【js金沙国际】The puzzle of motivation

   
很多同班在大考过后认为一年来说紧绷的神经终于得以拿走根本放松了,于是,早先捡起协调为报考硕士[微博]撇开的娱乐活动,如打游戏、打牌等,玩儿得相当热情洋溢,作息不公理,书本也都扔到1边,想着壹切等到出分未来再说。等到出分了,准备复试,发现自个儿不在状态、而且就像居多文化又还给老师了,结果不少初试很不利的同桌在结尾的那复试环节上功亏壹篑。
   
跨考乌Crane语教研室刘先生提出我们初试过后,可以恰到好处放松,能够看看美国剧或然感兴趣的英文信函电话电报子通信影,找找听越南语的感到。因为初试不考听力,所以当先2/四同室在复习时都把听力遗忘了,而众多学府在复试环节会考查听力,听力的拉长却不是不久能形成的,因而提出我们早点始于练听力,而且保证每一天至少认真听一4分钟。在看电影、电视机剧娱乐之余,能够找4、陆级的听力题来做找找感觉,做做托福[微博]、雅思[微博]的听力题,当然最棒是能找到所报考该校的每年复试真题,那样复习起来更有针对。接下来刘先生将考研土耳其共和国(The Republic of Turkey)语复试口语个中的宽泛难点以及答题技巧给大家做贰个简单易行的总计。
  先是,怎么将专业术语整合在自笔者介绍中?
  例如:My first job was a net supervisor in a small company. Although
I worked there for only six months, I had wide experiences in 术语. But
I gradually focused on(术语). So I took part in the Red Hat
Authorization test and passed it with honor. In 2010, I was accepted by
the Information Department, China Unicom,in charge of专业.
  To be honest, this position brings me good salary and a promotion
opportunity, however, I decided to apply for the Master of 术语… And
that’s why I’m here. 20拾年完成学业在小商店做四个月网管,考取红帽中路认证(Red
Hat
Authorization),经过三轮车面试,进入中国移动的新闻化部录用,系统尊崇理工科人程师。工作大力、报酬好、有升级机会。
  第3,专业术语会的不多怎么做?
  办法1:说永远对的:Being open to new theories and new ideas is
important, especially in telecommunications. Knowledge from 田野 work
tells others what you can do, but that from theoretical studies tells
others how you’re inventive, creative and sensible. I think postgraduate
studies at this university can give me a mental power and realistic
approach.接受新的驳斥、新构思、新的挑衅是很重点的,所以准备报考硕士、工作中上学的学问来自经验,可是必须有理论的印证,才有延续进步
  办法2:挑选3个纯熟的,用自个儿的阅历简述:The cutting-edge technology
focuses on 本身会的术语. Its guideline is like this: A company needs a
powerful machine, and wants to lower its cost. So as an engineer, I
tried to put some out-of-date equipment and servers together. To do so,
I had to use some integrated technology, for example,
(用简写和代码代替:VM, WWK and AMX).
今后的前沿技术是…,其大旨考虑为,集团远在资金节省,将壹部分就要淘汰的、低配置的配备可能服务器通过软件技术以逻辑的款式进行整合、以获得一台功用强大的高品质计算机,这样做,就必须使用合成技术,如…
  办法三:不提理论,说本身的天职:The team had to work round the clock
and checked it up from time to time. In this way, the whole system
wouldn’t crash. Other feedback mechanism
includes术语(如一些常用的设备可能零部件名称:如servers, data base as
well as hard disc)
  其三,如若境遇不熟谙的怎么做?
  直接说“笔者不领会”就足以了,别硬撑着:In this process, I’m in charge
of the maintenance of servers. So my knowledge in 面生的天地is
limited. Sorry, it is difficult for me to say more. But I know that it
is important, and it is my plan to keep track of its latest trend. In
this way, I can improve my analytical thinking and problem-solving
abilities, especially during my postgraduate
studies.由于本身在这么些工作历程中主要担负服务器维,其余世界的知识有关联,然而不熟悉,可是笔者也稳步发现到它在正式中的重要性,越发是在自身读研期间。
  第四,改专业怎么说?
  改专业:I show keen interest in the law studies, the commercial and
economic laws in particular, even though my major is Economics. You
might ask me why, well, let’s tell you like this. Economics are too
abstract, full of terms, far away from the real world. I don’t mean that
economics is useless. But law studies seem more challenging, and
promising for my future career. My plan is like this: start my work in a
law firm and work as a lawyer so that I can try my best to help the
clients, who they’re and where they’re from, whether they’re rich or
poor. That’s why I made up my mind to change my major and applied for
this law school.
小编对经济学感兴趣,尤其是民法通则和经济法,即使本身的规范是占便宜,您可能问小编何以该专业,嗯,这么说啊,经济比较空虚,术语多,脱离现实世界。当然小编不是说经济并未有用,对它也从不偏见。可是自个儿觉得工学更挑衅性,也更有前景:小编的布署是:在律所发轫自小编的行事,尽己所能帮衬客户,无论他们是什么人,来自哪个地方,是特殊困难依旧具有。所以自个儿控制改专业,申请理大学。
最后一点,信心是最器重的。由此同学们在面试时一定要大摇大摆,把温馨最佳的景色突显在老师前面。

