2. 职称英语
  3. (1) We all want to succeed in life, and when we become parents, we want to d

(1) We all want to succeed in life, and when we become parents, we want to d

游客2024-08-23  10
问题     (1) We all want to succeed in life, and when we become parents, we want to do everything we can to make sure our kids are successful, too. Now a new study says there’s a single decision many parents make that can effect whether their kids have an advantage or a disadvantage for much of their entire academic career.
    (2) The question is a simple one, and it’s well-known to any mom or dad whose child has a late birthday: Do you enroll your child in school as soon as he or she is eligible, or do you wait a year?
    (3) Researchers at Stanford University say that kids whose parents hold them back a year have significant advantages over their peers.
    (4) In other words, in the "red-shirting versus not red-shirting" battle, red-shirting wins, hands down. Here’s why.
    (5) Many parents make this decision based on whether their kids will benefit academically by waiting a year or not. But the science on testable academic performance yields frustrating, inconsistent results.
    (6) That’s why Stanford researchers decided to set their sights on something different. Cast aside the test scores; how did being among the oldest kids or the youngest kids in the class affect things like mental health, discipline, and self-control? (All of which can ultimately have a greater effect on qualitative academic achievement.)
    (7) To assess the effect, which was reported recently in Quartz, they studied the experiences of elementary school students in Denmark, segmenting them into groups whose parents had enrolled them during the school year in which they were first eligible, and those whose parents decided to hold them back for a year.
    (8) Result? Kids who delayed attending kindergarten to the later year were far more likely to be able to pay attention in school and had "dramatically higher levels of self-control" than their peers. And that advantage was sustained for years afterward.
    (9) "We found that delaying kindergarten for one year reduced inattention and hyperactivity (多动) by 73 percent for an average child at age 11, " Thomas Dee, one of the co-authors, said. "And it virtually eliminated the probability that an average child at that age would have an ’abnormal, ’ or higher-than-normal rating for the inattentive-hyperactive behavioral measure."
    (10) Even if you don’t have kids, and even if you don’t remember your elementary school years particularly well, this whole debate might ring a bell. It was discussed thoroughly in the media a decade ago, after Malcolm Gladwell came out with his book, Outliers.
    (11) Malcolm studied the National Hockey League, and noticed a statistical anomaly (异常现象) about the number of players who were born in January and February. He traced it back to the fact that in Canada, youth hockey leagues most often used January 1 as the birthday cutoff date.
    (12) That meant that kids who were born in January and February were always the oldest kids in their age-group. Sure, that meant they were more mature and physically developed, but there was another advantage. Their advanced physiology led to more playing time and coaching attention. That in turn, led to more success on the ice.
    (13) The phenomenon, called the relative age effect, also occurs in academia (学术界). Previous studies have suggested that children with a late start, and whose birthdays were earlier in the year than their classmates, were more likely to attend college, and less likely to be put on a vocational track (as opposed to an academic track) in school.
    (14) In the United States, about 20 percent of kindergartners are red-shirted, meaning their parents decided to hold them back before entering school, so they experience kindergarten as six-year-olds, rather than five-year-olds.
    (15) All things being equal, it seems this gives them an advantage. But it’s worth looking at some of the reasons why "all things might not be equal."
    (16) First, wealthier families are much more likely to red-shirt their children. But this leads to a question whether wealthier red-shirted children might be benefiting in the self-control department from some other aspect of their more privileged childhoods.
    (17) Second, and related, there’s the question of what kids do during their "extra year." In Denmark, the researchers said, there is universal access to decent pre-kindergartens. Relatively few American cities and towns offer the same thing.
    (18) Still, if your kids are on the edge it seems red-shirting brings undeniable advantages. The difference in development between age five and age eight is significant, and as the study notes, even if they spend an extra year soaking up "an extended (and appropriately timed) exposure to such playful environments" might have a big advantage.
    (19) Besides, who wouldn’t want to give themselves an extra year to grow up? (本文选自 Inc. com) [br] Which of the following statements about Malcolm Gladwell’s study is CORRECT?
选项 A、The publication of Malcolm’s study followed that of Thomas Dee’s.
B、The subjects were young hockey players from Denmark.
C、Older kids played more time and attracted more attention of coaches.
D、Malcolm analyzed the relative age effect both in athletics and academia.
答案 C
解析 细节题。原文第十二段第一句提到马尔科姆的研究发现出生于1月和2月的孩子在其年龄组中总是年纪最大者。第二句和第三句则指出这带来的好处，即他们更成熟并且身体发育得更好，他们更强的生理机能使他们获得了更多的上场时间和教练更多的关注，故答案为C。第十段第二句指出十年前，在马尔科姆.格拉德威尔出版了其著作《异类》之后，媒体就对此进行过深入的探讨，这表明马尔科姆的研究发表时间至少是在十年前，而第九段第一句指出托马斯.迪伊是斯坦福大学研究的联合作者之一，文章开篇表明斯坦福大学的这项研究是一项新研究，由此可知，马尔科姆.格拉德威尔的研究发表时间应该是在托马斯.迪伊的之前，而不是之后，A与原文表述相反，故排除；第十一段第一句提到马尔科姆研究了国家冰球联盟，第二句则具体表明是加拿大青年冰球联盟，由此可知，马尔科姆的研究对象是来自加拿大的冰球选手，而不是丹麦的，B与原文表述不符，故排除；第十三段第一句提到被称为“相对年龄效应”的现象也出现在学术界，但紧接着第二句指出这是以前的研究所表明的，由此可知，马尔科姆的研究只分析了出现在体育界的“相对年龄效应”，D与原文表述不符，故排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3732358.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)