第一篇小说Mrs Manstey’s view《曼斯特夫人的风景》考察的是美国女性小说家Edith Wharton于1891年写作的小说Mrs. Manstey’sView.
小说描写的是一位老年女性Manstey租住在一个公寓里，每天她都能通过公寓的窗户看到各种令她着迷的植物(植物长在别人的院子里)，在心里面她已经把这些植物当成了她生活中不可或缺的一部分，把这些植物看成了是院落真正的房客。但是文章1/3篇幅处开始，这位老年女性的房东Mrs. Sampson进来和她说，邻居Mrs. Black准备扩建房宅，会在院子里建起一堵高墙，这样带来的一个结果是，Mrs. Manstey的由各种美丽植物所构建的精神世界就要崩塌了，因为她再也看不到这些美丽的植物了(all her radiant world be blotted out)。
题目中对于Mrs. Manstey和Mrs. Sampson对于邻居Mrs. Black扩建房宅的不同态度都进行了考察。房东太太对于the extension planned by Mrs. Balck的态度是stoical acceptance, 原文中由But there’s no help for it; if people have got amind to build extensions there’s no law to prevent ’em, that I’m aware of.体现出来。
第二篇文章The Man With the Muck-rake选自于美国总统罗斯福的一篇演讲。
文章讲的是美国社会中Mud-raking(对于政治人物和公众人物进行揭短)过头的现象。罗斯福认为类似于Pilgrim’s Progress《天路历程》中那位Mud-raker所提供的揭短服务在美国社会不可或缺，但是这种揭短需要控制在合理的范围内，而且需要有真实依据，并且揭短者需要明确他们这么做确实会给公众带来利益。否则很可能陷入一种对于公众人物进行无端攻击、谴责和伤害的局面。文章中提到两部分人interested individuals who wants white washing(腐败官员)和另外一些喜欢mud-slinging的人(those otherswho practice mud-slinging, 故意抹黑者)。
第三篇自然科学是双篇对比The pigment or bacteria? Researchers re-examine the idea ofcolor in fossil feather. The true coloration of ancient reptiles.
第四篇文章The Surprising Benefits of Sarcasm(社会科学)讲的是讽刺(Sarcasm)的作用。
文章主题是认为对于讽刺的使用和解读能够提升人们的创造性。文章第一段刚开始先讲述了Sarcasm是人们用来表示verbal irony的一种常见方式，表达了(大意)contradictions between people’s real intentions and what is actually said.之后举出了一些数据，说研究者调查了300个实验对象，给他们两组含有讽刺意味的话语，一组话语通过电话语音直接传达，另外一组通过电子邮件传达。发现大部分实验对象对于通过电话语音传达的讽刺的感受能力较高，而对于通过电子邮件传达的讽刺感受能力偏低(大概38%)，而这与这些实验对象设想的他们自己对于这些电子邮件讽刺话语所进行的预测出现了大幅度的偏差(这里面考察了一个词汇题，问原文中badly overestimate their abilities in…中badly最接近的意思是哪个选项？其中一个新选项是severely)。
文章最后一段作者提出，因为对于话语中含有的讽刺意味进行感知要求听话人对于话语的解读过程中摆脱原有的框架(think outside the box), 所以Sarcasm有助于creativity.
第五篇Rabbits, like Humans, Live in Smaller Homes(自然科学)考察的是兔子数量和城市兔子窝的状况。
Mrs. Manstey, in the long hours which she spent at her window, was notidle. She read a little, and knitted numberless stockings; but the viewsurrounded and shaped her life as the sea does a lonely island. When her rarecallers came it was difficult for her to detach herself from the contemplationof the opposite window-washing, or the scrutiny of certain green points in aneighboring flower-bed which might, or might not, turn into hyacinths, whileshe feigned an interest in her visitor’s anecdotes about some unknowngrandchild. Mrs. Manstey’s real friends were the denizens of the yards, thehyacinths, the magnolia, the green parrot, the maid who fed the cats, thedoctor who studied late behind his mustard-colored curtains; and the confidantof her tenderer musings was the church-spire floating in the sunset.
