请原谅我哪些钻牛角尖的题目。。T,T 感激。。

上邪

04/29/2012            Are the Incentives of Colleges Aligned With Social Welfare? Becker                            The over 4,000 American private and public colleges and universities compete fiercely for students, faculty, and grants, and constitute the most competitive system of higher education in the world that provides both high quality and low quality programs. American universities are a magnet for postgraduate, and increasingly also for undergraduate, students from other countries. These two facts suggest that American universities (like Posner I use the word university to stand also for colleges) are doing a very good job of catering to the interests of students the world over. More generally, American universities are pretty successful in producing higher education that contributes effectively to social welfare, given the public policies that impinge on their behavior.
American public, private non-profit, and increasingly for-profit institutions of higher education compete hard for students and faculty. As a result, they offer a variety of courses, programs, and qualities of colleges and universities that range from a bare minimum program at many public community colleges to elite education at universities like Harvard, Stanford, and Chicago. These programs cater to students of varying qualities and with different interests. Students vote with their feet by choosing some institutions and programs over others, and by traveling long distances from other countries to attend American universities. This “voting” has made American universities responsive to the interests of students, which on the whole is a very good thing since these interests reflect changing job prospects and other changes in society.
In addition, American universities conduct much of the basic research conducted in the US, with support from the federal government and private gifts. That many young and older scientists and scholars from abroad compete to spend significant time at American universities is a good indication of the leading edge quality of this research. Perhaps they do not do “enough” basic research, but they do much more than universities elsewhere, and they would do even more if the federal government increased its support of university research.
American universities have been criticized because many of them engage in high-level competitive sports that involve heavy recruitment of student athletes. Since students and alumni like rooting for their school’s teams, these are perfectly appropriate activities for universities, aside from a couple of major problems. One is the exemption that the Supreme Court has granted to the obvious cartel-like behavior of the NCAA that uses its power to severely restrict compensation to student athletes, especially those in football and basketball. Universities should be forced to pay competitive prices for these athletes, not the much lower cartelized prices that the NCAA enforces. A much higher cost of star football and basketball players would induce some universities to tone down their emphasis on these sports, but many universities would still compete in these and other sports.
I agree with Posner that the federally financed student loan program needs significant modifications. More market-based interest rates on these loans are desirable, but in addition students under various circumstances should be allowed to borrow more than the current maximum limits on these loans. Especially students who attend expensive private universities may want to borrow more than they can at present, but most of them also receive high enough earnings later on to finance the interest repayment burden on these loans. It is no harder for most families to carry $100, 000 or more in student loans than it is for them to repay mortgage loans of comparable size.
However, students who are fettered with loans that they cannot repay should be able to discharge all or part of their loans through personal bankruptcy. To be sure, unlike mortgages, student loans do not have collateral that can be taken over by lenders in case of defaults on the loans. This is not so different than home ownership in the many states that do not allow the individuals declaring personal bankruptcy to be sued, although lenders can foreclose their homes. Despite the absence of collateral, workers who cannot repay their student loans should have the option of reducing the burden through discharging some of the loans through personal bankruptcy, the way other debt can be dischargeable through bankruptcy. To limit the abuse of this privilege, universities (including the for-profits) that make many student loans that end up being in arrears or discharged through bankruptcy should have their ability to make further loans severely constrained. This is already done to some extent, but tightening these constraints would force schools to be more careful in who they qualify for loans and the amounts they qualify for.
Having taught for almost all my adult life at American universities I am well aware of their many limitations. These include faculty who cater to students by easy grading and telling jokes, faculty who engage in vicious battles over trivial issues, faculty and administrators who are afraid to take stands against political correctness and the latest education fads, alumni and other donors who are cultivated for large gifts that really do not help a university’s mission, and so forth. Nevertheless, on the whole, American universities do an excellent job of providing up to date and diversified education for students of varying abilities and interests. Many of their “failures” are the result of bad incentives provided by federal and state support and regulation of university programs. Students the world over have voted for decades with their feet in favor of American universities against what is available in other countries.

