Mock exam, July 2, 2004

Translation:  Translate the following into clear, correct English.

Die Website "Stratfor", die von einer Gruppe rechtsgerichteter Analysten mit sehr engen Verbindungen zur Armee und den Geheimdiensten der USA erstellt wird, veröffentlichte vor kurzem eine Analyse der militärischen Lage im Irak. Vor anderthalb Wochen brachte sie folgende Einschätzung:

"Wenn sich die gegenwärtigen Trends beschleunigen, dann stehen die USA vor einer schweren militärischen Herausforderung, die in eine Katastrophe münden könnte. Die USA verfügen nicht über die notwendige Truppenstärke, um sowohl einen Schiitenaufstand auf breiter Basis als auch die Rebellion der Sunniten niederzuschlagen. Schon die heutige geographische Ausbreitung des Aufstands überfordert nicht nur die bereits stationierten Truppen, sondern auch jegliche praktikable Anzahl zusätzlicher Soldaten, die eingesetzt werden könnten. Bereits jetzt ziehen sich die USA aus einigen Städten zurück. Das logische Endergebnis wäre eine Enklaven-Strategie, bei der die USA ihre Truppen - vielleicht unter Ausschluss von Irakern - auf eine Reihe befestigter Stellungen konzentrieren und den Rest des Landes der Guerilla überlassen. Damit würde sich natürlich die Frage stellen, ob die USA überhaupt im Irak bleiben sollten, denn ihre Truppen könnten dann weder innerhalb des Landes noch jenseits seiner Grenzen eine tatsächliche Kontrolle ausüben."

 

Translation a	Original
The web-page site “Stratfor”, which is created produced by a group of right-wing analysts who are closely linked with the army and the secret intelligence services of the United States, published an analysis of the military situation within in the Iraq, recently.  One and a half weeks ago, the following estimation statement was givenmade/published:	The web site Stratfor, which is run by a group of right-wing analysts with very close connections to American military and intelligence circles, recently published an analysis of the military situation in Iraq. It made the following observation about a week and a half ago:
“If the present tendencies fastenincrease, the USA will have to face a military challenge that could lead into to a catastrophe.  The USA does not have the number of troops that will would be necessary to suppress an upheaval by Shiites on a large scale as well as a rebellion of Sunnites.  Even the today’s geographical extension of the upheaval today does not only demand too much from the troops, which are already stationed there, but would also be too much for from every possibleany number of additional soldiers who could realistically be brought into action.  Just now, the American troops are already leaving some towns.	“If the current trends accelerate, the United States faces a serious military challenge that could lead to disaster. The United States does not have the forces necessary to put down a broad-based Shiite rising and crush the Sunni rebellion as well. Even the current geography of the rising is beyond the capabilities of existing deployments or any practicable number of additional forces that might be made available. The United States is already withdrawing from some cities.
The logical final result would be a strategy to create enclaves.  The US troops might concentrate on a certain number of strongholds, maybe excluding the Iraqis, whereas the remaining country might be left for the guerrillas.  Because of this, Then tthere is would be the question if the US should stay in Iraq at all, as the troops could keep control neither within the country nor on the other side of the frontiers.”	The logical outcome of all this would be an enclave strategy, in which the United States concentrates its forces in a series of fortified locations—perhaps excluding Iraqi nationals—and leaves the rest of the country to the guerrillas. That, of course, would raise the question of why the United States should bother to remain in Iraq, since those forces would not be able to exert effective force either inside the country or beyond its borders.”

