Mock exam participants:  By taking the test you agree to the following:  "I swear on my honor that I have completed the translation and the essay within one continuous period of four hours (three hours for Magister-Zwischenprüfung/Vordiplom Nebenfach), with no aid except a monolingual English dictionary.  I have received no help from anyone.  I have not seen an English translation of the German text, and I have not used any sources (on the Internet or otherwise) to write my essay.  I read the article for the first time, and wrote my essay (400-600 words) about it, and completed the translation, all within a continuous four-hour period.  I understand that the essay should present an argument for or against something mentioned in the article, with a clear thesis and well-developed supporting points.  I will not summarize or quote extensively from the article, but will develop my own argument in my own words.  I understand that both the essay and the translation should be easily comprehensible to an English reader who knows no German and is unfamiliar with the subject matter."

Follow the instructions at www.mdmorrissey.com/mock.

Mock exam, June 25, 2004

Translation:  Translate the following into clear, correct English.  Don't spend more than about one hour on this; it counts 1/3 of the grade.

Das erste Gipfeltreffen der kapitalistischen Großmächte, seit der Einbeziehung Russland als G8 bezeichnet, fand 1975 in Frankreich statt. Der Anlass für dieses Treffen war der Ölpreisschock von 1973-74 und die tiefste Wirtschaftsrezession seit den 30-er Jahren.

 

Der damalige und die nachfolgenden Gipfel hatten koordinierte, wenn auch begrenzte Maßnahmen gegen die Probleme der kapitalistischen Weltwirtschaft entwickelt. Doch das gehört längst der Vergangenheit an. Der in der vergangenen Woche auf Sea Island vor der Küste Georgias abgehaltene Gipfel wurde in einer Zeit steigender Ölpreise einberufen. Es gibt Befürchtungen, dass dieser Anstieg Auswirkungen auf die Weltwirtschaft hat, die sich vorwiegend auf die wachsende Verschuldung der USA und den Boom in China stützt.

 

Diese Fragen wurden auf dem Gipfel jedoch kaum erwähnt, geschweige denn diskutiert. Darin zeigt sich, wie bedeutungslos die G8-Gipfel aufgrund der Unfähigkeit und Unwilligkeit der großen kapitalistischen Staaten, ein koordiniertes ökonomisches Programm zu entwickeln, geworden sind. Der Sea Island-Gipfel war kaum mehr als ein Phototermin, eingequetscht zwischen den Feierlichkeiten zum Jahrestag der alliierten Landung in der Normandie und der Beerdigung Ronald Reagans.

 

Translation a	Original
The first summit of the capitalist great powers, which is called G 8 since Russian’s inclusion,  took place in France in 1975. This meeting took place because there had been a shocking rise in oil prices from 1973 until 1974 and the deepest recession in the world/global economy since the 30’s.	The inaugural summit of the major capitalist powers—the grouping now known as the G8 and including Russia—was held in France in 1975. It was convened to develop a global response to the oil price shock of 1973-74 and the development of the deepest global recession, to that point, since the 1930s Depression.
The former and the following summits had developed coordinated even though limited measures against to combat the problems of the capitalist world economieseconomy. However, this has long since gonebeen a thing of the past. The summit that took place last week on Sea Island in front ofoff the Georgia’s coast was convened in at a time where oil prices are increasedincreasing. There are worries that increasing prices will have an influence on the world economy, which is mainly based on the growing indebtedness of the US and the economic growth in China.	At that summit, and those which immediately followed, there were developed co-ordinated, although limited, responses to the problems of the world capitalist economy. But those days have long gone.  Last week’s summit, held on Sea Island, off the coast of Georgia in the US, was convened amidst rising oil prices and concern over their impact on a world economy that is largely dependent on rising indebtedness in the United States and an investment boom in China.
However, these questions were hardly mentioned, not evenlet alone discussed, on at the summit. This shows how meaningless the G8-summits have become because the great capitalist countries are not capable and or willing to develop a coordinated economical program. The Sea Island summit was hardly more than a photo-shooting appointmentopportunity/event, squeezed in between the ceremonies of the anniversary of the departure landing of the Allies in the Normandy and Ronald Reagan’s funeral.	However, it is a measure of the irrelevance of the G8—a product of both the inability and the unwillingness of the major powers to advance a co-ordinated economic program—that these issues were barely mentioned, let alone discussed, at last week’s meeting. Consequently it was little more than a very expensive photo opportunity, sandwiched between the D-Day commemorations and the Ronald Reagan funeral.

