PAGE www.cyenglish.co.kr JULY 2015

LECTURE 1

JULY 2014

alafolie@empal.com

http://cyenglish.co.kr/1. A-B . . , (IT). , , , IT CEO , . 40% .

, , , . . , , . , IT .

, . 76 , 300 , 50 , 20 . 5 10 , 5000 , 25000 . .

. 9 . 1.6% OECD 8.7% , . , 60% () .

, . , , . , , , . , , , , , , .

, . 2020 40% , . . , , . .

1. A-B , (IT). , , , IT CEO , . 40% .

, , , . . , , . , IT .

, . 76 , 300 , 50 , 20 . 5 10 , 5000 , 25000 . .

. 9 . 1.6% OECD 8.7% , . , 60% () .

, . , , . , , , . , , , , , , .

, . 2020 40% , . . , , . .

1. A-BTo build a creative economy, we need to produce talented workers of our own and attract global talent. In fact, countries are competing fiercely to win the global talent war. Advanced countries are employing various tacticsincluding scholarships and immigration reformto attract the best brains. Countries have even begun to regard the brain drain as a form of long-term investment because those who leave now will return in the future with valuable global experience. This is how China and India have secured highly competitive technology workers. The U.S., the E.U. and China, among others, are aggressively sending students overseas and attracting international students. South Korea seems to be falling behind in this race. International students account for just 1.6% of all college students in the country compared with the OECD average of 8.7%. While other countries are gaining foreign students, South Korea is losing them. The most worrying is the fact that about 60% of foreign students leave the country with negative perceptions about it.We must make South Korea an attractive destination for bright foreign students. The effort to globalize Korean universities should be about more than just meeting globalization targets. There must also be changes in areas like the quality of instruction, dorms, tuition, protection of intellectual property and visa laws. We must win the global talent war to meet the challenges of population aging and ensure sustained economic growth.

2. B-A

Applicants to the Translation Program: Read the following article and summarize it in KOREAN with your own words and expressions.

Applicants to the Interpretation Program: Read the following article and summarize it in ENGLISH with your own words and expressions.

April 27, 2013

In the Season of Marriage, a Question. Why Bother?

By ANDREW J. CHERLIN

ITS surprising how many people still marry. As everyone knows, its a risky proposition; the divorce rate, though down from its peak of one in two marriages in the early 1980s, remains substantial. Besides, you can have a perfectly respectable life these days without marrying.

When the Pew Research Center asked a sample of Americans in 2010 what they thought about the growing variety in the types of family arrangements that people live in, 34 percent responded that it was a good thing, and 32 percent said it made no difference. Having a child outside of marriage has also become common. According to a report by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, 47 percent of American women who give birth in their 20s are unmarried at the time.

And still, demographers project that at least 80 percent of Americans will marry at some point in their lives.

Why?

The answer is that Americans are now marrying for a different reason. Marriage has become a status symbol a highly regarded marker of a successful personal life. This transformed meaning is evident in the Obama administrations briefs in the two same-sex marriage cases now in front of the Supreme Court. Those documents reflect, in part, the assumption that marriage represents not only a bundle of rights but also a privileged position.

In the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Justice Department wrote that marriage confers a special validation of the relationship between two individuals and conveys a message to society that domestic partnerships or civil unions cannot match. Apparently, that special validation has little to do with rights, since domestic partners would have all of them if, as the departments other brief urged, federal benefits were extended to same-sex couples. In fact, in its brief for Hollingsworth v. Perry, the government is careful to highlight the social recognition conferred by the institution of marriage.

This is not to say that marriage is less important than it was in the past. But it is important for different reasons. In the mid-20th century, there was nothing exceptional about marriage. Respectable people married; there was no other decent way to share a home with a partner. Shame attached to those who bore children out of wedlock. Spinsters and bachelors were suspect, the subject of collective social wonder.

Today, marriage is more discretionary than ever, and also more distinctive. It is something young adults do after they and their live-in partners have good jobs and a nice apartment. It has become the capstone experience of personal life the last brick put in place after everything else is set. People marry to show their family and friends how well their lives are going, even if deep down they are unsure whether their partnership will last a lifetime.

