good idea has dawned upon man, it is never completely lost. The Atomic Age cannot destroy it. Somehow in this or that man’s thought such an idea lives though unconsidered by the world of action. One can never be sure that it is not on the point of breaking out into action, only sure that it will do so sometime.
Answer the following essay question in English within 80-100 words. Write your answers on the Answer Sheet. (10 points)
What is your view on “freedom”?
-
1[翻译题]
Bright Sparks
(1) By the time Laszlo Polagar’s first baby was born in 1969 he already had firm views on child-rearing. An eccentric citizen of communist Hungary, he had written a book called “Bring up Genius!” and one of his favorite sayings was “Geniuses are made, not born”.
(2) An expert on the theory of chess, he proceeded to teach little Zsuzsa at home, spending up to ten hours a day on the game. Two more daughters were similarly hot-housed. All three obliged their father by becoming world-class players. The youngest, Judit, is currently ranked 13th in the world, and is by far the best female chess player of all time.
(3) Would the experiment have succeeded with a different trio of children? If any child can be turned into a star, then a lot of time and money are being wasted worldwide on trying to pick winners.
(4) America has long held “talent searches”, using test results and teacher recommendations to select children for advanced school courses, summer schools and other extra tuition. This provision is set to grow. In his state-of-the-union address in 2006, President George Bush announced the “American Competitiveness Initiative”, which, among much else, would train 70,000 high-school teachers to lead advanced courses for selected pupils in mathematics and science. Just as the super powers’ space race made Congress put money into science education, the thought of China and India turning out hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists is scaring America into stimulating its brightest to do their best.
(5) The philosophy behind this talent search is that ability is innate; that it can be diagnosed with considerable accuracy; and that it is worth cultivating.
(6) In America, bright children are ranked as “moderately”, “highly”, “exceptionally” and “profoundly” gifted. The only chance to influence innate ability is thought to be in the womb or the first couple of years of life. Hence the craze for “teaching aids” such as videos and flashcards for newborns, and “whale sounds” on tape which a pregnant mother can strap to her belly.
(7) In Britain, there is a broadly similar belief in the existence of innate talent, but also an egalitarian (平等主义的) sentiment which makes people queasy about the idea of investing resources in grooming intelligence.
(8) Teachers are often opposed to separate provision for the best-performing children, saying any extra help should go to stragglers. In 2002, in a bid to help the able while leaving intact the ban on most selection by ability in state schools, the government set up the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth. This outfit runs summer schools and master classes for children nominated by their schools. To date, though, only seven in ten secondary schools have nominated even a single child. Last year all schools were told they must supply the names of their top 10%.
(9) Picking winners is also the order of the day in excommunist states, a hangover from the times when talented individuals were plucked from their homes and ruthlessly trained for the glory of the nation. But in many other countries, opposition to the idea of singling out talent and grooming it runs deep. In Scandinavia, a belief in virtues like modesty and social solidarity makes people flinch from the idea of treating brainy children differently.
(10) And in Japan there is a widespread belief that all children are born with the same innate abilities - and should therefore be treated alike. All are taught together, covering the same syllabus at the same rate until they finish compulsory schooling. Those who learn quickest are expected then to teach their classmates.
(11) Statistics give little clue as to which system is best. The performance of the most able is heavily affected by factors other than state provision. Most state education in Britain is nominally non-selective, but middle-class parents try to live near the best schools. Ambitious Japanese parents have made private, out-of-school tuition a thriving business. And Scandinavia’s egalitarianism might work less well in places with more diverse populations and less competent teachers. For what it’s worth, the statistical data suggest that some countries, like Japan and Finland, can avoid selection and still thrive. But that does not mean that any country can ditch selection and do as well.
(12) Mr. Polgar thought any child could be a prodigy given the right teaching, an early start and enough practice. Some say the key to success is simply hard graft. Judit, the youngest of the Polgar sisters, was the most driven, and the most successful; Zsofia, the middle one, was regarded as the most talented, but she was the only one who did not achieve the status of grand master. “Everything came easiest to her,” said her older sister. “But she was lazy.”