 

Translation b	Original
The website ´Stratfor`, which is built up run by a right-of-centre group (right-wing group) with tight connections to the army and American security services, currently recently published an analysis of the military situation in Iraq. One and a half weeks ago they gave the following suggestion:	The web site Stratfor, which is run by a group of right-wing analysts with very close connections to American military and intelligence circles, recently published an analysis of the military situation in Iraq. It made the following observation about a week and a half ago:
“If the current tendency/trend puts on an turn of speed, this will be a military challenge to the USA which might end in a catastrophe. The USA does not have the necessary amount of troops to be able to put down/crush a widespread Schiiti Schiite revolt as well as a Sunnitei rebellion. Even the geographical spread of revolt nowadays is not only a too high demandmuch for (the bereitstroops) already stationed troops there, but also for every kind of practical amount of additional soldiers which could be employed realistically deployed. Even now the USA is withdrawing from some/several [mdm1] cities.	“If the current trends accelerate, the United States faces a serious military challenge that could lead to disaster. The United States does not have the forces necessary to put down a broad-based Shiite rising and crush the Sunni rebellion as well. Even the current geography of the rising is beyond the capabilities of existing deployments or any practicable number of additional forces that might be made available. The United States is already withdrawing from some cities.
The logical final result would be an enclave strategy, by which the USA would concentrate their troops on in several fixed/fasten stations locations – maybe without Iraqi nationals– and leave the rest of the land country to the guerrillas. Then, of course, the question would be weather whether the USA should stay in Iraq at all,. Bbecause then their troops cwould neither have control neither a realistic/an indeed whip hand inside the country nor behind beyond the borders.”	The logical outcome of all this would be an enclave strategy, in which the United States concentrates its forces in a series of fortified locations—perhaps excluding Iraqi nationals—and leaves the rest of the country to the guerrillas. That, of course, would raise the question of why the United States should bother to remain in Iraq, since those forces would not be able to exert effective force either inside the country or beyond its borders.”

 

Essay:  Write an essay of 400-600 words agreeing or disagreeing with some point in one of the following texts (A or B).  Make sure your thesis (main point) and supporting points are clear and easy to follow.

Text A

And the Rich Get Smarter

By DAVID L. KIRP

Published: April 30, 2004

BERKELEY, Calif.

Yet another string of studies confirms what any high school senior or parent who has just weathered the college admissions mating dance already knew — it's a cutthroat competition where money matters more than ever. Teenagers from wealthy families are beating out middle- and working-class youngsters, both at top private colleges and flagship state universities whose historic mission of broad access is receding into memory. The trend means that "smart poor kids," as the educator Terry Hartle bluntly puts it, "go to college at the same rate as stupid rich kids."

A lot of not-so-secret factors are at play in this market. In pursuit of competitive advantage, well-off parents spend thousands of dollars on test prep courses, college admission summer camps and "dress for success" counseling. They are more adept than their less well-heeled rivals at working the system; that brings results, especially at prestigious universities.

At the other end of the spectrum, the inequity is worsening as cash-starved state schools are forced to raise tuition — an average of 14 percent last year. For fall 2003, for example, community college fees in California rose to $18 a class hour from $11. Though that typically amounts to only about $100 a semester, enrollment was more than 100,000 below the state's projections. Why? Sticker shock scares away poorer students from even applying.

The one bright spot is that academic leaders are now discussing this wealth gap. William Bowen, the former president of Princeton, made headlines when he assailed elite colleges — presumably including his own — as "bastions of privilege" and urged putting "a thumb on the scale" for poor students. Amherst's president, Anthony Marx, has made the same argument. Harvard's president, Lawrence Summers, announced that parents who earn less than $40,000 a year will no longer be asked to contribute financially to their offspring's education. That's a start, but much more is needed if such students are going to be a presence in Harvard Yard.

Those who run universities bear considerable responsibility for creating these inequities — and not only in admissions. These trends are just the most visible sign of how much the market ethic has come to dominate higher education. To be sure, dollars have always greased the wheels of academe. What is new and troubling is the raw power that money exerts over all of higher education, including the emphasis on research that adds less to the storehouse of knowledge than to the institutional coffers, and the shift from liberal arts to the "practical arts." While competition has strengthened some colleges, embedded in the very idea of university are values the market does not honor: the belief in a community of scholars and not a confederacy of self-seekers; in the idea of openness and not ownership; and in the student as an acolyte whose preferences are to be formed, not a consumer whose preferences are to be satisfied.

The operations of admissions offices display the marketers' handiwork. Consider the reliance on early admissions. That practice has no academic justification, just a market rationale — the crucial U.S. News & World Report rankings stress selectivity, and colleges favor early decision because those accepted are expected to enroll. Going this route improves a student's chances by as much as 50 percent, but only those whose families don't have to shop around for the best aid package can afford to take advantage of this version of affirmative action.