js金沙国际 1

I need to make a confession at the outset here. A little over 20 years
ago, I did something that I regret, something that I’m not particularly
proud of. Something that, in many ways, I wish no one would ever know,
but here I feel kind of obliged to reveal.
(Laughter)
In the late 1980s, in a moment of youthful indiscretion, I went to law
school.
(Laughter)
In America, law is a professional degree: after your university degree,
you go on to law school. When I got to law school, I didn’t do very
well. To put it mildly, I didn’t do very well. I, in fact, graduated in
the part of my law school class that made the top 90% possible.
(Laughter)
Thank you. I never practiced law a day in my life; I pretty much wasn’t
allowed to.
(Laughter)
But today, against my better judgment, against the advice of my own
wife, I want to try to dust off some of those legal skills — what’s
left of those legal skills. I don’t want to tell you a story. I want to
make a case. I want to make a hard-headed, evidence-based, dare I say
lawyerly case, for rethinking how we run our businesses.
So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, take a look at this. This is
called the candle problem. Some of you might know it. It’s created in
1945 by a psychologist named Karl Duncker. He created this experiment
that is used in many other experiments in behavioral science. And here’s
how it works. Suppose I’m the experimenter. I bring you into a room. I
give you a candle, some thumbtacks and some matches. And I say to you,
“Your job is to attach the candle to the wall so the wax doesn’t drip
onto the table.” Now what would you do?
Many people begin trying to thumbtack the candle to the wall. Doesn’t
work. I saw somebody kind of make the motion over here — some people
have a great idea where they light the match, melt the side of the
candle, try to adhere it to the wall. It’s an awesome idea. Doesn’t
work. And eventually, after five or ten minutes, most people figure out
the solution, which you can see here.
The key is to overcome what’s called functional fixedness. You look at
that box and you see it only as a receptacle for the tacks. But it can
also have this other function, as a platform for the candle. The candle
problem.
I want to tell you about an experiment using the candle problem, done by
a scientist named Sam Glucksberg, who is now at Princeton University,
US, This shows the power of incentives.
He gathered his participants and said: “I’m going to time you, how
quickly you can solve this problem.” To one group he said, “I’m going to
time you to establish norms, averages for how long it typically takes
someone to solve this sort of problem.”
To the second group he offered rewards. He said, “If you’re in the top
25% of the fastest times, you get five dollars. If you’re the fastest of
everyone we’re testing here today, you get 20 dollars.” Now this is
several years ago, adjusted for inflation, it’s a decent sum of money
for a few minutes of work. It’s a nice motivator.
Question: How much faster did this group solve the problem?
Answer: It took them, on average, three and a half minutes longer. 3.5
min longer. This makes no sense, right? I mean, I’m an American. I
believe in free markets. That’s not how it’s supposed to work, right?
(Laughter)
If you want people to perform better, you reward them. Right? Bonuses,
commissions, their own reality show. Incentivize them. That’s how
business works. But that’s not happening here. You’ve got an incentive
designed to sharpen thinking and accelerate creativity, and it does just
the opposite. It dulls thinking and blocks creativity.
What’s interesting about this experiment is that it’s not an aberration.
This has been replicated over and over again for nearly 40 years. These
contingent motivators — if you do this, then you get that — work in
some circumstances. But for a lot of tasks, they actually either don’t
work or, often, they do harm. This is one of the most robust findings in
social science, and also one of the most ignored.
I spent the last couple of years looking at the science of human
motivation, particularly the dynamics of extrinsic motivators and
intrinsic motivators. And I’m telling you, it’s not even close. If you
look at the science, there is a mismatch between what science knows and
what business does.
What’s alarming here is that our business operating system — think of
the set of assumptions and protocols beneath our businesses, how we
motivate people, how we apply our human resources– it’s built entirely
around these extrinsic motivators, around carrots and sticks. That’s
actually fine for many kinds of 20th century tasks. But for 21st century
tasks, that mechanistic, reward-and-punishment approach doesn’t work,
often doesn’t work, and often does harm. Let me show you.
Glucksberg did another similar experiment, he presented the problem in a
slightly different way, like this up here. Attach the candle to the wall
so the wax doesn’t drip onto the table. Same deal. You: we’re timing for
norms. You: we’re incentivizing.
What happened this time? This time, the incentivized group kicked the
other group’s butt. Why? Because when the tacks are out of the box, it’s
pretty easy isn’t it?
(Laughter)