Translation:
To date, though, only seven in ten secondary schools have nominated even a single child. Last year all schools were told they must supply the names of their top 10%.
-
2[翻译题]
The Birth of Rock
In some ways, the origin of rock and roll can be traced to a rivalry between two economic organizations in the music industry: ASCAP and BMI. The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) were formed in 1914 to guarantee that its members received a fee for the playing of their songs. ASCAP'right to collect this fee from the radio stations stood one court test after another.ASCAP charged each radio station a blanket amount to use its material. In 1941 it announced a 100 percent fee increase. Radio stations refused to go along, and as a result all songs protected by ASCAP were taken off the air. This included the work of many of the popular songwriters of the time and left radio stations with little music. The dispute was settled, at least temporarily, towards the end of 1941, but by that time radio stations had begun to rely on music provided by a new guild of composers.
Broadcast Music, Incorporated (BMI), was formed to scout for fresh talent who could provide radio stations with music. This became increasingly important as more stations switched to the deejay format.BMI were looking for a new sound. The sound they found was rock and roll. By the mid1950's BMI was a powerful force and so was the new sound.
In 1956 the Anti-Trust Committee of the House Judiciary Committee investigated BMI's domination of the recording industry. Songwriter Billy Rose, an ASCAP member, outlined BMI's role in the rise of rock and roll.
Not only are more of the BMI song junk, but in some cases they are obscene junk pretty much on the level with dirty comic magazines… It is the current climate on radio and TV which makes Elvis Presley and his animal posturing possible…
When ASCAP's songwriters were permitted to be heard,Al Joslon,Nora Bays, and Eddie Cantor were all big salesmen of songs. Today it is a set of untalented twitchers and twisters whose appeal is largely to the zootsuiter and the juvenile delinquent.
But of course there was much more to it than that. Rock and roll had come at a time when young people were finding it difficult to relate to the likes or Doris Day and Patti Page. There had been too many “adult”bands and too many tired crooners. Youth now wanted a sound of its own something new, different, and vital.
Rock was actually a blend of country music and rhythm and blues(R&B) that was popular among black people during the early 1950's.But record producers suspected that national white audiences would never idolize a black popular singer, no matter how much they liked the R&B beat. Sam Phillips, a lawyer and former disco jockey who formed Sun Records in the early 1950s,was a tireless researcher. He drove all over the South looking for new talent and promoting his records.“What I need,”he said, unabashedly,“is a white boy who can sing colored.” In 1954 he found him. Elvis Presley recorded “That's Alright Mama”,and the song enjoyed moderate success on the country music charts. Within two years Presley became the Sinatra of the 1950s, and by the end of the decade, the older generation was explaining to the young that Sinatra had been the Elvis Presley of the 1940's.
The father of rock and roll was Cleveland Deejay Alan Freed, who had started mixing R&B songs with Al Martino and Frank Sinatra records as early as 1951 on W/W. It was he who coined the term rock and roll to make R&B palatable to his white audience. In 1954 Freed moved to WINS in New York, where his Moodog's Rock and Roll Party was an instant success. WINS was soon the number one station in New York. Freed helped introduce Bill Haley's “Rock around the Clock”,the first rock and roll single to reach the top of the charts.
The Blackboard Jungle, a film about juvenile delinquency, featured “Rock around the Clock”as part of the soundtrack. The pulsating, uninhibited new sound was linked with restless, rebellious youth. Young people flocked to the screen to see that film and others in a similar vein. Radio, movies, and print media all contributed to the rise of rock and roll as the king of popular music.
“Rock around the Clock”was the bestselling song of 1955.In 1956 Elvis Presley had five of the year's 16 best sellers, including the number one and number two records,“Don't Be Cruel” and “Heartbreak Hotel”.I was one of the millions of kids who stood in front of the mirror with a plastic guitar and tried my best to imitate his wild pelvic movements.
Dick Clark's American Bandstand sent the latest songs out to millions of America's teenagers. Many artists like Frankie Avlon, Fabian, Paul Anka, Bobby Dorin, and Bobby Rydell used the dance show as a stepping stone in their careers. Every one of them was a teenage idol in the mold of Sinatra and Presley; all made millions of dollars and were worshiped everywhere they went. But none surpassed Presley; he remained “the King”.Though he died in 1977, his music and the impact it had on American youth will be felt for decades to come.