上邪

04/01/2012            Fracking and Self-Sufficiency in Gas and Oil-Becker                            More or less every American president starting with Dwight Eisenhower, and prioritized by Richard Nixon, called for American self-sufficiency in energy sources. In fact, America is now about self-sufficient in natural gas, and America’s oil imports have declined as a fraction of its total oil consumption from a peak of 60% in 2005 to about 50% in 2011. Part of the decline is due to the Great Recession’s effects on US output and automobile use. Another part is due to rising prices of oil that reduced oil imports, but increased spending on these imports. A third and growing part is due to increased domestic production of oil and especially gas that is likely to continue to grow rapidly during the next decade.  The main reason for the expansion in domestic gas and oil production is a technique called “hydraulic fracking”. Texas wildcatter George Mitchell was the most important person responsible for the development of the fracking method to extract gas from shale formations in the 1980s. This method uses large quantities of water under high pressure with added chemicals to crack open rocks and extract the gas, and sometimes oil, hidden in these rocks.   The cost of using fracking for natural gas extraction has become so competitive that most US natural gas production comes from fracking. As a result, the price of natural gas has fallen from a peak of about $10.80 per million BTUs to $2.20 currently. Instead of building terminals that could import liquefied natural gas, energy companies are now trying to export more natural gas. US natural gas inventories are so bloated there is a possibility that the price temporarily could be forced down toward $0, or even to a negative level.   Traditionally, a barrel of oil has sold for about 11 times the price of a million BTUs of natural gas. During the past few years, rising prices of oil and declining natural gas prices have raised that ratio to almost 50.No wonder there has been a rush to substitute gas for oil in electric power generation and in other activities.  Environmentalists have criticized the use of fracking techniques, and have pushed for bans or serious restrictions on their use. These critics claim that the techniques use too much water that could be used for other purposes, that it contaminates drinking water in areas surrounding fracking activities, and that it pollutes the air in surrounding neighborhoods. I am not in a position to authoritatively evaluate these environmental claims.  However, the chairman of Chesapeake Energy, a major fracking company, recently argued in a Wall Street Journal interview that fracking does not use so much water, and that in any case the company in most of its operations now recycles 90% to 100% of the water it does use. Furthermore, the EPA just dropped its claim that a different energy company contaminated drinking water in Texas. This is the third time in recent months that the EPA backtracked on claims that link fracking to pollution of surrounding water supplies. The size of the effects of fracking on air pollution is still an open question as the debate continues over this and other environmental effects of fracking.  Some political leaders have proposed a very bad idea:to restrict American output of oil and gas to use by American industry and consumers. If such laws were enacted and yet the US continued to import oil from abroad-which will be the case for the foreseeable future- restricting US production of oil to American use would have no effect on the domestic price of oil. The reason is that the global oil price would then determine domestic prices since no one would buy domestic oil if it were more expensive than imported oil, and no one would use imported oil if it carried a higher price than domestically produced oil.   On the other hand, suppose domestic production was so large that oil imports were unnecessary and exports of oil were prevented. Then domestic oil (along with natural gas) would sell below the world prices for these fuels. This would be bad for the domestic oil and gas industry because it would be forfeiting profits from selling some of its production abroad. Moreover, the relatively low domestic prices of these fuels would encourage greater domestic use that would lead to more pollution, although cleaner gas or oil would be substituted for dirtier coal in the production of electric power and in other uses.  Fracking has made the US self-sufficient in gas, and it is leading to reduced imports of oil. If this progress continues, before too long US consumption of oil as well as natural gas would not be drastically affected even by an entire breakdown of imports from the Middle East. The early progress in fracking techniques was very much aided by federal support and the work of engineers in the Energy Department. However, fracking was made into a profitable technique mainly through the ingenuity of people like George Mitchell in search of financial gains from finding ways to expand domestic production of gas and oil.

上邪

10：54 复习了昨天的200个单词 做完阅读小分队 摘完了生词 看了两篇自己摘的文章 谢谢猴猴亲给的博客链接咩、、、
12：28 结束CR总结。??
13:32 忍不住又总结了一会。。。 今天把PP07-2总结完了。。不过一定要记得自己再看一遍哇，，不然白总结了
14：41总结PP074篇阅读。。 文章都很短

接下来进入模考时间。。 从数学开始万恶的数学 。。
数学结束 错8个。=。=  全部错在后面了啊啊啊啊啊啊 最后10个错了6个我还能不能行了、。老毛病啊啊啊老毛病啊 啊

16:39 开始GWD 果然模考的时候应该先看点别的把自己搞晕再开始才比较仿真
结束GWD15 3+1+5 阅读错毁了- - 开始改错。。。 = = 今天倒是挺好 错的跟上次一样。。
19：11终于改错改完了 。。去吃饭  我怎么套套GWD都错三个语法= = 好无语