One April day, as she sat in her usual place, with knitting cast aside andeyes fixed on the blue sky mottled with round clouds, a knock at the doorannounced the entrance of her landlady. Mrs. Manstey did not care for herlandlady, but she submitted to her visits with ladylike resignation. To-day,however, it seemed harder than usual to turn from the blue sky and theblossoming magnolia to Mrs. Sampson’s unsuggestive face, and Mrs. Manstey wasconscious of a distinct effort as she did so.
“The magnolia is out earlier than usual this year, Mrs. Sampson,” sheremarked, yielding to a rare impulse, for she seldom alluded to the absorbinginterest of her life. In the first place it was a topic not likely to appeal toher visitors and, besides, she lacked the power of expression and could nothave given utterance to her feelings had she wished to.
“The what, Mrs. Manstey?” inquired the landlady, glancing about the room asif to find there the explanation of Mrs. Manstey’s statement.
“The magnolia in the next yard -- in Mrs. Black’s yard,” Mrs. Mansteyrepeated.
“Is it, indeed? I didn’t know there was a magnoliathere,” said Mrs. Sampson, carelessly. Mrs. Manstey looked at her; she did notknow that there was a magnolia in the next yard!
“By the way,” Mrs. Sampson continued, “speaking of Mrs. Black reminds methat the work on the extension is to begin next week.”
“The what?” it was Mrs. Manstey’s turn to ask.
“The extension,” said Mrs. Sampson, nodding her head in the direction ofthe ignored magnolia. “You knew, of course, that Mrs. Black was going to buildan extension to her house? Yes, ma’am. I hear it is to run right back to theend of the yard. How she can afford to build an extension in these hard times Idon’t see; but she always was crazy about building. She used to keep aboarding-house in Seventeenth Street, and she nearly ruined herself then bysticking out bow-windows and what not; I should have thought that would havecured her of building, but I guess it’s a disease, like drink. Anyhow, the workis to begin on Monday.”
Mrs. Manstey had grown pale. She always spoke slowly, so the landlady didnot heed the long pause which followed. At last Mrs. Manstey said: “Do you knowhow high the extension will be?”
“That’s the most absurd part of it. The extension is to be built right upto the roof of the main building; now, did you ever?”
Mrs. Manstey paused again. “Won’t it be a great annoyance to you, Mrs.Sampson?” she asked.
“I should say it would. But there’s no help for it; if people have got amind to build extensions there’s no law to prevent ’em, that I’m aware of.”Mrs. Manstey, knowing this, was silent. “There is no help for it,” Mrs. Sampsonrepeated, “but if I am a church member, I wouldn’t be so sorry if it ruinedEliza Black. Well, good-day, Mrs. Manstey; I’m glad to find you socomfortable.”
So comfortable -- so comfortable! Left to herselfthe old woman turned once more to the window. How lovely the view was that day!The blue sky with its round clouds shed a brightness over everything; theailanthus had put on a tinge of yellow-green, the hyacinths were budding, themagnolia flowers looked more than ever like rosettes carved in alabaster. Soonthe wistaria would bloom, then the horse-chestnut; but not for her. Between hereyes and them a barrier of brick and mortar would swiftly rise; presently eventhe spire would disappear, and all her radiant world be blotted out.
In “Pilgrim’s Progress” the Man with the Muck-rake is set forth as theexample of him whose vision is fixed on carnal instead of on spiritual things.Yet he also typifies the man who in this life consistently refuses to see aughtthat is lofty, and fixes his eyes with solemn intentness only on that which isvile and debasing. Now, it is very necessary that we should not flinch fromseeing what is vile and debasing. There is filth on the floor and it must bescraped up with the muck-rake; and there are times and places where thisservice is the most needed of all the services that can be performed. But theman who never does anything else, who never thinks or speaks or writes, save ofhis feats with the muck-rake, speedily becomes, not a help to society, not anincitement to good, but one of the most potent forces for evil.