If-then rewards work really well for those sorts of tasks, where there
is a simple set of rules and a clear destination to go to. Rewards, by
their very nature, narrow our focus, concentrate the mind; that’s why
they work in so many cases. So, for tasks like this, a narrow focus,
where you just see the goal right there, zoom straight ahead to it, they
work really well.
But for the real candle problem, you don’t want to be looking like this.
The solution is on the periphery. You want to be looking around. That
reward actually narrows our focus and restricts our possibility.
Let me tell you why this is so important. In western Europe, in many
parts of Asia, in North America, in Australia, white-collar workers are
doing less of this kind of work, and more of this kind of work. That
routine, rule-based, left-brain work — certain kinds of accounting,
financial analysis, computer programming — has become fairly easy to
outsource, fairly easy to automate. Software can do it faster. Low-cost
providers can do it cheaper. So what really matters are the more
right-brained creative, conceptual kinds of abilities.
Think about your own work. Think about your own work. Are the problems
that you face, or even the problems we’ve been talking about here, do
they have a clear set of rules, and a single solution? No. The rules are
mystifying. The solution, if it exists at all, is surprising and not
obvious. Everybody in this room is dealing with their own version of the
candle problem. And for candle problems of any kind, in any field, those
if-then rewards, the things around which we’ve built so many of our
businesses, don’t work!
It makes me crazy. And here’s the thing. This is not a feeling. Okay?
I’m a lawyer; I don’t believe in feelings. This is not a philosophy. I’m
an American; I don’t believe in philosophy.
(Laughter)
This is a fact — or, as we say in my hometown of Washington, D.C., a
true fact.
(Laughter)
(Applause)
Let me give you an example. Let me marshal the evidence here. I’m not
telling a story, I’m making a case. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
some evidence: Dan Ariely, one of the great economists of our time, he
and three colleagues did a study of some MIT students. They gave these
MIT students a bunch of games, games that involved creativity, and motor
skills, and concentration. And the offered them, for performance, three
levels of rewards: small reward, medium reward, large reward. If you do
really well you get the large reward, on down.
What happened? As long as the task involved only mechanical skill
bonuses worked as they would be expected: the higher the pay, the better
the performance. Okay? But once the task called for even rudimentary
cognitive skill, a larger reward led to poorer performance.
Then they said, “Let’s see if there’s any cultural bias here. Let’s go
to Madurai, India and test it.” Standard of living is lower. In Madurai,
a reward that is modest in North American standards, is more meaningful
there. Same deal. A bunch of games, three levels of rewards.
What happens? People offered the medium level of rewards did no better
than people offered the small rewards. But this time, people offered the
highest rewards, they did the worst of all. In eight of the nine tasks
we examined across three experiments, higher incentives led to worse
performance.
Is this some kind of touchy-feely socialist conspiracy going on here?
No, these are economists from MIT, from Carnegie Mellon, from the
University of Chicago. Do you know who sponsored this research? The
Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. That’s the American
experience.
Let’s go across the pond to the London School of Economics, LSE, London
School of Economics, alma mater of eleven Nobel Laureates in economics.
Training ground for great economic thinkers like George Soros, and
Friedrich Hayek, and Mick Jagger.
(Laughter)
Last month, just last month, economists at LSE looked at 51 studies of
pay-for-performance plans, inside of companies. Here’s what they said:
“We find that financial incentives can result in a negative impact on
overall performance.”
There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does.
And what worries me, as we stand here in the rubble of the economic
collapse, is that too many organizations are making their decisions,
their policies about talent and people, based on assumptions that are
outdated, unexamined, and rooted more in folklore than in science. And
if we really want to get out of this economic mess, if we really want
high performance on those definitional tasks of the 21st century, the
solution is not to do more of the wrong things, to entice people with a
sweeter carrot, or threaten them with a sharper stick. We need a whole
new approach.
The good news is that the scientists who’ve been studying motivation
have given us this new approach. It’s built much more around intrinsic
motivation. Around the desire to do things because they matter, because
we like it, they’re interesting, or part of something important. And to
my mind, that new operating system for our businesses revolves around
three elements: autonomy, mastery and purpose. Autonomy: the urge to
direct our own lives. Mastery: the desire to get better and better at