晚上复习了早上的200个单词 联系了没多久的读题吧。看了看老管的无关方法 = = 感觉太笼统 很难操作 做了5道SC

未完成：继续做SC 并且总结

上邪

作者态度题单词总结
2010-05-16 10:08
apprehensive忧虑的, 担心的, 恐惧的, 挂念的
annoyed生气的
analytical分析的, 解析的
amused愉快的, 开心的, 好玩的
alarmed恐吓的, 警告的
bitter苦的, 痛苦的, 怀恨的
conversational谈话的，供谈话的，口语的
concerned关心的
cautious谨慎的；非常小心的；细心的
contemptuous表示轻蔑的；傲慢的
critical批判的, 批评性的, 评论性的
confident确信的；有信心的；自信的
cynical愤世嫉俗的, 冷嘲热讽的; 玩世不恭的
defiant挑战的, 挑衅的, 目中无人的
detached超然的；公平的；公允的
distrustful不信任的, 怀疑的, 可疑的
disparaging蔑视的, 毁谤的, 轻视的
demanding过分要求的, 苛求的
disparaging轻蔑的, 贬低的; 毁谤的
disenchanted不再着迷的
defensive辩护的
enthusiastic热心的, 热情的
enlightened开通的，开明的
facetious幽默的, 滑稽的, 喜开玩笑的
frustrated失败的, 落空的
flippant无礼的；轻率的
genial愉快的; 亲切的, 和蔼的, 友好的
inquisitive好奇的；好问的
idealistic唯心论的, 空想主义的, 唯心主义者的
light-hearted轻松愉快的, 无忧无虑的
noncommittal不表示明确意见的， 不表态的；不承诺的；含糊的
neutral中立的，不偏向的
naive天真的
objective客观的
prejudiced有成见的；偏颇的
persuasive有说服力的
pragmatic实际的, 注重实效的
questioning质问的
resentful愤恨的; 愤慨的, 显然不满的; 易怒的
realistic现实主义的
scholarly精深的；博学的；学者风度的，学者派头的
speculative思索的; 推理的; 纯理论的;推测的;投机(性质)的; 冒风险的
skeptical怀疑的
sincere诚挚的, 真实的, 真诚的
supportive支持的，支援的
supportive支持的，支援的
tentative试验性的, 试探的, 尝试的, 暂定的
unsympathetic无同情心的，冷漠无情的
understanding谅解的，能谅解的
unpatriotic不爱国的, 无爱国心的
whimsical古怪的；异想天开的

上邪

monkey expressions：
monkeyshines=tricks or foolish acts
monkey around=you are doing something when you do not know what you are doing or  have no firm idea of what to do
Monkey business=secret，illegal activities
monkey out of someone=acting foolish or silly.
had more fun than a barrel of monkeys= had a really good time
Monkey suits= clothes or uniforms soldiers wear

上邪

10:13 阅读小分队结束 果然假期结束了大家都回来了 太吵了。。
14:05 做了不少语法 错误率还不错 发现还是有不少漏洞  
15:25背+复习了400个单词 狂点有道单词本点了一个半点 要吐血了。。刚点完 又提示我还有100个单词。。。能不能智能点。。。
16:23 总结3道阅读
17:57 做了一套数学 太逗乐了今天这正确率 29-37全错。。结果一共就错8个 = =。。。 还不如上次呢 至少前面能分担俩。。。 怒。。
21:10艾玛我今天太无趣了 一共做了50道语法。。。。  晚上10道RC+20道SC  

未完成：今天的语法改错还有不清楚的知识点没有查 GWD今天没来得及做就算了吧。。 晚上还要背单词 今天的小文章还没有摘。。= =||| 我的妈啊

哎呦艾玛、、= = 寝室人一回来就好吵。。 &*……））&（ 姑娘们能晚上聊点有料的话题吗 唧唧杵唧唧杵的

上邪

早上体能测试 来晚了
10:30 做了3个速度 不太想看了 直接上阅读题吧
13:05 做了好多阅读 没数 估计6篇吧 补完了今天的阅读小分队 看了会VB。。 开始SC之旅 首先从昨天的错题改起。。。我真是拖延症 。。哎
15;00终于总结完了语法点、。&（*%…………%&……*……*&）&（*&……%&（…… 又到了模考时间了。。。哎一天天的过的好快 进入数学。。。
16:05 30道DS结束。。错了5个 。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。
19:12 无比憎恶文科院校的作业 形式化论文、 终于拼完了一篇 开始继续模拟生活。
GWD 偶来啦
20;35 状态各种不好 错2+1+4个 好烦

上邪

17:22 今天一天课 早上做了小分队 中午开始背单词 背了500多个吧 到了现在 500多个也忘了大半了  老师无比扯淡 扯得够呛。。。快下课吧！！！！
19:14终于能静下来看会书了 30个语法 -错4 开始6篇阅读
20:22 做了4篇 不做啦 这次的速度倒是不错 1+1+0+1  3长一短 长的7分钟 短的5分钟 果然逻辑题不好啊。。阅读逻辑题老错
21:39 GWD13  1+1+0。。。 去改错 。。。 改完啦、、


未完成：CR没做。单词没背、SC错题没改 数学也没做啊啊啊啊啊啊！！

yakev6

上邪

你到住的地方了？？