Admissions decisions are, more and more, based on statistical models that leave little room for hunches about character and potential. The paper credentials of students — A averages and high SAT scores — don't necessarily translate into intellectual fireworks. Many top-performing high school students are burnt out by the time they're freshmen, while working- class teenagers and community college transfers with less sterling records arrive with a hunger for learning and often fare at least as well.

These new models are also intended to increase revenues by shrinking scholarships — what the new breed of "enrollment managers" calls the discount from the tuition sticker price. In an environment where admissions offices are sometimes referred to as profit centers, the "full payers," students from wealthy families, are in greatest demand. In addition, aid, which has historically been based on need, is increasingly being granted on academic merit. A dozen states have also adopted this approach, awarding millions of dollars a year in merit scholarships to students who would have attended college anyway, instead of helping those who otherwise can't afford an education.

The bottom line is that five out of every six qualified seniors whose families earn more than $75,000 — but fewer than half of those whose families earn less than $25,000 — enroll in a four-year college. Higher education used to be regarded as an engine of opportunity. Now it's certifying the gap between the haves and the have-lesses.

What's to be done? An infusion of need-based aid is critical for public universities. The market would be fairer if rivals committed themselves to recruiting at working-class and inner-city schools; to democratizing access to good college advising; and to making need, not market savvy, the basis for financial aid.

The current focus on admission inequities provides an opening for a long-overdue public discussion about what's wrong with market-driven higher education — a discussion that identifies the spheres where money shouldn't be the coin of the realm. Paradoxically, market-based concerns — anxiety about the outsourcing of jobs for knowledge workers — may be the Sputnik crisis of this era, prompting changes in higher education that make it easier for teenagers who don't come from affluence to get the education needed to compete for those jobs.

David L. Kirp, a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, is the author of "Shakespeare, Einstein and the Bottom Line: The Marketing of Higher Education."

Essay a (original)

David L. Kirp writes in his article “And the Rich Get Smarter” about admission inequities for poor students to get into college.  The given points nearly cover the German arguments against the planned Elite-Universitäten.  The creation of those universities will cause the same problems, as described in the text, in Germany as well.  Rich students will take advantage of a good higher education.  Not money should be the decisive factor but the students’ abilities to gain access to universities.

Although the disadvantages for poor students are not as obvious as they seem to be in the United States, they also exist in Germany.  In my opinion, it is not enough to consider access to university only.  One has to start searching already during school-days.  At least in Germany, rich children are more likely to get supplementary lessons than poor children, if needed, to pass grammar school, which is the access to university.  Even if some rich students are not as clever as their poor classmates, they will be able to start studying.  This does not mean that only rich people get this opportunity.  Students from poor families who have passed their A-level get financial help from the government. 

However, this financial help does not give access to the already existing private universitiesin Germany.  The European Business School near Wiesbaden is one of those private universities that have a very good reputation all over the world.  To get into this school, students have to pay an incredible high tuition fee, but after finishing the school a good job offer is very likely. Again, poor and clever students do not really have the opportunity to participate in a course of studies at well-known universities.  Not many of them get the possibility to study there due to scholarships.

Compared to the United States, only a few scholarships are available in Germany.  In keeping admission inequities small, the number of scholarships has to increase with the foundation of Elite-Universitäten.  In addition to the setting up of new scholarships, a system has to be created how to give them out.  Apparently, the American system does not seem to work properly.  It might be useful to integrate the so-called key skills into the system apart from good grades at school.  To my mind, this would offer the possibility to reach different recipients, for example different classes, gender, ethnical groups.  Requirements should also differ concerning the course of studies the scholarship is granted for. 

Certain requirements should not only be due to a particular scholarship.  In my opinion, a kind of admission test should be introduced for courses of studies to get “capable” students in.  At the moment, good grades guarantee admission to courses at university not a person’s abilities or skills.  I only want to mention the catchword emotional intelligence that should be taken into account.  How is it possible, for example, to become a judge if one is not able to listen to other people? 

