Majored Finance An increase in students （11）to study economics at university is being attributed to （归因于）the global economic crisis awakening a public thirst for knowledge about how the（12）system works. Applications for degree courses beginning this aut

Governments are keen on higher eclucation,seeing it as a means to boost social mobility and economic growth.Almost all subsidise tuition-in America,to the tune of$200bn a year.But they tend to overestimate the benefits and ignore the costs of expanding university education.Often,public money just feeds the arms race for qualifications.As more young people seek degrees,the returns both to them and to governments are lower.Employers demand degrees for jobs that never required them in the past and have not become more demanding since.Spending on universities is usually justified by the"graduate premium"-the increase in earnings that graduates enjoy over non-graduates.These individual gains,the thinking goes,add up to an economic boost for society as a whole.But the graduate premium is a flawed unit of reckoning.Part of the usefulness of a degree is that it gives a graduate jobseeker an advantage at the expense of non-graduates.It is also a signal to employers of general qualities that someone already has in order to get into a university.Some professions require qualifications.But a degree is not always the best measure of the skills and knowledge needed for a job.With degrees so common,recruiters are using them as a crude way to screen applicants.Non-graduates are thus increasingly locked out of decent work.In any case,the premium counts only the winners and not the losers.Across the rich world,a third of university entrants never graduate.It is the weakest students who are drawn in as higher education expands ancl who are most likely LO drop out.They pay fees and sacrifice earnings to study,but see little boost iii thcir future incomes.When dropouts are includecl,the expected financial return to starting a degree for the weakest studcnts dwindles to almost nothing.Governments need to offer the young a wider range of options after school.They should start by rethinking their own hiring practices.Most insist on degrees for public-sector jobs that used to be done by non-graduates.Instead they should seek other ways for non-graduates to prove they have the right skills and to get more on-the-job training.School-Ieavers should be given a wider variety o:[ways to gain vocational skills and to demonstrate their employability in the private sector.lf school qualifications were made more rigorous,recruiters would be more likely to trust them as signals of ability.and less insistent on degrees."Micro-credentials"-short,work-focused courses approved by big employers in fast-growing fields,such as IT-show promise.Such measures would be more efficient at developing the skills that boost productivity and should save public money.To promote social mobility,governments should direct funds to early-school education and to helping students who would benefit from university but cannot afford it.Young people,both rich and poor,are ill-served by the academic arms race,in which each must study longer because that is what all the rest are doing.It is time to disarm.
Which is the most efficient way to improve the society?

A.Setting up vocational training courses in universities.
B.Increasing investment in early-school education.
C.Financing higher education to include both the rich and the poor.
D.Subsidizing students to study longer to achieve academic success.

请阅读短文，完成第小题。
For many people, there is a very well-established stereotype that the first-class American universities are simply the best. However, I am not quite convinced of that. When I look back at my academic formation in the USA and compare it to the academic formation some of my friends had at Brazil, I don't feel like I am more prepared than my peers. Thus, I am currently facing adilem of whether to pursue my graduate studies in Brazil or in the USA.
The difference in our academic backgrounds, however, is the more liberal nature of American education. From my experience at Georgetown, and from what I know of American higher education, there are very few strict requirements imposed on students. Generally speaking, you are relatively free to take whichever classes you want, provided that they are under the scope of your major field of study.
Toil lustrate, I compared the master's degrees in economics from Duke and Fundao Get. Vargas(FGV), a Brazilian university. I chose to present a master's degree comparison here because the short two-year study period makes it simpler than comparing a four-year program. Duke's program works like this: you pick a field of study and then have a required number of courses that you have to take in certain areas. Most of the requirements are not course-specific, but area-specific. With some fields of study, you can skip certain areas altogether. If you choose to get a master's degree in applied economics, for instance, you don't have to take any mathematics courses. In FGV, all economics students need to take the same core structure: Microeconomics 1 through 4, Macroeconomics 1 through 3, Econometrics, Statistics 1 and 2, and Math for Economics 1 and 2. From then on, you can specialize in certain fields, and the elective structure seems to be the same as in Duke: you pick five electives from your main area of interest.
This seems to be the same kind of difference that I noticed comparing what I studied in Georgetown as an undergraduate to what some of my friends studied in their undergraduate careers in Brazil. Now, is this more liberal education good or bad? There are factors pulling it each way, and the ideal solution, in my view, is a reasonable middle ground. What I see happening in American universities, however, is a little too much liberalization. Too much liberty tends to encourage students to take the more "interesting" courses, and ignore those that are considered most "boring". The problem is that many of these "boring" courses are usually foundational courses, which give students the analytical tools they need in order to be truly competent in their fields of study.
In the end, I feel like American universities sometimes delegate too much responsibility to students in terms of choosing their academic careers. For me, this is troubling. Students in their twenties usually have very little experience in the field they are studying, and many times they don't really know the tools they need to succeed in their area of interest. It is certainly the case in my situation. Fortunately, I research and discuss a lot before picking my classes, and was able to take advantage of my liberal American education to build both a strong foundation and take classes that interest me. But is this always the case? From my experience, I think not. What I see happening at Georgetown is that many students just pick the classes they find most interesting, without any real consideration of how it is going to support their overall academic formation. This result is a deficit in fundamentals.