There are, in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave evils,and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should berelentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man whether politician orbusiness man, every evil practice, whether in politics, in business, or insocial life. I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, onthe platform, or in book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makessuch attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack isof use only if it is absolutely truthful. The liar is no whit better than thethief, and if his mendacity takes the form of slander, he may be worse thanmost thieves. It puts a premium upon knavery untruthfully to attack an honestman, or even with hysterical exaggeration to assail a bad man with untruth. Anepidemic of indiscriminate assault upon character does not good, but very greatharm. The soul of every scoundrel is gladdened whenever an honest man isassailed, or even when a scoundrel is untruthfully assailed.
Now, it is easy to twist out of shape what I have just said, easy to affectto misunderstand it, and, if it is slurred over in repetition, not difficultreally to misunderstand it. Some persons are sincerely incapable ofunderstanding that to denounce mud-slinging does not mean the endorsement ofwhitewashing; and both the interested individuals who need whitewashing, andthose others who practice mud-slinging, like to encourage such confusion ofideas. One of the chief counts against those who make indiscriminate assaultupon men in business or men in public life, is that they invite a reactionwhich is sure to tell powerfully in favor of the unscrupulous scoundrel whoreally ought to be attacked, who ought to be exposed, who ought, if possible,to be put in the penitentiary. If Aristides is praised overmuch as just, peopleget tired of hearing it; and overcensure of the unjust finally and from similarreasons results in their favor.
Any excess is almost sure to invite a reaction; and, unfortunately, thereaction, instead of taking the form of punishment of those guilty of theexcess, is very apt to take the form either of punishment of the unoffending orof giving immunity, and even strength, to offenders. The effort to makefinancial or political profit out of the destruction of character can onlyresult in public calamity. Gross and reckless assaults on character, whether onthe stump or in newspaper, magazine, or book, create a morbid and viciouspublic sentiment, and at the same time act as a profound deterrent to able menof normal sensitiveness and tend to prevent them from entering the publicservice at any price.
As an instance in point, I may mention that one serious difficultyencountered in getting the right type of men to dig the Panama Canal is thecertainty that they will be exposed, both without, and, I am sorry to say,sometimes within, Congress, to utterly reckless assaults on their character andcapacity.
At the risk of repetition let me say again that my plea is, not for immunityto but for the most unsparing exposure of the politician who betrays his trust,of the big business man who makes or spends his fortune in illegitimate orcorrupt ways. There should be a resolute effort to hunt every such man out ofthe position he has disgraced. Expose the crime, and hunt down the criminal;but remember that even in the case of crime, if it is attacked in sensational,lurid, and untruthful fashion, the attack may do more damage to the public mindthan the crime itself. It is because I feel that there should be no rest in theendless war against the forces of evil that I ask that the war be conductedwith sanity as well as with resolution.
Paleontologists studying fossilized feathers have proposed that the shapesof certain microscopic structures inside the feathers can tell us the color ofancient birds. But new research from North Carolina State Universitydemonstrates that it is not yet possible to tell if these structures – thoughtto be melanosomes – are what they seem, or if they are merely the remnants ofancient bacteria.
Melanosomes are small, pigment-filled sacs located inside the cells offeathers and other pigmented tissues of vertebrates. They contain melanin,which can give feathers colors ranging from brownish-red to gray to solidblack. Melanosomes are either oblong or round in shape, and the identificationof these small bodies in preserved feathers has led to speculation about thephysiology, habitats, coloration and lifestyles of the extinct animals,including dinosaurs, that once possessed them.
But melanosomes are not the only round and oblong microscopic structuresthat might show up in fossilized feathers. In fact, the microbes that drove thedecomposition of the animal prior to fossilization share the same size andshape as melanosomes, and they would also be present in feathers during decay.
Alison Moyer, a Ph.D. candidate in paleontology at NC State, wanted to findout whether these structures could be definitively identified as eithermelanosome or microbe. Using black and brown chicken feathers – chickens areone of the closest living relatives to both dinosaurs and ancient birds – Moyergrew bacteria over them to replicate what we see in the fossil record. She usedthree different types of microscopy to examine the patterns of biofilm growth,and then compared those structures to melanosomes inside of chicken feathersthat she had sliced open. Finally, she compared both microbes and actualmelanosomes to structures in a fossilized feather from Gansus yumenensis, anavian dinosaur that lived about 120 million years ago, and to published imagesof fossil "melanosomes" by others. Her findings led to morequestions.