 

Therefore, it is not money that makes people able to go to university.  It is the individual’s personality and ability to take part successfully in a course of studies.

Essay a (corrected)

David L. Kirp writes in his article “And the Rich Get Smarter” about college admission inequities for that disadvantage poor students to get into college.  The given points he makes cover nearly cover all the German arguments against the planned Elite-Universitäten in Germany.  The creation of those such universities will cause the same problems, as described in the text, in Germany as well.  Rich students will take advantage ofbe able to have a good higher education, but poor....  This is simply wrong.  Not mMoney should be the decisive factor in gaining access to universities, but the students’ abilities. to gain access to universities.

 

Although the disadvantages for poor students are not as obvious as they seem to be in the United States, they also exist in Germany.  In my opinion, it is not enough to consider only access to university only.  One also has to start searching already duringlook at the schools school-days.  At least in Germany, rich children are more likely than poor children to get supplementary lessons than poor children, if needed, to pass grammargraduate from high school, which is the access ticket to university.  Even if some rich students are not as clever as their poor classmates, they will be able to start studying.  This does not mean that only rich people will get this opportunity.  Students from poor families who have passed their A-level the Abitur  will get financial help from the government[mdm2] . 

 

However, this financial help does will? not give poor students access to the already existing private universities, which already exist in Germany.  The European Business School near Wiesbaden is one of those private universities that have a very good reputation all over the world.  To get into this school, students have to pay an incredible incredibly high tuition fee, but after finishing the school graduation a good job offer is very likely. Again[mdm3] , clever but poor and clever students do not really have the opportunity to participate in a course of studiesstudy at well-known universities.  Not many of them get the possibility to study there due to scholarships. 

 

Compared to the United States, only a few scholarships are available in Germany.  In keepingTo keep admission inequities smallto a minimum, the number of scholarships has to increase with the foundation of Elite-Universitäten.  In addition to the setting up of new scholarships, a system has to be created how to give for awarding them out.  Apparently, the American system does not seem to work properly.  It might be useful to integrate the so-called key skills [mdm4] into the system apart fromalong with? good grades at school.  To my mind, this would increase offer equality of opportunity  the possibility to reach different recipients, for men and women of example different social classes, gender, and ethnical groups.  Requirements should also differ concerning the course of studies the scholarship is granted for.  [mdm5] 

 

Certain requirements should not only be due to a particular scholarship.  [mdm6] In my opinion, an kind of admission test should be introduced for certain?courses of studies to get “capable” students in subjects.  At the moment, good grades guarantee admission to courses at university, not a person’s abilities or skills, such as .  I only want to mention the catchword emotional intelligence that should be taken into account.  How is it possible, for example, to become a judge if one is not able to listen to other people? 

 

Therefore, it is not money that makes should make people able to go to university.  It is the individual’s personality and ability to take part successfully in a course of studies.

Text B

May 24, 2004 (New York Times editorial)

Hustings and Pulpits

Things get sticky fast when religious leaders try to dictate public policy to their church members who hold elective office. Earlier this month, 48 Catholic members of Congress protested to ranking church officials in Washington about the "deeply hurtful" threats by some bishops to deny communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights.

 

The fact that the protesting lawmakers are all Democrats is not insignificant, since the complaining bishops, while few in number, have attracted considerable attention by singling out Senator John Kerry, the party's likely presidential nominee. He considers himself a Catholic in good standing despite his pro-choice politicking.

 

The lawmakers, including some who are firmly anti-abortion, raised questions that show how shaky the footing becomes when religious leaders start dabbling in politics. They asked, for instance, why there is no comparable controversy over Catholic politicians who support capital punishment and the war in Iraq, despite church teachings.

 

Attempts to publicly punish Catholic politicians for pro-choice positions have so far been limited to only a few conservative clerics. The Catholic bishops are currently wrestling with the task of trying to produce recommendations for how they should relate to Catholic politicians. All this comes at a time when Catholic politicians can no longer be counted on to be passive when their clergy members speak out. On the Republican side of the aisle, Congressman Peter King, a New York Catholic, was recently incensed by a ranking Vatican official's contention that the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, with its offensive photos of sexual humiliation, was worse for America than the 9/11 attacks. "If there is anyone in the world who has no right to speak on sexual abuse, it is the Vatican," cautioned Mr. King, a supporter of the war and opponent of abortion.