something that matters. Purpose: the yearning to do what we do in the
service of something larger than ourselves. These are the building
blocks of an entirely new operating system for our businesses.
I want to talk today only about autonomy. In the 20th century, we came
up with this idea of management. Management did not emanate from nature.
Management is not a tree, it’s a television set. Somebody invented it.
It doesn’t mean it’s going to work forever. Management is great.
Traditional notions of management are great if you want compliance. But
if you want engagement, self-direction works better.
Some examples of some kind of radical notions of self-direction. You
don’t see a lot of it, but you see the first stirrings of something
really interesting going on, what it means is paying people adequately
and fairly, absolutely — getting the issue of money off the table, and
then giving people lots of autonomy.
Some examples. How many of you have heard of the company Atlassian? It
looks like less than half.
(Laughter)
Atlassian is an Australian software company. And they do something
incredibly cool. A few times a year they tell their engineers, “Go for
the next 24 hours and work on anything you want, as long as it’s not
part of your regular job. Work on anything you want.” Engineers use this
time to come up with a cool patch for code, come up with an elegant
hack. Then they present all of the stuff that they’ve developed to their
teammates, to the rest of the company, in this wild and woolly all-hands
meeting at the end of the day. Being Australians, everybody has a
beer.
They call them FedEx Days. Why? Because you have to deliver something
overnight. It’s pretty; not bad. It’s a huge trademark violation, but
it’s pretty clever.
(Laughter)
That one day of intense autonomy has produced a whole array of software
fixes that might never have existed.
It’s worked so well that Atlassian has taken it to the next level with
20% time — done, famously, at Google — where engineers can spend 20%
of their time working on anything they want. They have autonomy over
their time, their task, their team, their technique. Radical amounts of
autonomy. And at Google, as many of you know, about half of the new
products in a typical year are birthed during that 20% time: things like
Gmail, Orkut, Google News.
Let me give you an even more radical example of it: something called the
Results Only Work Environment (the ROWE), created by two American
consultants, in place at a dozen companies around North America. In a
ROWE people don’t have schedules. They show up when they want. They
don’t have to be in the office at a certain time, or any time. They just
have to get their work done. How they do it, when they do it, where they
do it, is totally up to them. Meetings in these kinds of environments
are optional.
What happens? Almost across the board, productivity goes up, worker
engagement goes up, worker satisfaction goes up, turnover goes down.
Autonomy, mastery and purpose, the building blocks of a new way of doing
things.
Some of you might look at this and say, “Hmm, that sounds nice, but it’s
Utopian.” And I say, “Nope. I have proof.” The mid-1990s, Microsoft
started an encyclopedia called Encarta. They had deployed all the right
incentives, They paid professionals to write and edit thousands of
articles. Well-compensated managers oversaw the whole thing to make sure
it came in on budget and on time. A few years later, another
encyclopedia got started. Different model, right? Do it for fun. No one
gets paid a cent, or a euro or a yen. Do it because you like to do it.
Just 10 years ago, if you had gone to an economist, anywhere, “Hey, I’ve
got these two different models for creating an encyclopedia. If they
went head to head, who would win?” 10 years ago you could not have found
a single sober economist anywhere on planet Earth who would have
predicted the Wikipedia model.
This is the titanic battle between these two approaches. This is the
Ali-Frazier of motivation, right? This is the Thrilla in Manila.
Intrinsic motivators versus extrinsic motivators. Autonomy, mastery and
purpose, versus carrot and sticks, and who wins? Intrinsic motivation,
autonomy, mastery and purpose, in a knockout.
Let me wrap up. There is a mismatch between what science knows and what
business does. Here is what science knows. One: Those 20th century
rewards, those motivators we think are a natural part of business, do
work, but only in a surprisingly narrow band of circumstances. Two:
Those if-then rewards often destroy creativity. Three: The secret to
high performance isn’t rewards and punishments, but that unseen
intrinsic drive– the drive to do things for their own sake. The drive
to do things cause they matter.
And here’s the best part. We already know this. The science confirms
what we know in our hearts. So, if we repair this mismatch between
science and business, if we bring our motivation, notions of motivation
into the 21st century, if we get past this lazy, dangerous, ideology of
carrots and sticks, we can strengthen our businesses, we can solve a lot
of those candle problems, and maybe, maybe — we can change the world.
I rest my case.
(Applause)