Another change that happened during the 1950's was the disappearance of the 78——rpm discs that had taken over from Edison's cylinders. The 78s were too large and too breakable, so they were replaced by the smaller, more durable 45—rpm records. Teenagers could pick up a couple of dozen of these and take them to a “sock hop”.This helped records and the music to become an important part of the youth culture.
Despite the anguished pleas of the older generation and of songwriters like Billy Rose, rock and roll was here to stay.
Translation:
Rock was actually a blend of country music and rhythm and blues (R & B) that was popular among black people during the early 1950's.
-
3[翻译题]
How America Lives
(1) Americans still follow many of the old ways. In a time of rapid changes it is essential that we remember how much of the old we cling to. Young people still get married. Of course, many do get divorced, but they remarry at astonishing rates. They have children, but fewer than before. They belong to churches, even though they attend somewhat less frequently, and they want their children to have religious instruction. They are willing to pay taxes for education, and they generously support institutions like hospitals, museums and libraries. In fact, when you compare the America of today with that of 1950, the similarities are far greater than the differences.
(2) Americans seem to be growing conservative. The 1980 election, especially for the Senate and House of Representatives, signaled a decided turn to the right insofar as political and social attitudes were concerned. It is as if our country spent the 1960s and 1970s jealously breaking out of old restraints and now wishes to put the brakes on. We should expect to see a reaffirmation of traditional family values, sharp restraints on pornography, a return to religion and a rejection of certain kinds of social legislation.
(3) Patterns of courtship and marriage have changed radically. Where sex was concerned, I was raised in an atmosphere of suspicion, repression and Puritanism, and although husky young kids can survive almost anything, many in my generation suffered grievously. Without reservation, I applaud the freer patterns of today, although I believe that it’s been difficult for some families to handle the changes.
(4) American women are changing the rules. Thirty years ago I could not have imagined a group of women employees suing a major corporation for millions of dollars of salary which, they alleged, had been denied them because they had been discriminated against. Nor could I imagine women in universities going up to the men who ran the athletic programs and demanding a just share of the physical education budget. At work, at play, at all levels of living women are suggesting new rules.
(5) America is worried about its schools. If I had a child today, I would send her or him to a private school for the sake of safety, for the discipline that would be enforced and for the rigorous academic requirements. But I would doubt that the child would get any better education than l did in my good public school. The problem is that good public schools are becoming pitifully rare, and I would not want to take the chance that the one I sent my children to was inadequate.
(6) Some Americans must live on welfare. Since it seems obvious that our nation can produce all its needs with only a part of the available work force, some kind of social welfare assistance must be doled out to those who cannot find jobs. When I think of a typical welfare recipient I think of a young neighbor woman whose husband was killed in a tragic accident, leaving her with three young children. In the bad old days she might have known destitution, but with family assistance she was able to hold her children together and produced three fine, tax-paying citizens. America is essentially a compassionate society.
(7) America cannot find housing for its young families. I consider this the most serious danger confronting family life in America, and I am appalled that the condition has been allowed to develop. For more than a decade, travelers like me have been aware that in countries like Sweden, Denmark, Russia and India young people have found it almost impossible to acquire homes. In Sweden the customary wait was 11 years of marriage, and we used to ask, “what went wrong?” It seemed to us that a major responsibility of any nation would be to provide homes for its young people starting their families. Well, this dreadful social sickness has now overtaken the United States, and for the same reasons. The builders in our society find it profitable to erect three-bathroom homes that sell for $220,000 with a mortgage at 19 percent but find it impossible to erect small homes for young marrieds. For a major nation to show itself impotent to house its young people is admitting a failure that must be corrected.
(8) Our prospects are still good. We have a physical setting of remarkable integrity, the world’s best agriculture, a splendid wealth of minerals, great rivers for irrigation and an unsurpassed system of roads for transportation. We also have a magnificent mixture of people from all the continents with varied traditions and strengths. But most of all, we have a unique and balanced system of government.