 

Translation b	Original
The first summit meeting of the capitalistic super powers, which changed the it's name to G 8 when Russia became a member, took place in France in 1975. The reason for this meeting to take place was the shock about the oil prices in 1973 - 74 and the deepest recession of the economy since the 1930s.	The inaugural summit of the major capitalist powers—the grouping now known as the G8 and including Russia—was held in France in 1975. It was convened to develop a global response to the oil price shock of 1973-74 and the development of the deepest global recession, to that point, since the 1930s Depression.
This former first meeting as well as the following summits had taken joint measures, and although they were limited too, to tackle the problems of the capitalistic world economy. But this belongs to the past. Last week's summit on Sea Island, at off the coast of Georgia, took place in times of rising oil prices. There are worries that this rise has will have an influence on the world economy, which relies is strongly influency by on the booming economy in China and....	At that summit, and those which immediately followed, there were developed co-ordinated, although limited, responses to the problems of the world capitalist economy. But those days have long gone.  Last week’s summit, held on Sea Island, off the coast of Georgia in the US, was convened amidst rising oil prices and concern over their impact on a world economy that is largely dependent on rising indebtedness in the United States and an investment boom in China.
Theaw questions! were hardly mentioned at the summit and certainly not discussed. This showedshows, how meaningless the G8-summits have become because the big capitalistic states are unable and unwilling to develop a co-ordinated program for the economy. The summit of on Sea Island was hardly more than a photo photo-shooting session, squashed byfit in between celebrations of the anniversary of the landing of the allies in Normandy and the burial of Ronald Reagan.	However, it is a measure of the irrelevance of the G8—a product of both the inability and the unwillingness of the major powers to advance a co-ordinated economic program—that these issues were barely mentioned, let alone discussed, at last week’s meeting. Consequently it was little more than a very expensive photo opportunity, sandwiched between the D-Day commemorations and the Ronald Reagan funeral.

 

Essay:  Write a letter to the editor of the NYT agreeing or disagreeing on some point made in one of the following articles.  I will assume your letter starts with "Re ... Dear Editor," so you don't have to write that.  In Text 1 you are writing to the editor about his own editorial.  In Text 2 you are writing to the editor about  O'Faolain's article.  Begin with what you agree or disagree with, state your thesis, and spend the rest of your essay supporting your thesis.

Text 1:

June 24, 2004 (New York Times editorial)

Watching as the Children Starved

The country was horrified last fall when New Jersey officials found four emaciated children — including a 10-year-old weighing only 28 pounds — who had been systematically starved by their adoptive parents over a period of years, even though the family was supposed to be under the supervision of caseworkers from the state's child welfare agency. The children have gained weight and been nursed back to health since being removed from the home. But thousands of other children will remain at risk until the state restructures its Division of Youth and Family Services along the lines of a plan that was recently approved by a panel of experts and forwarded to the courts for judicial review.

 

A report by the state child advocate's office shows that caseworkers are poorly trained and unfamiliar with basic department policies. They are also overworked, sometimes handling more than 80 cases at a time, a situation that can cause workers to miss obvious danger signs.

 

The system failed to act in the starvation case, despite clear signs as far back as the early 1990's that one of the children was being denied food. That child's file contained more than a dozen entries on nutritional problems and noted tips from informers who believed that he was being deprived of food. The file further notes that the emaciated child sometimes pleaded with caseworkers for food and once even ransacked a caseworker's glove compartment in search of something to eat. When he ate away from home, he begged the caseworkers not to tell his adoptive parents. The family was nevertheless allowed to adopt three more children; each came with a government subsidy.

 

This case was brought to light after the child welfare agency had been sued by an advocacy group, Children's Rights, for failing to live up to its responsibilities. A panel of experts appointed in connection with the lawsuit has guided the state toward an ambitious plan that would lower caseloads and improve caseworkers' training while adding new staff to the child welfare agency. Instead of dismissing reports of neglect and abuse — as clearly happened in the starvation case — caseworkers would be required to check out accusations and take specific actions. The budget for this beleaguered, underfinanced agency will need to be sharply increased.

 

Atrocities like the New Jersey starvation case almost always begin with caseworkers who are expected to do too much with too few resources, and a state or local government that is strapped for money. Poor children don't have much lobbying clout. The only remedy is a decision on the part of political leaders that protecting the most helpless members of society is the most important thing that government does, and deserves the highest priority when the resources are doled out. If New Jersey's leaders can't do that, the courts will wind up doing it for them.