Consider weddings, which typically were formal ceremonies planned and paid for by the parents. Not anymore: According to the American Wedding Study, commissioned by Brides magazine, 36 percent of couples paid the entire cost of their wedding receptions in 2012, up from 29 percent in 2009; and another 26 percent contributed to the cost. As more couples plan and pay for the occasion, its central meaning is shifting from uniting two families to celebrating the bride and groom themselves.

YOUNG adults with greater earning potential, who can afford the capstone celebration, are still marrying in large numbers, while those with poorer economic prospects are holding off. According to the National Center for Family and Marriage Research, 88 percent of 35- to 44-year-old women with four-year college degrees have married, compared with 79 percent of those without high-school diplomas. In fact, young adults without college degrees are increasingly likely to put off marriage and have their first children in cohabiting relationships, sometimes years before they marry. Nearly all of the increase in childbearing outside of marriage in the last two decades is from births to cohabiting couples, most without college degrees, rather than to single mothers.

The weakening link between marriage and childbearing is perhaps best explained by the hollowing out of the middle of the American economy. As jobs have been automated or moved overseas, it has become more difficult for high-school-educated young men to find the kind of steady, well-paying industrial work that sustained their fathers families. Faced with this situation, many of them are willing to live in short-term cohabiting relationships but not to make a lifetime commitment to marriage. Young women, for their part, may choose to have children in these short-term unions rather than wait for the uncertain prospect of marriage. In a cultural climate in which having children outside of marriage is increasingly acceptable, non-college-educated young adults seem to treat reproduction as mandatory or at least axiomatic, and marriage as more of an optional add-on. Most do eventually marry, although not necessarily to the person they had their first child with.

In contrast, more than 90 percent of American women with four-year college degrees wait until after they are married to have children. College-educated young adults foresee a brighter economic future that can sustain marriages. They may live with a partner first, and may postpone marriage until after earning graduate school degrees or establishing themselves in careers, but they are content to wait until marriage before having children. Moreover, their marriages are lasting longer since 1980 the divorce rate has dropped faster for those with college degrees, so that about one in six of their marriages ends in divorce in the first 10 years, compared with nearly one in two marriages among people without high school degrees.

College-educated Americans constitute the winners in our new economy and they are sticking with long-term marriage as a context for rearing children.

In the 1970s, when cohabitation began to increase and divorce rates skyrocketed, it seemed marriage might fade away. Four decades later it remains an important part of American life not in its older role as the first step into adulthood, but in its newer role as the last step one takes after becoming an adult in almost all other respects.

2. B-A

April 27, 2013

In the Season of Marriage, a Question. Why Bother?

By ANDREW J. CHERLIN

ITS surprising how many people still marry. As everyone knows, its a risky proposition; the divorce rate, though down from its peak of one in two marriages in the early 1980s, remains substantial. Besides, you can have a perfectly respectable life these days without marrying.

When the Pew Research Center asked a sample of Americans in 2010 what they thought about the growing variety in the types of family arrangements that people live in, 34 percent responded that it was a good thing, and 32 percent said it made no difference. Having a child outside of marriage has also become common. According to a report by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, 47 percent of American women who give birth in their 20s are unmarried at the time.

And still, demographers project that at least 80 percent of Americans will marry at some point in their lives.

Why?

The answer is that Americans are now marrying for a different reason. Marriage has become a status symbol a highly regarded marker of a successful personal life. This transformed meaning is evident in the Obama administrations briefs in the two same-sex marriage cases now in front of the Supreme Court. Those documents reflect, in part, the assumption that marriage represents not only a bundle of rights but also a privileged position.

In the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Justice Department wrote that marriage confers a special validation of the relationship between two individuals and conveys a message to society that domestic partnerships or civil unions cannot match. Apparently, that special validation has little to do with rights, since domestic partners would have all of them if, as the departments other brief urged, federal benefits were extended to same-sex couples. In fact, in its brief for Hollingsworth v. Perry, the government is careful to highlight the social recognition conferred by the institution of marriage.

This is not to say that marriage is less important than it was in the past. But it is important for different reasons. In the mid-20th century, there was nothing exceptional about marriage. Respectable people married; there was no other decent way to share a home with a partner. Shame attached to those who bore children out of wedlock. Spinsters and bachelors were suspect, the subject of collective social wonder.