(9) I think of America as having the oldest form of government on earth, because since we started our present democracy in 1789, every other nation has suffered either parliamentary change or revolutionary change. It is our system that has survived and should survive, giving the maximum number of people a maximum chance for happiness.
Directions: Translate the following sentence into Chinese
The 1980 election, especially for the Senate and House of Representatives, signaled a decided turn to the right insofar as political and social attitudes were concerned.
-
4[翻译题]
How America Lives
(1) Americans still follow many of the old ways. In a time of rapid changes it is essential that we remember how much of the old we cling to. Young people still get married. Of course, many do get divorced, but they remarry at astonishing rates. They have children, but fewer than before. They belong to churches, even though they attend somewhat less frequently, and they want their children to have religious instruction. They are willing to pay taxes for education, and they generously support institutions like hospitals, museums and libraries. In fact, when you compare the America of today with that of 1950, the similarities are far greater than the differences.
(2) Americans seem to be growing conservative. The 1980 election, especially for the Senate and House of Representatives, signaled a decided turn to the right insofar as political and social attitudes were concerned. It is as if our country spent the 1960s and 1970s jealously breaking out of old restraints and now wishes to put the brakes on. We should expect to see a reaffirmation of traditional family values, sharp restraints on pornography, a return to religion and a rejection of certain kinds of social legislation.
(3) Patterns of courtship and marriage have changed radically. Where sex was concerned, I was raised in an atmosphere of suspicion, repression and Puritanism, and although husky young kids can survive almost anything, many in my generation suffered grievously. Without reservation, I applaud the freer patterns of today, although I believe that it’s been difficult for some families to handle the changes.
(4) American women are changing the rules. Thirty years ago I could not have imagined a group of women employees suing a major corporation for millions of dollars of salary which, they alleged, had been denied them because they had been discriminated against. Nor could I imagine women in universities going up to the men who ran the athletic programs and demanding a just share of the physical education budget. At work, at play, at all levels of living women are suggesting new rules.
(5) America is worried about its schools. If I had a child today, I would send her or him to a private school for the sake of safety, for the discipline that would be enforced and for the rigorous academic requirements. But I would doubt that the child would get any better education than l did in my good public school. The problem is that good public schools are becoming pitifully rare, and I would not want to take the chance that the one I sent my children to was inadequate.
(6) Some Americans must live on welfare. Since it seems obvious that our nation can produce all its needs with only a part of the available work force, some kind of social welfare assistance must be doled out to those who cannot find jobs. When I think of a typical welfare recipient I think of a young neighbor woman whose husband was killed in a tragic accident, leaving her with three young children. In the bad old days she might have known destitution, but with family assistance she was able to hold her children together and produced three fine, tax-paying citizens. America is essentially a compassionate society.
(7) America cannot find housing for its young families. I consider this the most serious danger confronting family life in America, and I am appalled that the condition has been allowed to develop. For more than a decade, travelers like me have been aware that in countries like Sweden, Denmark, Russia and India young people have found it almost impossible to acquire homes. In Sweden the customary wait was 11 years of marriage, and we used to ask, “what went wrong?” It seemed to us that a major responsibility of any nation would be to provide homes for its young people starting their families. Well, this dreadful social sickness has now overtaken the United States, and for the same reasons. The builders in our society find it profitable to erect three-bathroom homes that sell for $220,000 with a mortgage at 19 percent but find it impossible to erect small homes for young marrieds. For a major nation to show itself impotent to house its young people is admitting a failure that must be corrected.
(8) Our prospects are still good. We have a physical setting of remarkable integrity, the world’s best agriculture, a splendid wealth of minerals, great rivers for irrigation and an unsurpassed system of roads for transportation. We also have a magnificent mixture of people from all the continents with varied traditions and strengths. But most of all, we have a unique and balanced system of government.
(9) I think of America as having the oldest form of government on earth, because since we started our present democracy in 1789, every other nation has suffered either parliamentary change or revolutionary change. It is our system that has survived and should survive, giving the maximum number of people a maximum chance for happiness.
Translate it into Chinese
Nor could I imagine women in universities going up to the men who ran the athletic programs and demanding a just share of the physical education budget.