Which of the following is true about the writer's experience?
查看材料

A．He has benefited from the American education.
B．He has been harmed by the American education.
C．He has not laid a solid foundation for his academic career.
D．He has selected courses that do not support his overall academic formation.

Governments are keen on higher eclucation,seeing it as a means to boost social mobility and economic growth.Almost all subsidise tuition-in America,to the tune of$200bn a year.But they tend to overestimate the benefits and ignore the costs of expanding university education.Often,public money just feeds the arms race for qualifications.As more young people seek degrees,the returns both to them and to governments are lower.Employers demand degrees for jobs that never required them in the past and have not become more demanding since.Spending on universities is usually justified by the"graduate premium"-the increase in earnings that graduates enjoy over non-graduates.These individual gains,the thinking goes,add up to an economic boost for society as a whole.But the graduate premium is a flawed unit of reckoning.Part of the usefulness of a degree is that it gives a graduate jobseeker an advantage at the expense of non-graduates.It is also a signal to employers of general qualities that someone already has in order to get into a university.Some professions require qualifications.But a degree is not always the best measure of the skills and knowledge needed for a job.With degrees so common,recruiters are using them as a crude way to screen applicants.Non-graduates are thus increasingly locked out of decent work.In any case,the premium counts only the winners and not the losers.Across the rich world,a third of university entrants never graduate.It is the weakest students who are drawn in as higher education expands ancl who are most likely LO drop out.They pay fees and sacrifice earnings to study,but see little boost iii thcir future incomes.When dropouts are includecl,the expected financial return to starting a degree for the weakest studcnts dwindles to almost nothing.Governments need to offer the young a wider range of options after school.They should start by rethinking their own hiring practices.Most insist on degrees for public-sector jobs that used to be done by non-graduates.Instead they should seek other ways for non-graduates to prove they have the right skills and to get more on-the-job training.School-Ieavers should be given a wider variety o:[ways to gain vocational skills and to demonstrate their employability in the private sector.lf school qualifications were made more rigorous,recruiters would be more likely to trust them as signals of ability.and less insistent on degrees."Micro-credentials"-short,work-focused courses approved by big employers in fast-growing fields,such as IT-show promise.Such measures would be more efficient at developing the skills that boost productivity and should save public money.To promote social mobility,governments should direct funds to early-school education and to helping students who would benefit from university but cannot afford it.Young people,both rich and poor,are ill-served by the academic arms race,in which each must study longer because that is what all the rest are doing.It is time to disarm.
The underlined sentence（Para.3）most probably means that

A.the value of university education is not limited to income increases.
B.university education could barely improve students'general qualities,
C.a college degree is not always a guarantee of professional knowledge.
D.spending on universities does not necessarily boost economic growth.

An increase in students applying to study, economics at university is being attributed to the global economic crisis awakening a public thirst for knowledge about how the financial system works.
Applications for degree courses beginning this autumn were up by 15% this January, according to UCAS, the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service. A spokesman for the Royal Economic Society said applications to do economics at A-level were also up.
Professor John Beath, the president of the society and a leading lecture at St Andrews University, said his first-year lectures which are open to students from all departments--were drawing crowds of 400, rather than the usual 250.
"There are a large number of students who are not economics majors, who would like to learn something about it. One of the things I have done this year is to ~'elate my teaching to contemporary events in a way that one hasn't traditionally done. " He added.
University applications rose 7% last year. But there were rises above average in several subjects. Nursing saw a 15%,jump, with people's renewed interest in caters in the pubic sector, which are seen as more secure in economic crisis.
A recent study showed almost two thirds of parents believed schools should do more to teach pupils about financial matters, and almost half said their children had asked them what was going on, although a minority of parents felt they did not understand it themselves well enough to explain.
Zack Hocking, the head of Child Trust Funds, said: "It's possible that one good thing to arise from the downturn will be a generation that's financially wiser and better equipped to manage their money through times of economic uncertainty."
In the opinion of most parents__________.

A. economics should be the focus of school teaching
B. more students should be admitted to universities
C. the teaching of financial matters should be strengthened
D. children should solve financial problems themselves