Today, marriage is more discretionary than ever, and also more distinctive. It is something young adults do after they and their live-in partners have good jobs and a nice apartment. It has become the capstone experience of personal life the last brick put in place after everything else is set. People marry to show their family and friends how well their lives are going, even if deep down they are unsure whether their partnership will last a lifetime.

Consider weddings, which typically were formal ceremonies planned and paid for by the parents. Not anymore: According to the American Wedding Study, commissioned by Brides magazine, 36 percent of couples paid the entire cost of their wedding receptions in 2012, up from 29 percent in 2009; and another 26 percent contributed to the cost. As more couples plan and pay for the occasion, its central meaning is shifting from uniting two families to celebrating the bride and groom themselves.

YOUNG adults with greater earning potential, who can afford the capstone celebration, are still marrying in large numbers, while those with poorer economic prospects are holding off. According to the National Center for Family and Marriage Research, 88 percent of 35- to 44-year-old women with four-year college degrees have married, compared with 79 percent of those without high-school diplomas. In fact, young adults without college degrees are increasingly likely to put off marriage and have their first children in cohabiting relationships, sometimes years before they marry. Nearly all of the increase in childbearing outside of marriage in the last two decades is from births to cohabiting couples, most without college degrees, rather than to single mothers.

The weakening link between marriage and childbearing is perhaps best explained by the hollowing out of the middle of the American economy. As jobs have been automated or moved overseas, it has become more difficult for high-school-educated young men to find the kind of steady, well-paying industrial work that sustained their fathers families. Faced with this situation, many of them are willing to live in short-term cohabiting relationships but not to make a lifetime commitment to marriage. Young women, for their part, may choose to have children in these short-term unions rather than wait for the uncertain prospect of marriage. In a cultural climate in which having children outside of marriage is increasingly acceptable, non-college-educated young adults seem to treat reproduction as mandatory or at least axiomatic, and marriage as more of an optional add-on. Most do eventually marry, although not necessarily to the person they had their first child with.

In contrast, more than 90 percent of American women with four-year college degrees wait until after they are married to have children. College-educated young adults foresee a brighter economic future that can sustain marriages. They may live with a partner first, and may postpone marriage until after earning graduate school degrees or establishing themselves in careers, but they are content to wait until marriage before having children. Moreover, their marriages are lasting longer since 1980 the divorce rate has dropped faster for those with college degrees, so that about one in six of their marriages ends in divorce in the first 10 years, compared with nearly one in two marriages among people without high school degrees.

College-educated Americans constitute the winners in our new economy and they are sticking with long-term marriage as a context for rearing children.

In the 1970s, when cohabitation began to increase and divorce rates skyrocketed, it seemed marriage might fade away. Four decades later it remains an important part of American life not in its older role as the first step into adulthood, but in its newer role as the last step one takes after becoming an adult in almost all other respects.

2. B-A

. 80% . ? . . 20 . . . .

30-40 . . . , . . . . .

.

2. B-B

Marriage can be a risky choice considering the fairly high divorce rate today. Peoples view of marriage has also changed a lot and many have babies before marriage. Still, 80% of Americans get married at some point in their lives. Why? It is because they now regard marriage as a symbol of success. The Obama administration has made the same claim in a Supreme Court case. In the mid 20th century, marriage was regarded as mandatory for couples who wanted to live together and have babies. But it has become optional today. People marry to show how successful they are, paying for their weddings instead of relying on their parents.

Among people in their 30s and 40s, college graduates are more likely to have married than high-school graduates, who often just live together for many years and have babies before getting married. Men without college degrees have more difficulty finding jobs than before due to automation and the outsourcing of jobs. For those without college degrees, cohabitation and childbirth out of wedlock are increasingly normal and marriage is optional. In contrast, the majority of college graduates have babies after marriage and their marriages last longer.

3. A-B . . . , , . .

. 3, 1 . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

3 . . . , .

. . 64,488 . . .

31 . . . .

.3. A-B . , , . .

. 3, 1 . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

3 . . . , .

. . 64,488 . . .

31 . . . .