 

While most American religious leaders are pleased when members of their flock undertake a life of public service, it is not surprising that they react with chagrin when those same churchgoers start voting for policies that contradict religious tenets. But any attempt to make elected leaders toe a doctrinal line when it comes to their public duties raises multiple risks. Breaching the church-state line that is so necessary to protect religious freedom is one. Figuring out when to stop is another.

 

Essay b (original)

The connection of policy and religion has always been a problem and will always be a problem. On the one hand religious leaders are proud and hopeful if members of their church are busied in policy. On the other hand they protest if these members have different opinions and bring them up in government.

In my opinion, bishops do not have the right to deny Catholics who support abortion rights – being a politician or not - communion. If those people were no politicians, the bishops would not know what their opinion about abortion – and further discussable themes – would be. Bishops, who celebrate communion, do not know any kind of opinions the members of their church have. The only possibility would be: answering a questionnaire in front of the church before entry – and only who gives the right answers get the permission to enter the church. This exaggerating description is one of the biggest problems many religions have. They only accept their point of view. I am not that firm in Catholic religion but does not even in this religion everybody has the right to be loved by God? And therefore should the bishops not be tolerant against members with different opinions?

And I do agree with the question which then should be asked: why not protesting those politicians who support the war, weapons or death penalty?

That policy obviously is connected with religion one could observe when President Bush – against the background of his election campaign – visited the pope. Bush hoped to impress American Catholics voters. But the pope did not support Bush`s plan. He complained about the war in Iraq and therefore he did not helped President Bush in his election campaign. But I think the pope did not want to support Bush or any other political party at all.

It probably is not possible to separate policy and religion at all. Politicians will always be religious people – what religion ever – and many political decisions are made because people find things – morally - right or wrong, for instance the abortion discussion or death penalty. And therefore either politicians as well as religious people need to become more tolerant or there need to be more strict segregations between religion and policy.

Essay b (corrected)

The connection [mdm7] of policy politics and religion has always been a problem and will always be a problem. On the one hand, religious leaders are proud and hopeful [mdm8] if members of their church are busied in policyget involved in politics?. On the other hand, they protest if these members have different opinions and bring them up in government[mdm9] .

In my opinion, bishops do not have the right to deny communion to Catholics who support abortion rights, whether they are – being a politicians or not - communion. If those peoplethey were not politicians, the bishops would not know what their opinions are about abortion – and or further other controversial discussable themes issues/questions– would be. Bishops, who celebrate communion, do not know anything about the kind of opinions the members of their church have. The only possibility way to know  would be to have parishioners: answering a questionnaire in front of the church before entry – and only allow those who gives the right answers get the permission to enter the church. This may be exaggerated, but it illustrates exaggerating description is one of the biggest problems many religions have. They only accept their point of view. I am not that firm in strict Catholic, religion but does not even in this religion everybody has have the right to be loved by God? And therefore should the bishops not be tolerant against of members with different opinions?

And I do agree with that if the question which then should be askedbishops protest against pro-choice politicians, : why notthey should also protesting against those politicians who support the war, weapons arms sales?, or the death penalty?

That policy politics obviously is obviously connected with religion one could observe when President Bush – against the background of his election campaign – visited the pope. Bush hoped to impress American Catholics voters. But the pope did not support Bush`s plan. He complained about the war in Iraq, and therefore he did not helped President Bush in his election campaign. But I think the pope did not want to support Bush or any other political party at all.

It probably is not possible to separate policy politics and religion at all. Some Politicians will always be religious people – what ever religion ever – and many political decisions are made because people find things – morally - right or wrong, for instance, the abortion discussion or death penalty[mdm10] . And therefore Therefore either politicians as well as religious people [mdm11] need to become more tolerant, or there need to be more a stricter segregations separation between religion and policypolitics.