2020考研英語閱讀理解精讀100篇：Unit 73

Unit 73

Both the House and the Senate have recently passed bills to reform student lending, and observers think a final bill may land on the president’s desk in a month. Democrats have always been critical of federal interest-rate subsidies to private lenders, which is how student loans are organised. They are spurred on by scandal—many lenders like Student Loan Xpress have been caught handing illegal kickbacks to college aid officials—and by the fact that a private-equity consortium, led by J. C. Flowers, is in the process of buying out Sallie Mae, the largest student lender. This has put a spotlight on the fat margins of the $85 billion-a-year student-loan industry, where Sallie Mae’s five-year average return on equity was an astonishing 52% per year.

At present the federal government subsidises student loans in two ways. First, the government lends through the William D. Ford direct loan programme, which competes with private lenders and has about a quarter of the student-loan market. Second, private lenders get subsidies that allow them to lower the interest rates they charge students. In the past, lenders have successfully resisted proposed reductions to their subsidies of as little as ten basis points by threatening to leave the market. Now the bills are proposing to reduce subsidies by 50-55 basis points.

The principal terms of both bills are sensible. They increase the maximum “Pell Grant” for low-income students from $4,050 currently to $5,400 by 2011. The funding comes by cutting about $18 billion-19 billion in lender subsidies over five years. Next, graduates’ loan repayments are capped at a manageable percentage of income and all debt is cancelled after 25 years of repayment. Finally, the bills provide more loan forgiveness for graduates who enter public-service careers, including police, firefighters, nurses and inner-city teachers. Taken together, these are the biggest changes since the student-loan system was created, in 1965, as part of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programmes.

The biggest risk in cutting the interest-rate subsidies is that banks may leave student lending en masse, or that smaller lenders may be forced out of the market. This would mean few choices for students and possibly a large number of borrowers swamping the government programme. “Congress still wants lending to be profitable, just not too profitable,” says Ajita Talwalker of TICAS, a non-partisan institute that studies the accessibility and affordability of higher education. This may prove a tough balancing act, since no one knows what the right number is.

Critics still find the bills defective. Higher-education costs have risen much faster than inflation or aid increases, so students have been paying more out-of-pocket and taking more private loans. Yet both bills do little to tackle the rise in tuition costs. Richard Vedder of Ohio University points out that productivity is a major problem; professors in many schools have a weekly teaching workload that is a third lighter than 40 years ago, but their pay and benefits have increased. All sides agree there needs to be more transparency in costs and an element of price competition. As far as the bills at hand are concerned, many experts are calling for the House to drop its entitlement programmes, which make certain spending mandatory, and to direct the money to the Pell Grants.

注（1）：本文選自Economist；

注（2）：本文習題命題模仿對象為2001年真題Text 2和Text 4第4題（本習題第5題）。

1. The expression “l(fā)and on the president’s desk” （Line 2, Paragraph 1） means that _______.

A) something flies to or drops on the president’s desk

B) something is put on the president’s desk for decoration

C) something is sent for the president’s approval

D) something is presented to the president as a gift

2. Cutting the interest-rate subsidies is risky because _______.

A) it might leave students few choices to borrow money

B) it might lead to a huge loss for banks and private lenders

C) it might make government programmes less profitable

D) it might damage the whole student-loan system

3. The writer mentioned the “50-55 basis points” at the end of the 2nd paragraph to show that _______.

A) government will support their own programmes rather than private lenders

B) the government is unwilling to subsidize private lenders

C) private lenders fail to lobby the congressmen

D) the Congress is determined to make some big changes

4. It can be indicated from the last paragraph that ______.

A) the increase of high-education cost is mainly due to inflation in recent years

B) the bill is believed by some people to be unpromising since it does not grasp the key problem

C) the rising tuition cost is solely caused by the decreasing productivity of university professors

D) more competition will be soon introduced into the market of students’ loan thanks to the bill

5. Toward the issue of student lending and high-education costs, the attitude of many experts seems to be _______.

A) indifferent

B) unsatisfactory

C) objective

D) biased

篇章剖析

本文就學生貸款改革這一事項展開了討論。第一段首先介紹了關(guān)于學生貸款出現(xiàn)的一些問題和丑聞；第二段介紹了聯(lián)邦政府對學生貸款進行補貼的方式；第三段介紹了改革學生貸款法案中一些重要的內(nèi)容；第四、五段指出了目前仍然存在的一些問題。

詞匯注釋

spur /sp??/ v. 鞭策，刺激

kickback /?kikb?k/ n. 回扣，酬金

consortium /k?n?s??t??m/ n. 社團，協(xié)會

spotlight /?sp?t?la?t/ n. 聚光燈

equity /?ekw?ti/ n. 資產(chǎn)凈值

cap /k?p/ v. 給…定一個上限

swamp /sw?mp/ v. 陷入沼澤，淹沒

transparency /tr?ns?p?r?nsi/ n. 透明，透明度

mandatory /?m?nd?t?ri/ adj. 命令的，強制的

難句突破

They are spurred on by scandal—many lenders like Student Loan Xpress have been caught handing illegal kickbacks to college aid officials—and by the fact that a private-equity consortium, led by J. C. Flowers, is in the process of buying out Sallie Mae, the largest student lender.

主體句式：They are spurred on by scandal and by the fact that...