.3. A-BMany Korean students who study in China get into trouble. Away from home, they feel liberated but, at the same time, they are lonely and under stress, which leads to delinquent behavior. College students are adults and they are responsible for their actions. In fact, Koreans who studied in China are not popular among Korean companies operating there. They want high pay but dont have the local personal networks that Chinese applicants have or offer a higher level of global competitiveness than those who studied at home in South Korea. The bigger problem is younger students who come to China by themselves. They have difficulty adjusting to a new environment, feel lonely and are under pressure to live up to the expectations of their parents back home. They engage in delinquent behavior and when things get out of control, some of them attempt suicide. Agencies that recruit students coming to China make no efforts to help their adjustment. The Korean government is not interested in this issue, either. This must change. Koreans studying in China have surged at an explosive pace and they now amount to one third of all international students in the country. They are valuable assets for future relations between the two countries. They deserve more attention and support.July 2, 2013

A Chinese Virtue Is Now the Law

By EDWARD WONG

BEIJING They are exemplars from folklore who are familiar to Chinese schoolchildren. There is the Confucian disciple who subsisted on wild grass while traveling with sacks of rice to give to his parents. There is the man who worshiped wooden effigies of his parents.

But Chinese officials apparently think it is not enough these days to count on tales and parental admonitions to teach children the importance of filial piety, arguably the most treasured of traditional virtues in Chinese society.

The government enacted a law on Monday aimed at compelling adult children to visit their aging parents. The law, called Protection of the Rights and Interests of Elderly People, has nine clauses that lay out the duties of children and their obligation to tend to the spiritual needs of the elderly.

Children should go home often to visit their parents, the law said, and occasionally send them greetings. Companies and work units should give employees enough time off so they can make parental visits.

The law was passed in December by the standing committee of the National Peoples Congress. It does not stipulate any punishments for people who neglect their parents. Nevertheless, that officials felt the need to make filial duty a legal matter is a reflection of the monumental changes taking place throughout Chinese society.

Many aging parents in China, as in other industrialized nations, complain these days about not seeing their children enough. And the children say the stresses of daily life, especially in the rapidly expanding cities, prevent them from carving out time for their parents.

Chinas economy is flourishing, and lots of young people have moved away to the cities and away from their aging parents in villages, Dang Janwu, vice director of the China Research Center on Aging, said in a telephone interview on Tuesday. This is one of the consequences of Chinas urbanization. The social welfare system can answer to material needs of the elders, but when it comes to the spiritual needs, a law like this becomes very necessary.

Mr. Dang said the law had already been successful in prompting significant discussion of the issue. Others have been more skeptical. On Monday, Guo Cheng, a novelist, told the 1.3-million followers of his microblog: Kinship is part of human nature; it is ridiculous to make it into a law. It is like requiring couples who have gotten married to have a harmonious sex life.

Nevertheless, the issue of abandoned aging parents is a real one across China. In 2011, Xinhua, the state news agency, ran an article that said nearly half of the 185 million people age 60 and older live apart from their children. People residing in a different city from their parents, including legions of migrant workers, usually find time to go home only during the Lunar New Year holiday.

On the same day the new law went into effect, a court in the eastern city of Wuxi ruled that a young couple had to visit the wifes 77-year-old mother who had sued her daughter and son-in-law for neglect at least once every two months to tend to her spiritual needs.

The classic text that has been used for six centuries to teach the importance of respecting ones parents has been The 24 Paragons of Filial Piety, a collection of folk tales written by Guo Jujing. Last August, the Chinese government issued a new version, supposedly updated for modern times, so todays youth would find it relevant. The new text told children to buy health insurance for their parents and to teach them how to use the Internet.

Guangzhou Daily, an official newspaper, ran an article in October about a 26-year-old man who pushed his disabled mother for 93 days in a wheelchair to a popular tropical tourist destination in Yunnan Province. The article called it by far the best example of filial piety in years.

(),

, ,

()

(, )

() ,

= the most treasured traditional virtue

.

require . compel .

(.) .

. .

.

,

BETTER The fact that officials felt the need to make filial duty a legal matter

,

()

.

!!!

.

BETTER aged

.

Wuxi

6

24

,

,

( )

PAGE 2INSTRUCTOR: YANG SHI-RAE