 

Essay a

 

Dear Editor,

With the introduction of social and retirement insurance in the 19^th century, Otto von Bismarck had the idea that wealthy people should support poor people. He introduced social and retirement insurance in Prussia which were was supposed to minimize poverty and diseases, such as cholera and plague in the 19^th century. Bismarck recognized that social support is possible when money is redistributed from wealthy people to poor ones.

            Bismarck showed great vision in developing an insurance system for all citizens who have had the right need? to be supported. However, Bismarck’s theory plan to redistribute money worked only in the pastdoesn't/cannot? work today. Unfortunately, social support is not guaranteed for everyone in the future because it is getting more and more expensive.

In the United States, children have to starve because states and local governments are not able to provide enough money for social institutions who which are in charge of taking care of children who are ill-treated by their parents or adoptive parents. Often, social workers are poorly trained and overworked because social institutions are on a tight budget. Therefore, there is a risk of missing dangerous signs of starvation or cruelty to children[mdm1] .

Other countries, such as Turkey, have to face the same problems. The number of street children, fleeing abusive parents or poverty, has increased in big cities such as Istanbul. Some children are willingly [mdm2] sent out by their parents to make a few dollars. , because Money is also a reason why civic organizations and the local governments in Turkey are do not able have the funds to deal with the thousands of street children.

   Compared to other countries, such as the United States and Turkey, Germany had once an excellent social system. Benefits from social insurances were guaranteed until the last years of the 20^th century, when the German social system started to strugglefalter. The government made a decision to reform the health programs, and changes became effective in January 2004.

Now social services, such as free taxi rides for patients that are chronically ill and money for social workers for visiting and helping disabled people at their homes twice a week, are cut and not covered by health insurances insurance programs/companies anymore. In January, shortly after the new laws became effective A it was reported in the news report stated that a person even had died in January, shortly after the new laws became effective, because he could not effort afford to pay for a taxi to go to the hospital for dialysis each every day. 

While Llooking back at the German health system when it offered health and social services for everyone, we have to ask today: “Why is an effective health system, which has was developed for over 200 years, now being threatened with total collapse?” It seems that even a highly developed social system can fail when income and expenditures are not in balance.

For the last 10 years, fewer employees and employers have paid into the health insurance because companies have gone bankrupt and employees have gotten laid off. Because of the recession in Germany, the unemployment rate has increased drastically. When people are unemployed, little money is paid for health and other social insurances, such as the retirement insurance. In addition, health insurers have to pay more and more money for medical care for old people because fewer people are dying earlierliving longer nowadays.

The government has had reasons for cutting more and more money from health insurance benefits, and I agree that reforms are necessary to keep health insurance possible in Germany. However, extra costs for the lower class are not the only solution[mdm3] . The upper class, and employees of the representative of the government and large companies should also be required to pay a larger percentage of their salaries and other income[mdm4] .

If the wealth is shared, we do will not have to worry about seeing children starve or mistreated because there will be enough money available for health and social services. Then the social system that Bismarck was dreameding about can will still be possible. now and in the future. 

 

Essay b

 

Dear editor,

I agree with you that there is not enough money for the child welfare agency of the State of New Jersey. If new Jersey political leaders do not advocate the rights of poor children, judges must do it in their place. Otherwise your conclusion will become the sad reality - poor children do not have much lobbying clout at pre! sent and won't have one in the future. In this case society has failed to live up to its responsibilities to protect the most helpless members. It has a responsibility to do so. Social injustices (100) must be prevented. As one case discovered by an advocacy group, the child welfare has failed to take care of four neglected and starving children, among them a completely underweight boy of ten weighing only 24 pounds. This was a tragedy for the children and you say that many more children are suffering and will be doing so until something is done.

You say in your article on June 24, 2004, that the Division of Youth and Family Services has failed.  One reason according to it is that case workers 200 are poorly trained and are therefore unfamiliar with the basic policy of the department. The other reason is that the staff is overworked and has to handle more than 80 cases at a time. A beginning has been made with a group of experts that have been appointed to improve on the deficit system[mdm5] .

 

Text 2:

June 23, 2004

When Irish Ties Are Fraying

By NUALA O'FAOLAIN

DUBLIN — The Irish hold the rotating presidency of the European Union and President Bush is scheduled to make an overnight visit to Ireland this week to take art in a two-hour summit meeting. On Friday, he'll fly into Shannon, an airport whose use by the American military during the Iraq venture has been highly controversial here. Substantial protests are planned, but the protesters will, of course, be kept far away from the president. He won't even hear their chants.