"These structures could be original to the bird, or they could be abiofilm which has grown over and degraded the feather – if the latter, theywould also produce round or elongated structures that are notmelanosomes," Moyer says. "Melanosomes are embedded in keratin, whichis a very tough protein, so they're hard to see unless there's been somedegradation. But the bacteria are doing the degrading, and so that may be whatwe're seeing, rather than the melanosome itself. It's impossible to say withcertainty what these structures are without more data, including fine scalechemical data."
A study published in Nature this week has found a way to determine thecolor of dinosaurs and other ancient reptiles: by analyzing the dark depositsleft on fossils, which the scientists says are actually pigments left overafter the animal's skin decayed.
Lots of fossils, such as the ichthyosaur shownhere, are outlined or shellacked with a mysterious dark deposit. For a longtime, scientists couldn't be sure what the material was or where it came from.Under the microscope, the material housed tiny egg-shaped structures thatlooked like melanosomes—the cell organelles that secrete pigments into ananimal's skin. Other scientists thought the structures might be bacteria.
By studying the molecular composition of the pigments, the scientists inthis study not only concluded that the deposits are pigment remains, but alsodetermined what those pigments were. They say that three fossilized marinereptiles they studied—a 190-million-year-old ichthyosaur, an 86-million-year-oldmosasaur, and a 55-million-year-old leatherback turtle—probably had blackishskin like the modern-day leatherback turtle.
"This is the first time that we're reporting pigments, the animal'sown biomolecules from reptile skin," says Johan Lindgren, a geologist atLund University and the lead author on the new study.
Skin from a 55-million-year-old leatherback turtle (left), scales from an85-million-year-old mosasaur (center), and tail fin of a196-190-million-year-old ichthyosaur (right). Credit: Bo Pagh Schultz, JohanLindgren and Johan A. Gren.
To identify the dark deposits, Lindgren's team fired a beam of ions atsamples of the material. The ions broke up the material and sent fragmentsflying into a detector, which analyzed their chemical composition and confirmedthat the dark deposits were eumelanin. Under the microscope, Lindgren's teamshowed that concentrations of eumelanin peaked in areas with the highestdensity of the tiny egg-shaped structures—suggesting the structures were indeedmelanosomes, not bacterial cells
“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but the highest form of intelligence,”wrote that connoisseur of wit, Oscar Wilde. Whether sarcasm is a sign ofintelligence or not, communication experts and marriage counselors aliketypically advise us to stay away from this particular form of expression. Thereason is simple: sarcasm expresses the poisonous sting of contempt, hurtingothers and harming relationships. As a form of communication, sarcasm takes on thedebt of conflict.
And yet, our research suggests, there may also be some unexpected benefitsfrom sarcasm: greater creativity. The use of sarcasm, in fact, promotescreativity for those on both the giving and receiving end of sarcasticexchanges. Instead of avoiding sarcasm completely in the office, the researchsuggests sarcasm, used with care and in moderation, can be effectively used andtrigger some creative sparks.
Sarcasm involves constructing or exposing contradictions between intendedmeanings. The most common form of verbal irony, sarcasm is often used tohumorously convey thinly veiled disapproval or scorn. “Pat, don’t work sohard!”, a boss might say upon catching his assistant surfing the Internet.Early research on sarcasm explored how people interpret statements and foundthat, as expected, sarcasm makes a statement sound more critical. In onelaboratory study, participants read scenarios in which, for instance, (1) oneperson did something that could be viewed negatively, such as smoking, and (2)a second person commented on the behavior to the first person, either literally(“I see you don’t have a healthy concern for your lungs”) or sarcastically (“Isee you have a healthy concern for your lungs”). Participants rated sarcasm tobe more condemning than literal statements. In a similar study, participantswere encouraged to empathize either with a person behaving in a way that couldbe construed as negative or with a second person commenting on the firstperson’s behavior. Both perspectives prompted participants to rate sarcasticcomments by the second person as more impolite relative to literal comments.
