BEC考生經(jīng)驗交流:也談BEC閱讀

字號:

最近BEC熱,所以好多同學(xué)問到有沒有考試的技巧,坦率說,我心里非常清楚,好多人想要的技巧則是能夠在做閱讀時不看文章就把題目全部做對,做聽力時不聽懂也能把題全部做對,寫作文時一個字都不寫也能做對,口語一句話都不說也能拿滿分。說得的確有點夸張,但真實地反應(yīng)了大家渴望捷徑的心態(tài)。那么,有沒有捷徑呢,是有的,然而所謂捷徑,要么省時,要么省力,要么省錢,但是不可能三樣全省,也就是說,不可能省功,所以用功是最關(guān)鍵的,那么用功和不用功的結(jié)果是不同的,而我的理念是,如果我們看到一個人成功,如同魔術(shù)表演一樣,但是卻不知道他準備或者練習(xí)的過程,那么怎么可能和他一樣呢?所以碰巧有學(xué)生問到我一篇BEC高級的閱讀,我想把我的解題的思路放在這里,和大家分享一下,讓大家看看我達到這樣的結(jié)果的過程,希望能夠給大家一點啟示。
    In terms of pure quantity of research and debate, business schools have performed amazingly in promoting management as a distinctive activity. No other discipline has produced as much in such a short period. It is unclear yet how much of it will stand the test of time, but for sheer industry, the business school deserve credit. Not a day goes by without another wave of research papers, books, articles, and journals.
    In these terms, schools have produced a generally accepted theoretical basis for management. When it comes to knowledge creation, however, they find themselves in difficulties. They are caught between the need for academic rigour and for real-world business relevance, which tend to pull in opposite directions. The desire to establish management as a credible discipline leads to research that panders to traditional academic criteria. The problem for business school researchers is that they seek the approval of their academic peers rather than the business community. In the United States this has led to the sort of grand ‘paper clip counting’ exercises that meet demands for academic rigour but fail to add one iota to the real sum of human knowledge.
    Business schools have too often allowed the constraints of the academic world to cloud their view of the real world. Business school researchers seek provable theories – rather than helpful theories. They have championed a prescriptive approach to management based on analysis and, more recently, on fashionable ideas that soon disappear into the ether. The ‘one best way’ approach encourages researchers to mould the idiosyncrasies of managerial reality into their tightly defined models of behaviour. Figures and statistics are fitted into linear equations and tidy models. Economists and other social scientists label this cure smoothing. Meanwhile, reality continually refuses to co-operate.
    Central to this is the tension between relevance and rigour. In a perfect world, there would be no need to choose between the two. But in the business school world, the need to satisfy academic criteria and be published in journals often tilts the balance away from relevance. In other words, it is often easier to pursue quantifiable objectives than it is to add anything useful to the debate about management. To a large extent, the entire business school system works against useful, knowledge-creating research. Academics have five years in which to prove themselves if they are to make the academic grade. It seems long enough. But it can take two or even three years to get into a suitable journal. They therefore have around three years, probably less, to come up with an area of interest and carry out meaningful and original research. This is a demanding timescale. The temptation must be to slice up old data in new ways rather than pursue genuinely groundbreaking, innovative research.
    It is a criticism also made by some business school insiders. “Academic journals tend to find more and more techniques for testing more and more obscure theories. They are asking trivial questions and answering them exactly. There has to be a backlash,” says Julian Birkinshaw of London Business School. In large part, the problem goes back to a time when business schools were trying to establish themselves. Up until the 1960s, American business schools were dismissed as pseudo-academic institutions, including the universities of which they often formed a part, regarded them as a little more than vocational colleges. Since then, most of the leading schools have undergone major reassessments and introduced sweeping changes. However, it is questionable whether those changes have gone far enough.
    15 What does the first paragraph suggest about the research generated by business schools?A Its quality is variable.B Its lasting value is uncertain.C It has always been produced too quickly.D It has had no influence on management.
    16 In paragraph two, the writer argues that business school researchA takes a negative view of the business community.B as failed to give credibility to management as a discipline.C is directed at the wrong audience.D does not stand up to academic scrutiny.
    17 In the third paragraph, the writer criticizes the theories of management produced by business schools for beingA incomprehensible.B contradictory.C vague.D inflexible.
