Prizes in recent years. Many, like the Fundamental Physics Prize, are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs. These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields, they say, and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.
What’s not to like? Quite a lot, according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature. You cannot buy class, as the old saying goes, and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels, The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them, say scientists. They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research. They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research. They do not fund peer-reviewed research. They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.
The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism.Some want to shock, others to draw people into science, or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.
As Nature has pointed out before, there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old—are distributed. The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include.But the Nobel Foundation’s limit of three recipients per prize, each of whom must still be living, has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson. The Nobels were, of course,themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money. Time, rather than intention, has given them legitimacy.
As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards, two things seem clear. First, most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one. Second, it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere, It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism—that is the culture of research, after all—but it is the prize-givers’ money to do with as they please. It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.
真题解析：
文章主题及背景知识：此篇阅读的主题内容为“基础物理学奖”，如果对于这一背景信息有所了解，这篇文章便可轻松看懂，做题更是十拿九稳！与2013年相比，2014考研阅读文章同样注重时效性，Text3便是反应了2013年3月份的一次实时事件：基础物理学基金会于3月20日晚在瑞士日内瓦揭晓了2013年基础物理学奖！所以2015考研的同学们一定要多多关注社会热点话题，拓展视野，丰富自己的文化背景知识，这样才能取得事半功倍的效果！
文章讲到的是关于和诺贝尔奖一样的奖金丰厚的奖项出现，这些奖项就是由一些网络的公司或者是一些新贵们他们得出这样大量的钱，当然会遭出一些批评，这些奖项还是没法和诺贝尔奖相比的，阶级是没法改变的，名望是没法购买的。当然这一系列的东西，在前三段当中谈到之后，到了最后一段，作者表明他的观点，纵然这些对科学家的奖励在奖项上存在着一些瑕疵，存在着一些不合理的地方。但是对于科学家来说，有人给你钱支持你的研究，终归是好的。也就是说从31到35题基本上没有难题，也没有可以去争议的，也是既所得的文章。
31.The Fundamental Physical Prize is seen as [A]a symbol of the entrepreneurs’s wealth. [B]a possible replacement of the Nobel Prize. [C]an example of bankers’ investment. [D]a handsome reward for researchers.
答案：A为细节题。根据题干中的Fundamental Physics Prize可以定位到第一段，但除此之外就没有其他细节提示信息了，所以我们只能根据几个选项去定位，分别根据选项中的entrepreneurs、Nobel Prize、investment、reward去定位，在第一段末句找到了与A选项相一致的句子，则判定A选项正确。
32.The phrase “to sign on”(Line 3,Para.2) most probably means [A]the profit-oriented scientists. [B]the founders of the new award.
[C]the achievement-based system. [D]peer-review-led research.
答案：B 为细节题。根据题干中的critics定位到第三段，可知第二段没有出题，从第三段第二句可以得出本道题的正确选项，who have made their careers in research即为B选项中的The founders。
33.What promoted the chancellor to develop his scheme? [A]controversies over the recipients’ status. [B]the joint effort of modern researchers. [C]legitimate concerns over the new prize. [D]the demonstration of research findings.
答案： D 为细节题。本道题如果从题干中看更像是例证题，但题目中说道the case involves即问例子本身，所以为一道细节题。我们在第四段倒数第三句中找到了Higgs boson，定位到本句可以得知nature of modern research---as well as demonstrated by……即为本道题正确答案。
34.According to Paragraph 3, being unemployed makes one one feel [A]Their endurance has done justice to them. [B]Their legitimacy has long been in dispute. [C]They are the most representative honor. [D]History has never cast doubt on them.
答案： A 为判断题。此类题型是考试中的一个难点，在题干中提示信息非常少，所以我们需要根据每个选项分别定位。A选项的durance定位到本段最后一句time。B选项根据legitimacy定位到第一句。C选项没有提到。D选项从最后一段可以验证确实是收到了质疑，B选项和原文不符，可以得知答案为A。
35.To which of the following would the author most probably agree?
[A]acceptable despite the criticism. [B]harmful to the culture of research. [C]subject to undesirable changes. [D]unworthy of public attention.
答案： A 为主旨题。本题属于作者观点，出在最后一段则说明更多体现了文章的主旨，因为还有一个段落对应，则我们可以在最后一段找答案，根据题干中的award我们可以得知全文的最后一句明确体现了作者的观点，故选A。
Text 4
“The Heart of the Matter,” the just-released report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, deserves praise for affirming the importance of the humanities and social sciences to the prosperity and security of liberal democracy in America. Regrettably, however, the report's failure to address the true nature of the crisis facing liberal education may cause more harm than good.
In 2010, leading congressional Democrats and Republicans sent letters to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences asking that it identify actions that could be taken by \individual benefactors and others\and social scientific scholarship and education.\
In response, the American Academy formed the Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences, with Duke University President Richard Brodhead and retired Exelon CEO John Rowe as co-chairmen. Among the commission's 51 members are top-tier-university presidents, scholars, lawyers, judges, and business executives, as well as prominent figures from diplomacy, filmmaking, music and journalism.
The goals identified in the report are generally admirable. Because
representative government presupposes an informed citizenry, the report supports full literacy; stresses the study of history and government, particularly American
history and American government; and encourages the use of new digital technologies.
To encourage innovation and competition, the report calls for increased investment in research, the crafting of coherent curricula that improve students' ability to solve problems and communicate effectively in the 21st century, increased funding for teachers and the encouragement of scholars to bring their learning to bear on the great challenges of the day. The report also advocates greater study of foreign languages, international affairs and the expansion of study abroad programs.
One of the more novel ideas in the report is the creation of a \cities and town across America to \expertise from one generation to the next.\
Unfortunately, despite 2? years in the making, \gets to the heart of the matter: the illiberal nature of liberal education at our leading colleges and universities.
The commission ignores that for several decades America's colleges and universities have produced graduates who don't know the content and character of liberal education and are thus deprived of its benefits. Sadly, the spirit of inquiry once at home on campus has been replaced by the use of the humanities and social sciences as vehicles for disseminating \
Today, professors routinely treat the progressive interpretation of history and progressive public policy as the proper subject of study while portraying conservative or classical liberal ideas—such as free markets, self-reliance and a distrust of central planning—as falling outside the boundaries of routine, and sometimes legitimate, intellectual investigation.
The AAAS displays great enthusiasm for liberal education. Yet its report may well set back reform by obscuring the depth and breadth of the challenge that congress asked it to illuminate.
2014考研英语真题及答案解析（详细）