Other research has show that sarcasm can be easily misinterpreted,particularly when communicated electronically. In one study, 30 pairs of universitystudents were given a list of statements to communicate, half of which weresarcastic and half of which were serious. Some students communicated theirmessages via e-mail and others via voice recordings. Participants who receivedthe voice messages accurately gleaned the sarcasm (or lack thereof) 73 percentof the time, but those who received the statements via e-mail did so only 56percent of the time, hardly better than chance. By comparison, the e-mailershad anticipated that 78 percent of participants would pick up on the sarcasminherent in their sarcastic statements. That is, they badly overestimated theirability to communicate the tenor of their sarcastic statements via e-mail.What’s more, the recipients of the sarcastic e-mails were also decidedlyoverconfident. They guessed they would correctly interpret the tone of thee-mails they received about 90 percent of the time. They were considerably lessoverconfident about their ability to interpret voice messages.
In recent research, my colleagues and I discovered an upside to thisotherwise gloomy picture of sarcasm. In one study, we assigned someparticipants to engage in either simulated sarcastic, sincere, or neutraldialogues by choosing from pre-written responses on a sheet of paper. Otherswere recipients of these different types of messages from others. Immediatelyafter participants engaged in these “conversations,” we presented them withtasks testing their creativity. Not surprisingly, the participants exposed tosarcasm reported more interpersonal conflict than those in other groups. Moreinterestingly, those who engaged in a sarcastic conversation fared better oncreativity tasks. The processes involved in initiating and delivering asarcastic comment improved the creativity and cognitive functioning of both thecommenter and the recipient. This creativity effect only emerged whenrecipients picked up on the sarcasm behind the expresser’s message rather thantaking mean comments at face value.
Why might sarcasm enhance creativity? Because the brain must thinkcreatively to understand or convey a sarcastic comment, sarcasm may lead toclearer and more creative thinking. To either create or understand sarcasm,tone must overcome the contradiction between the literal and actual meanings ofthe sarcastic expressions. This is a process that activates, and is facilitatedby, abstraction, which in turn promotes creative thinking. Consider thefollowing example, which comes from a conversation one of my co-authors on theresearch (Adam Galinsky, of Columbia) had a few weeks before getting married.His fiancée woke him up as he was soundly asleep at night to tell him aboutsome new ideas she has for their upcoming wedding next month –many of whichwere quite expensive. Adam responded with some ideas of his own: “Why don’t weget Paul McCartney to sing, Barack Obama to give a benediction and Amy Schumerto entertain people.” His comment required his fiancée to recognize that thereis a distinction between the surface level meaning of the sentence (actuallysigning up these people to perform) and the meaning that was intended.
Imagine you’re on a particularly boring leg of a road trip andyou start counting houses. You pass through long stretches of countrywithout counting anything. When you do see houses, they’re clustered intotowns, and may have spacious yards with tire swings. As you approach a city(finally!), rows of houses appear at regular intervals instead ofclumping. And in the heart of the city they shrink into little apartments thatgo by too fast for you to count. European rabbits, it turns out, build theirhomes in a similar way—and since these animals are disappearing in thecountryside, understanding their urban planning strategy matters to humanstrying to conserve them.
Hunting, habitat loss, and disease have driven downpopulations of European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in the countrysides ofwestern Europe. Yet rabbit populations in some German cities are, well,hopping. Madlen Ziege, a graduate student at the University of Frankfurt, andher coauthors wanted to know how rabbits are taking advantage of urban areas.They chose the city of Frankfurt, where European rabbits have livedalongside humans since at least 1930.
The researchers scoured nine city parks in Frankfurt for rabbit burrows,along with four more suburban parks and three nearby rural sites. In all, theyfound 191 burrows. Then they rated each site for its “urbanity,” a measure thatincluded three variables: How many people live within half a kilometer ofthe burrow site? How many pedestrians, bikers, or dogs pass by at dawn anddusk, when rabbits are most active? And how much of the ground is coveredby something artificial, such as pavement or playground turf?