    18 In the fourth paragraph, the writer says that the business school system causes academics toA be satisfied with reinterpreting previous research.B avoid complicated business issues.C concentrate on very narrow fields of study.D focus on topics no longer relevant to business needs.19 What do we learn about business schools in the last paragraph? A They are reluctant to admit to failings.B They resent criticism of their academic journal.C They used to be looked down on by other institutions.D They are comfortable with the current situation.
    20 What is the writer’s purpose in this text?A to express regret at the growth of business schoolsB to point out a weakness in the approach of business schoolsC to criticize business school for producing bad academicsD to forecast the eventual collapse of business schools
    這是2007年的題目,摘自人民郵電出版社編寫的《劍橋BEC真題集(高級)》第58頁,大部分學(xué)生在閱讀文章的時候,對17和18題都有共同的問題,所以出錯很多,現(xiàn)提供講解思路如下:
    17題,第三段第一行Business school have too often allow the constrains of the academic world to cloud the view of the real world. 是主題句,所以證明由于商學(xué)院的問題導(dǎo)致很多觀點都因為學(xué)術(shù)方面的限制而被遮掩了,或者被制約了,那么就證明,不會是不能理解的,也不會是矛盾的,也不會是模糊的,而是不靈活的。下文在證明,說商學(xué)院不去管那些真正有幫助的理論,而去一味追求那些得到學(xué)術(shù)認可的東西,然后給了一個例子支撐,后面又說了the "one best way " approach encourages reasearcher to mould the idiosyncrasies of managerial reality into tightly defined models of behaviours.說的是為了所謂的的方法,那么必然鼓勵研究人員把管理現(xiàn)實的一些特性硬梆梆地放進一些模型里,這些模型是tigtly defined的,和flexible剛好對立,后面的方程那些是給的例子支撐這個觀點的。所以問題問的是觀點,而我們都知道細節(jié)是一定支撐觀點的,所以我們只需要尋找觀點就可以了,這道題選擇D。
    下面一段主題句就是第一句Central to this is the tension between relevance and rigour.言下之意就是商學(xué)院教育或者學(xué)術(shù)上條條款款rigour,和現(xiàn)實生活的相關(guān)性relevance之間的矛盾,下面分析說在理想世界里面不需要二者選一,因為可以達到完美結(jié)合,但是在現(xiàn)實商界the need to satisty and be published in journals tilts the balance講的就是為了發(fā)表學(xué)術(shù)文章,為了達到學(xué)術(shù)標準,那么天平失衡,而且是away from relevance,也就是偏重學(xué)術(shù)要求了,后面in other words,是換個說法來支撐這個觀點,理解不難的。To a large extent, the entire business school system works against useful knowledge-creating research這個地方就是要考察的地方,因為問題也問的是這里,所以發(fā)現(xiàn)這個SYSTEM和知識創(chuàng)新背道而馳,如果這里沒有看到問題里的ACADEMICS的話,那么后面會出現(xiàn)例子證明,果然后面說要拿學(xué)術(shù)分數(shù)要花五年,但其中兩到三年就要花在進學(xué)術(shù)期刊上,自然剩下的兩年很難用到開發(fā)研究新信息新數(shù)據(jù)上,然后The temptation must be to slice up the old data in new ways rather than pursue genuinely ground-breaking innovative research. 也就是說這就誘惑這,當然也就是變相鼓勵的意思,鼓勵那些人用換湯不換藥的方法去用原來的數(shù)據(jù),而并沒有致力于真正革新的研究。這樣的話,也就剛好復(fù)合A答案。B答案說避免復(fù)雜的案例,其實并沒有說,因為學(xué)術(shù)研究也可能研究過復(fù)雜的案例的,只是現(xiàn)在換湯不換藥,所以并沒有明說現(xiàn)在研究的就必原來簡單,C說集中研究領(lǐng)域很窄,用原來的數(shù)據(jù)并不意味著研究領(lǐng)域很窄。D說的是關(guān)注不再和商業(yè)需求有關(guān)的話題,難道關(guān)注換大米,自殺性爆炸事件?只是說學(xué)術(shù)要求和現(xiàn)實相關(guān)性的失衡,但并不意味著完全脫離商業(yè)需求。
    其他的題目大家可以自己操練一下,答案依次為BCDACB