結(jié)構(gòu)分析：這個句子的基本結(jié)構(gòu)非常簡單，但由于中間包含了很多內(nèi)容，所以看上去有一些復雜。作者為了使句子更加容易理解，巧妙地利用了破折號。因為scandal的內(nèi)容相對比較長，如果將其內(nèi)容放在句子里會顯得很臃腫，將其放在兩個破折號之間，從而使得句子結(jié)構(gòu)更加清晰。

句子譯文：最近，在學生貸款問題上曝光的丑聞使他們感到震驚：許多學生貸款提供方諸如Xpress利用回扣傭金賄賂大學貸款辦負責人；此外，以J. C. 弗勞爾斯為首的私募基金財團正在收購美國最大的學生貸款公司Sallie Mae。

題目分析

1. C 語義題。這個詞組的表面意思是“降落到總統(tǒng)的辦公桌上”，這是一個非常形象的表述，即“送到總統(tǒng)的辦公桌上”，意思也就是送呈總統(tǒng)以待批準。

2. A 細節(jié)題。本題對應(yīng)細節(jié)于文章第四段“The biggest risk in cutting the interest-rate subsidies is that banks may leave student lending en masse, or that smaller lenders may be forced out of the market. This would mean few choices for students and possibly a large number of borrowers swamping the government programme”，可見其風險是會減少學生們的貸款選擇。

3. D 推理題。文章第二段指出，過去曾經(jīng)有提案要求對貸款機構(gòu)的補貼降低10個基點的利率，但都遭到了抵制，而現(xiàn)在新提案則要求減少50至55個基點的補貼，這充分表明了國會希望通過此次提案做出一些重大改革的決心。

4. B 推理題。文章最后一段前三句話指出，法案沒有觸及的一個關(guān)鍵問題就是學費的上漲，因此正確答案為B。A選項的錯誤原因在于文章并沒有提及兩者之間存在著因果聯(lián)系。C選項的錯誤原因在于該陳述中提到的教授們生產(chǎn)力下降是一個主要原因，但不是唯一的原因。D選項的錯誤原因在于法案并不會帶來更多的競爭。

5. B 情感態(tài)度題。文章最后一段指出“Critics still find the bills defective”，專家們要求采取進一步的措施降低高校的學費，比如取消一些指令性費用等，可見他們對于目前狀況的態(tài)度是不滿意的。

參考譯文

最近眾、參兩院都通過了改革學生貸款的法案。觀察家們認為不出一個月，最后的法案就可能送到總統(tǒng)的辦公桌上以待審批。學生貸款是通過聯(lián)邦政府在利率上補貼私營貸款者而實現(xiàn)的，而民主黨對此政策一向持批評態(tài)度。最近，在學生貸款問題上曝光的丑聞使他們感到震驚：許多學生貸款提供方諸如Xpress利用回扣傭金賄賂大學貸款辦負責人；此外，以弗勞爾斯為首的私募基金財團正在收購美國最大的學生貸款公司Sallie Mae。這使得每年利潤高達850億美元的學生貸款行業(yè)暴露在聚光燈下，僅Sallie Mae公司五年中的資本回報率平均每年高達52%。

目前，聯(lián)邦政府通過兩種方式對學生貸款進行補貼。其一是由政府實行威廉·D·福特直接貸款計劃，該計劃在與私營貸款機構(gòu)競爭中占有四分之一的學生貸款市場。其二是對私營貸款機構(gòu)進行補貼，從而使他們降低學生貸款的利率。過去曾經(jīng)有提案要求對貸款機構(gòu)的補貼幅度降低10個基點的利率，但貸款方以撤離市場為要挾抵制了該提案。現(xiàn)在，新提案則要求減少50至55個基點的補貼。

兩份提案的主要條款都十分合乎情理。這些條款指出為貧困學生設(shè)立的“助學金”現(xiàn)在的上限從4050美元提高到2011年的5400美元。這筆資金將來源于今后五年間通過減少貸款機構(gòu)的補貼節(jié)省出的約180~190億美元。其次，研究生貸款的分期還款必須為其收入的一個合理比例，并且所有債務(wù)在分期償還25年之后將全部取消。最后，該提案為選擇從事公共服務(wù)事業(yè)的畢業(yè)生提供更多的貸款寬免，這些職業(yè)包括警察、消防人員、護士和貧民區(qū)的教師?？傮w來說，自從1965年總統(tǒng)林登·約翰遜在其“偉大社會”施政綱領(lǐng)中提出學生貸款計劃以來，這是該計劃經(jīng)歷的最大規(guī)模的變革。

削減利率補貼的最大風險在于銀行可能會集體撤離市場，或小規(guī)模貸方被擠出市場。這意味著學生的貸款選擇范圍變得更小，而大量借貸者將深陷政府計劃之中。TICAS是一所專門研究高等教育的普及和費用承受能力的無黨派機構(gòu)，其政策研究員味田·塔沃克認為“國會仍然希望貸款能夠有利可圖，只是不得獲得暴利”。他的話也說明了國會這一法案將很難找到平衡點，因為沒人知道究竟多少才是適當?shù)睦麧櫋?

評論家仍然能在提案中找到一些缺陷。高等教育費用的上漲速度遠遠超過通貨膨脹及學生補助的增長，因此學生不得不支付額外費用并增加私人貸款。但兩份提案幾乎都沒有涉及學費上漲的問題。俄亥俄大學的理查·維得認為主要問題是教學效率不足：許多大學的教授每周教學任務(wù)比40年前少了三分之一，而他們的薪水和福利卻提高了。各方在增加教育成本透明度和價格競爭因素問題上意見一致。就現(xiàn)有的這些提案來說，許多專家要求國會去掉其中一些指定性的費用支出，把省下來的資金投入到貧困生助學金中去。