Like census-takers, albeit with a serious language barrier, theresearchers tried to count how many rabbits lived in each burrow. Fora few dozen burrows, they did this by tagging along with a regular huntinggroup that flushed the rabbits from their holes with trained ferrets.At other sites, the researchers staked out burrows at dawn and dusk andtallied how many rabbits came and went. They also counted burrowentrances to estimate how big each home was.
As “urbanity” increased—as sites became less rural and more city-like—rabbitburrows became more common. Urban burrows were smaller and simpler, like studioapartments compared to country estates. And while rural burrows were spread outand clumped, like the rural houses on our imaginary road trip, urban burrowswere spaced out more evenly.
Ziege writes that the results could easily have been the opposite.Since cities cover up more ground up with pavement and buildings, breakingpotential habitat into fragments, city rabbits might end up clustered into bigburrows like they do in the countryside. Instead, they’re spread out into smallhomes.
One reason might be heat. Big groups of rabbits keep theirburrows toastier in the winter—but cities are a little warmer to beginwith, so living with a lot of warm bodies might not be as important. In thecountryside, large burrows with many entrances and escape routes also helpprotect rabbits from predators. But in the city, there are fewer predators.
Finally, rabbits tend to live in large groups when their resources arelimited. In German cities, they may be spreading out because there’sno shortage of food or burrowing space. Country life may meanhunger and hunting ferrets, but for urban rabbits, life is (so far) good.
uplifting/glorifying/improving/enriching in agreement with/be synonymouswith/be accompaniedby/in step with Unsuitable/unseasonable/incoherent/inauspicious
Passage 1Movable books：Precursor forPop-ups
4. 动词主谓一致（主语oneof 后动词的单复数）；
Passage 2Monopolizing: the Landlord’s Game
Passage 3Insulation Work is heating up
此篇主要关于insulation work。随着节能的普及，insulation成为一门火热的新兴产业，越来越多人热衷节能环保，抛弃foam材料，使用环保和可持续的材料。然而此类材料是labor-consuming的，于是两种insulating workers(一种是家用的隔热材料安装的工人，一种是商业的隔热材料安装工人)的职业前景无比光明，需求大量增长。
Passage 4Neither Wind nor Ice nor Gloom of the Night
（二）关于考试时间：section 3在时间上没有任何问题。但是做section 4的时候我有点极大失误，边做题边检查，一道很简单的计算题都要检查3遍，就怕出现任何马虎的情况。所以在时间分配上不合理，导致后边的题比较赶，几乎是卡着时间涂完卡的，完全没有检查。
Section3 1-5 BABAC
Section3 16-20 31/ 9 /0.5（or 1/2) /13 /4
1. f(t)=bt f(8)=16*f(6) 求t，需要注意的是把8和6替换成t带入，而不是b。
4. 有一道题有点坑，不知道学生看到了没，scatter plot的坐标分别是(16,0)(0,8)，答案应该是160。
7. kx+2=9x+2，no solution ,求k。
8. rational function 用图像中的一点(0,2)带入四个选项即可。
9. 两道box plot，两边是range，中间是median，第二条和第四条竖线，分别是total*25% 和total*75%，每一对竖线区间的数量都是相等的。
13. system of equation的题，大概考了3.4道的样子，infinite solution和no solution都考到了。
15. scatter plot的题考了也有3.4道，需要注意的是一定要看清是predict还是actual，是看线还是看点，希望这个地方没有孩子马虎。
17. 然后出了很多很多的计算题，都是linear function，linear equation，quadratic function，quadratic equation，polynomial的计算。
20. 有2.3道题是求median和mean的大小，有1道计算量比较大，还有1道可以将a假设成任何一个整数，比如1就可以了，那题答案应该是median=mean。另外一道，我没有检查，但是我竟然选的median大还是mean大来着，反正不是相等，我第一眼看dot plot的时候感觉是相等，我自己算出来不相等还有点惊了，希望没有做错。