  

01

  如今,复试分数线壹度六续透露,通过初试的同室早已离梦想的高校一步之遥,有广大同学反映说“初试爱尔兰语就分数不是很高,听大人讲复试克罗地亚共和国语口语更难缠,好怕呀”,在此间文都教育报考学士带领专家曹天啸先生尤其给广大考生出谋划策,为大家解析口试的表征、考官最欣赏的难题以及不难又不失巧妙的对答策略。

 

  口试内容与结构 

复试面试中到底侦查大家哪方面包车型客车力量啊?

  分为两片段,有两名教授参加口试工作,一名老师主持口试,随时与考生交谈并评分;另一名导师从事评分,不出席交谈。两名口试教授所给的分数各占口试成绩的2/4。

复试面试进程中其实主要调查考生的综合素质。包涵考生本科时期的力量结构、知识结构、总括机操作能力、外语能力和应变能力,在回复难点的时候并不要求尤其精准的答案,可是供给考生流畅清楚以及有逻辑性的陈述即可

  第三有个别:考察学生驾驭并答应有关经常生活、家庭、工作、学习等题材的能力(三分钟)。

02

  第一有的:调查学生总是发布的力量。考生从所给你的题材中选择三个话题,就此话题发布自身的理念(三分钟)。口试用资料(部分,仅供参考) 

 

  part A

专业课是重头戏 

  interlocutor(问话者):

回顾知识应用和外语听大人说或正规外语考核,1般难不倒考生。专业基础知识方面包车型大巴考核于是成为考生在复试中最简单出差错的1些,使得某个考生特别是跨专业跨校报考大学生的考生,简单在复试中暴暴露专业基础方面包车型地铁素养不够。

  ——good morning. my name is ……,and this is my colleague…..he is just going to listening to us .are your name is…..?

本着增强自身在标准领域思量能力,越发在复试其中较多选拔些专业课专业术语来思量难点,那在跨专业同学复试中显示更为重大些,此外多钻探本人所学领域专场与所选专业什关系,对本标准商量何促进,哪些是没有错标准难题等,这么些附近却能较客观表显出跨专业务考核生专业思维把握能力问题是很不难问到。

  ——first of all, we’d like to know sth. about you, so i’m going to ask some questions about yourself。

js金沙国际 2

  (从以下各项难题中甄选多少个合适的题材发问考生)

03

  ——hometown

 

  where are you from?

导师篇

  how long have you lived there?

(一)复试时老师考察什么?

  how do you like it? why?

导师不但推崇学生的正规基础,还会调查学生的性情、情商等。专业基础自然首要,但人性和商量往往会在潜意识中给教授留给深切印象。情商首即使指人在心境、情绪、意志、耐受曲折等方面包车型地铁品质。性情与磋商,那关系到今后学生阅读是否节俭、有理性,是还是不是是逻辑清晰的可造之才。加入复试的同桌,专业能力上偏离并十分的小,即便有距离,导师也是能够中期培育的,但假使是特性和探讨方面包车型客车后天不足,导师则难以改变。那也是1对学员纠结的:作者的分数那么高,为何不用本人?因为,复试面试中探究在无意识地震慑了您的功成名就。

  do you live near here? where about?

从某种意义上讲,情商甚至比智力商数更珍视

  what do you think are the good points about living in this city?

(二)导师的怎么事情是自家该了然的?

  ——family

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注