考研英语二 2015年 · 真题整卷

A new study suggests that contrary to most surveys, people are actually more stressed at home than at work. Researchers measured people's cortisol, which is a stress marker, while they were at work and while they were at home and found it higher at what is supposed to be a place of refuge.

"Further contradicting conventional wisdom, we found that women as well as men have lower levels of stress at work than at home," writes one of the researchers, Sarah Damaske. In fact women even say they feel better at work, she notes. "It is men, not women, who report being happier at home than at work." Another surprise is that the findings hold true for both those with children and without, but more so for nonparents. This is why people who work outside the home have better health.

What the study doesn't measure is whether people are still doing work when they're at home, whether it is household work or work brought home from the office. For many men, the end of the workday is a time to kick back. For women who stay home, they never get to leave the office. And for women who work outside the home, they often are playing catch-up with household tasks. With the blurring of roles, and the fact that the home front lags well behind the workplace in making adjustments for working women, it's not surprising that women are more stressed at home.

But it's not just a gender thing. At work, people pretty much know what they're supposed to be doing: working, making money, doing the tasks they have to do in order to draw an income. The bargain is very pure: Employee puts in hours of physical or mental labor and employee draws out life-sustaining moola.

On the home front, however, people have no such clarity. Rare is the household in which the division of labor is so clinically and methodically laid out. There are a lot of tasks to be done, there are inadequate rewards for most of them. Your home colleagues – your family – have no clear rewards for their labor; they need to be talked into it, or if they're teenagers, threatened with complete removal of all electronic devices. Plus, they're your family. You cannot fire your family. You never really get to go home from home.

So it's not surprising that people are more stressed at home. Not only are the tasks apparently infinite, the co-workers are much harder to motivate.

For years, studies have found that first-generation college students – those who do not have a parent with a college degree – lag other students on a range of education achievement factors. Their grades are lower and their dropout rates are higher. But since such students are most likely to advance economically if they succeed in higher education, colleges and universities have pushed for decades to recruit more of them. This has created "a paradox" in that recruiting first-generation students, but then watching many of them fail, means that higher education has "continued to reproduce and widen, rather than close" an achievement gap based on social class, according to the depressing beginning of a paper forthcoming in the journal Psychological Science.

But the article is actually quite optimistic, as it outlines a potential solution to this problem, suggesting that an approach (which involves a one-hour, next-to-no-cost program) can close 63 percent of the achievement gap (measured by such factors as grades) between first-generation and other students.

The authors of the paper are from different universities, and their findings are based on a study involving 147 students (who completed the project) at an unnamed private university. First generation was defined as not having a parent with a four-year college degree. Most of the first-generation students (59.1 percent) were recipients of Pell Grants, a federal grant for undergraduates with financial need, while this was true only for 8.6 percent of the students with at least one parent with a four-year degree.

Their thesis – that a relatively modest intervention could have a big impact – was based on the view that first-generation students may be most lacking not in potential but in practical knowledge about how to deal with the issues that face most college students. They cite past research by several authors to show that this is the gap that must be narrowed to close the achievement gap.

Many first-generation students "struggle to navigate the middle-class culture of higher education, learn the 'rules of the game,' and take advantage of college resources," they write. And this becomes more of a problem when colleges don't talk about the class advantages and disadvantages of different groups of students. "Because US colleges and universities seldom acknowledge how social class can affect students' educational experiences, many first-generation students lack insight about why they are struggling and do not understand how students 'like them' can improve."

Even in traditional offices, "the lingua franca of corporate America has gotten much more emotional and much more right-brained than it was 20 years ago," said Harvard Business School professor Nancy Koehn. She started spinning off examples. "If you and I parachuted back to Fortune 500 companies in 1990, we would see much less frequent use of terms like journey, mission, passion. There were goals, there were strategies, there were objectives, but we didn't talk about energy; we didn't talk about passion."

Koehn pointed out that this new era of corporate vocabulary is very "team"-oriented – and not by coincidence. "Let's not forget sports – in male-dominated corporate America, it's still a big deal. It's not explicitly conscious; it's the idea that I'm a coach, and you're my team, and we're in this together. There are lots and lots of CEOs in very different companies, but most think of themselves as coaches and this is their team and they want to win."

These terms are also intended to infuse work with meaning – and, as Rakesh Khurana, another professor, points out, increase allegiance to the firm. "You have the importation of terminology that historically used to be associated with non-profit organizations and religious organizations: terms like vision, values, passion, and purpose," said Khurana.

This new focus on personal fulfillment can help keep employees motivated amid increasingly loud debates over work-life balance. The "mommy wars" of the 1990s are still going on today, prompting arguments about why women still can't have it all and books like Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In, whose title has become a buzzword in its own right. Terms like unplug, offline, life-hack, bandwidth, and capacity are all about setting boundaries between the office and the home. But if your work is your "passion," you'll be more likely to devote yourself to it, even if that means going home for dinner and then working long after the kids are in bed.

But this seems to be the irony of office speak: Everyone makes fun of it, but managers love it, companies depend on it, and regular people willingly absorb it. As a linguist once said, "You can get people to think it's nonsense at the same time that you buy into it." In a workplace that's fundamentally indifferent to your life and its meaning, office speak can help you figure out how you relate to your work – and how your work defines who you are.

Many people talked of the 288,000 new jobs the Labor Department reported for June, along with the drop in the unemployment rate to 6.1 percent, as good news. And they were right. For now it appears the economy is creating jobs at a decent pace. We still have a long way to go to get back to full employment, but at least we are now finally moving forward at a faster pace.

However, there is another important part of the jobs picture that was largely overlooked. There was a big jump in the number of people who report voluntarily working part-time. This figure is now 830,000 (4.4 percent) above its year ago level.

Before explaining the connection to the Obamacare, it is worth making an important distinction. Many people who work part-time jobs actually want full-time jobs. They take part-time work because this is all they can get. An increase in involuntary part-time work is evidence of weakness in the labor market and it means that many people will be having a very hard time making ends meet.

There was an increase in involuntary part-time in June, but the general direction has been down. Involuntary part-time employment is still far higher than before the recession, but it is down by 640,000 (7.9 percent) from its year ago level.

We know the difference between voluntary and involuntary part-time employment because people tell us. The survey used by the Labor Department asks people if they worked less than 35 hours in the reference week. If the answer is "yes," they are classified as working part-time. The survey then asks whether they worked less than 35 hours in that week because they wanted to work less than full time or because they had no choice. They are only classified as voluntary part-time workers if they tell the survey taker they chose to work less than 35 hours a week.

The issue of voluntary part-time relates to Obamacare because one of the main purposes was to allow people to get insurance outside of employment. For many people, especially those with serious health conditions or family members with serious health conditions, before Obamacare the only way to get insurance was through a job that provided health insurance.

However, Obamacare has allowed more than 12 million people to either get insurance through Medicaid or the exchanges. These are people who may previously have felt the need to get a full-time job that provided insurance in order to cover themselves and their families. With Obamacare there is no longer a link between employment and insurance.