 

No doubt American television will show the president and his wife surrounded by harp-playing colleens and little girls in ringlets doing stepdancing in a medieval castle — this is an election year, after all, and there is an Irish-American electorate. But, in fact, the president and the Irish won't encounter each other at all. The loss is ours; but it is America's, too.

 

Mr. Bush is coming to a country that has been passionately pro-American since America took in our people after the Great Famine. Presidential visits have been a gift from that diaspora. John F. Kennedy came and assuaged some of the pain of all the farewells in our history. Richard Nixon came; I remember running almost three miles to the obscure graveyard in which an ancestor of his had been providentially discovered. Beside me, a couple carry a plump 3-year-old between them, hoping to show the child a president of the United States.

 

We didn't make it; but we cheered when we saw the presidential helicopter take off over the bog. Ronald Reagan came and protesters against American actions in Central America landed in jail, but on the entertainment side, he was the perfect partner in genial, Oirish leprechaunery. It was also believed that he had leaned on Margaret Thatcher to bring her to negotiations with us on the future of Northern Ireland. And that's what has mattered most in modern Ireland's relationship with America. Its friendliness to us has often been the power behind our dealings with Britain.

 

The Clinton administration and both the Clintons went further; they put a lot of time and effort into installing a political structure in Northern Ireland that will work, however long it may be delayed by local malice. When Bill Clinton visited the republic the place was brought to a standstill. There wasn't a dry eye in the house.

 

If Mr. Clinton came back today, we'd find some way — even in the post-Sept. 11 world — to welcome him. But even in that world, is security the only consideration keeping President Bush and the Irish apart?

 

When Mikhail Gorbachev, at the height of his promise, stopped over in Shannon for just a couple of hours, there was a fiesta. His wife, Raisa, was taken to an outdoor folk museum behind what was meant to be impermeable security, but there was such a welter of children up trees, people holding out daffodils, boys balancing on walls, lambs bleating, fiddles playing, buses reversing the wrong way and general happy mayhem that security became extremely flexible. True feeling finds ways to express itself.

 

How can there be so little enthusiasm for welcoming President Bush in as pro-American a country as exists on the face of the earth? Our intelligentsia is pro-American; American popular culture, far from being resisted as it is elsewhere in Europe, has been a precious modernizing influence on the grim patriarchy that dominated Ireland until recent times; our teachers and students work in the United States in the summer, our athletes train there, our doctors and scientists do postgraduate work there, we all have friends and relations there. No wonder Ireland shut down more completely than any other country in the world — schools, pubs, business, transport, everything — on its day of mourning for the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

But nations on the periphery watch the center more keenly than the center realizes. The vacuum where our enthusiasm should be is our response to the perception — the fear — that this administration is indifferent to any world view but its own; that it doesn't care whether a little place like this loves it or not.

 

There is another twist: we Irish, in our quarrel with Britain, have relied on American power, and that implicates us in how that power is exercised. The images from the Abu Ghraib prison were especially shocking here. We took the British Army to the European Court of Human Rights for using techniques of interrogation in Northern Ireland much less extreme than were used in Abu Ghraib — and, for all we know, in Guantánamo Bay, in Afghanistan and elsewhere in Iraq. The British techniques were ruled inhuman and degrading.

 

And Iraq is only the most lurid in a sequence of isolationist initiatives — the abrupt rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, the imposition of protective tariffs, the hostility to any international court of justice, and above all, the disrespect this administration has shown to the United Nations. Not that anyone has unqualified respect for the United Nations. But small nations, in particular, have to rely on international bodies, and the United Nations for all its flaws is the international body we've got. We take it seriously and we strongly support it. Irish troops are serving with United Nations missions in places that could do with the money and attention Iraq is getting, like Liberia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Congo and the Western Sahara.

 

The hardheaded proconsuls in Washington know that we, though by no means the victims we once were — we've a stunningly successful economy — do not matter in terms of realpolitik. Ireland's population is a little less than that of Atlanta. But the attitudinal change I see here is part of global politics all the same. Americans who work or play outside their own country will have felt already, I'm sure, that the Bush presidency has changed how the world looks at America. For them — for ordinary Americans — the reception they get abroad at this time of profound difficulty should be warmer than ever.

 

But for the present administration — and a 1,000-strong entourage will be accompanying President Bush on his visit — my welcome flag is furled. It was such fun and such an honor, the first four times a president came here. But in the bitter words of a poet: "Never bright, confident morning again."

 

Nuala O'Faolain, a former columnist for The Irish Times, is the author, most recently, of "Almost There," a memoir.