21. margin of error出了一道，选C，48%上下加减就好了，比较简单。
22. 有solve squareequation的题，两边直接平方就可以，没有需要注意根号另外一边大于等于0的现象。
23. 有5道题，题干进行长串描述，然后选出equation或者system equation的题，比较简单，不坑。
24. 有1道考语法的，大概是A is1.3 miles less than 3 times B，应该是3B-1.3=A
25. In terms of 的题考了2道。
26. percent decrease/increase的题考了2道左右。
28. 看图像，去找出哪里decreasefast或者increase fast也没有考到。
8. 没有考exponent androot的题。描述exponential function也没有考到。
4. 统计考察了mean/median/range/marginof error/logic/probability/box-plot/scatter plot
1 HOW seriousare we, really, about tackling income equality? ...
2 More than ahalf-century after President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act of 1963,the gap between what men and women earn has defied every effort to close it.And it can’t be explained away as a statistical glitch, a function of womenpreferring lower-paying industries or choosing to take time off for kids.
3 ClaudiaGoldin, a labor economist at Harvard, has crunched the numbers and found thatthe gap persists for identical jobs, even after controlling for hours, education,race and age. Female doctors and surgeons, for example, earn 71 percent of whattheir male colleagues make, while female financial specialists are paid just 66percent as much as comparable men. Other researchers have calculated that womenone year out of college earn 6.6 percent less than men after controlling foroccupation and hours, and that female M.B.A. graduates earn on average $4,600less than their male classmates for their first jobs.
4 It’s notthat men are intentionally discriminating against women—far from it. I’ve spentthe past year interviewing male executives for a book about men and women inthe workplace. A vast majority of them are fair-minded guys who want women tosucceed. They’re absolutely certain that they don’t have a gender problemthemselves; it must be some other guys who do. Yet they’re leaders of companiesthat pay men more than women for the same jobs.
5 Women aretrying mightily to close that chasm on their own. Linda Babcock, an economistat Carnegie Mellon and co-author of the book “Women Don’t Ask,” has found thatone reason for the disparity is that men are four times more likely to ask fora raise than women are, and that when women do ask, we ask for 30 percent less.And so women are told we need to lean in, to demand to be paid what we’reworth. It’s excellent advice—except it isn’t enough.
6 There is anantidote to the problem. Britain recently introduced a plan requiring companieswith 250 employees or more to publicly report their own gender pay gap. It joinsa handful of other countries, including Austria and Belgium, that haveintroduced similar rules. (In the United States, President Obama last yearsigned a presidential memorandum instructing federal contractors to report wageinformation by gender and race to the Department of Labor.) The disclosures“will cast sunlight on the discrepancies and create the pressure we need forchange, driving women’s wages up,” Prime Minister David Cameron said lastmonth.
7 Critics ofthe British plan protest that it’s too expensive and complex. Some contend thatit doesn’t address the root of the problem: systemic issues that block womenfrom higher-paying industries, and social issues like unconscious bias.
8 Butreal-world results suggest otherwise. Last year, the consulting firmPricewaterhouseCoopers voluntarily released its gender pay gap in Britain, oneof five firms in the country, including AstraZeneca, to do so. Simply sayingthe number out loud “created much more momentum internally” to close it, SarahChurchman, who runs the firm’s British diversity and inclusion efforts, toldme.
9PricewaterhouseCoopers’s analysis showed that most of its 15.1 percent paydisparity (compared with a Britain-wide gap of more than 19 percent) reflecteda lack of women in senior jobs. So the firm focused on whether it was promotingfairly. In 2013, the grade just below partner was 30 percent female, yet only16 percent of those promoted to partner were women. A year later, thepercentage of women promoted to partner had more than doubled...
10 Thepotential cost savings of publishing the gender wage gap are enormous. About 20percent of large companies now train employees to recognize unconscious bias,spending billions of dollars to try to stamp out unintentional discrimination.Paying for a salary analysis is cheaper and potentially more effective.Evidence also suggests that less secrecy about pay results in greater employeeloyalty and lower turnover...
11 Politicalrealities being what they are, the chances of achieving [full] transparency areslim; even the tepid C.E.O. pay gap rule took the S.E.C. five years to pushthrough, in the face of fierce industry opposition.
12 But whywould we not want a measure that will settle the controversy over the pay gapwith quantifiable facts? Shining some much-needed sunlight on the gender wagegap will make a difference for every one of us, men and women, right now.