千葉大 英語(2012年2番)の解説


英語入試問題演習で使用した

千葉大 英語(2012年2番)の解説

(1)下線部(1)は具体的に何を指すか。
設問の「具体的に」と「何を指すか」が答えを示唆している。
説明しろとは言っていない。したがって、答えは「単語か句」かつ、既出。
investment in a college education から college education が businessだとわかる。

(2)下線部(2)を和訳せよ。
butで逆接になっている。
:「すべてのアメリカ人が高等教育を受けられるようになってほしい。しかし、・・・」
「受ける」を「与える」に転換してみると、わかる。

(3)下線部(3)について、その実現のために行われたことは何か。
行われたことだけを答える。余計なことは書かない。

(4)下線部(4)の意味を,文脈から判断してわかりやすく説明しなさい。
(設問の日本語が変。「意味を」と「判断する」が呼応しない。何が問われているか、はっきりしない。)
こう問えば、受験生を混乱させないと思う。
「下線部のようになった理由を説明せよ。」
下線部の訳:パパが通っていたという事実は,もはや十分ではなくなった。

ここから、本文:
Soon after I started teaching at a new university, one student raised his hand and asked, about a text I had assigned, "Why did we have to buy this book?" I got the question in that form only once, but I heard it a number of times in the form of "Why did we have to read this book?" I could see that this was not only a perfectly *legitimate question; it was a very interesting question. The students were asking me to justify the return on investment in a college education. 大学教育への投資がもたらす利益 I just had never been called upon to think about this before.It wasn't part of my training. We took the value of (1) the business we were in for granted. 私たちが所属している企業には当然価値があると思っていた。(1)大学教育

 I could have said, "You are reading these books because you're in college, and these are the kinds of books that people in college read." If you hold a certain theory of education, that answer is not as circular as it sounds. Society needs a mechanism for sorting out its more intelligent members from its less intelligent ones, just as a track team needs a mechanism (such as a stopwatch) for sorting out the faster athletes from the slower ones. Society wants to identify intelligent people early on so that it can direct them into careers that maximize their talents. College is, essentially, a four-year intelligence test. Students have to demonstrate intellectual ability over time and across a range of subjects. At the end of the process, graduates get a score, the * G.P.A., that professional schools and employers can trust as a measure of intellectual capacity and productive potential. It's important, therefore, that everyone is taking more or less the same test.

 I could have answered the question in a different way. I could have said, "You're reading these books because they teach you things about the world and yourself that, if you do not learn them in college, you are unlikely to learn anywhere else." This reflects a different theory of college, a theory that runs like this: In a society that encourages its members to pursue the career paths that promise the greatest personal or financial rewards, people will, given a choice, learn only what they need to know for success. They will have no incentive to acquire the knowledge and skills important for life as a responsible citizen, or as a thinking and *culturally literate human being. College exposes future citizens to material that enlightens them, whatever careers they end up choosing.

 If you like the first theory, then it doesn't matter which courses students take, or even what is taught in them, as long as they're rigorous enough for the sorting mechanism to do its work All that matters is the grades. If you prefer the second theory, then you might consider grades a useful instrument of positive or negative *reinforcement, but the only thing that matters is what students actually learn. There is stuff that every adult ought to know, and college is the best delivery system for getting that stuff into people's heads.
Since 1945 American higher education has been committed to both theories. The system is designed to be both meritocratic (rewarding individual ability) and democratic (granting equal opportunity). Professional schools and employers depend on colleges to sort out each group of students as it passes into the workforce, and politicians talk about the importance of college for everyone. (2)We want higher education to be available to all Americans, but we also want people to deserve the grades they receive.(2)私たちはすべてのアメリカ人が高等教育を受けられるようになってほしいが、彼らが受けた教育にふさわしい人間になってほしいとも思う。
  
It wasn't always like this. Before 1945, elite private colleges like *Harvard and *Yale were largely in the business of reproducing a privileged social class.Between 1906 and 1932, four hundred and five boys from *Groton applied to Harvard. Four hundred and two were accepted. In 1932, Yale received thirteen hundred and thirty applications, and it admitted nine hundred and fifty-nine - an acceptance rate of seventy-two per cent. Almost a third of those who enrolled were sons of Yale graduates.
 
In 1948, through the efforts of people like James Bryant Conant, the president of Harvard, the Educational Testing Service went into business, and standardized testing soon became the virtually universal method for picking out the most intelligent students in the high-school population, regardless of their family background, and getting them into the higher-education system. Conant regarded higher education as a limited social resource, and he wanted (3)to make the gate narrower. (3)標準化テストを実施して,高校生の中で最も知的能力の高い学生だけを選抜した。Testing insured that only people who deserved to go to college did. (4) The fact that Daddy went was no longer sufficient. In 1940, the acceptance rate at Harvard was eighty-five per cent. By 1970, it was twenty per cent. Last year, thirty-five thousand students applied to Harvard, and the acceptance rate was six per cent.
最終パラグラフの訳1948年に,ハーバード学長ジェイムズ・ブライアント・コナント氏らの努力が実り,教育テストサービス(ETS)が動き出すと、標準化テストが,まもなく,家系や血筋に関わりなく,高校生の中で最も知的能力の高い学生を選抜するための、事実上一般的な方法になった。コナント氏は,高等教育を限られた社会資源と見なしていたので,大学の門戸を狭くしたいと考えていた。テストは,大学に行くに値する人だけが大学に行けるようにした。パパが通っていたという事実は,もはや十分ではなくなった。1940年,ハーバード大学の合格率は84%だった。1970年には,20%になった。昨年,35,000人がハーバードを志願したが,合格率は6%だった。

(4)大学入学者の選抜に関して、標準化テストの成績で合否を決めるようになったので、家系や血筋は合格の必要条件ではなくなったということ。

| 上北沢・哲英会(個人塾)連絡用ブログ ホーム |

▲TOPへ