📝 您未登录，登录后完成练习可保存成绩、查看最佳记录。
总字符
0
正确字符
0
错误字符
0
错误率
0.00%
耗时(秒)
0
速度 WPM
0
0 / 56
1A) How do early career setbacks affect our long-term success? Failures can help us learn and overcome our fears.But
2disasters can still wound us. They can screw us up and set us back. Wouldn't it be nice if there was
3genuine,scientifically documented truth to the expression “what doesn't kill you makes you stronger”?
4B) One way social scientists have probed the effects of career setbacks is to look at scientists of very similar
5qualifications. These scientists, for reasons that are mostly arbitrary, either just missed getting a research grant or
6just barely made it. In social sciences, this is known as examining “near misses” and “narrow wins” in areas where merit
7is subjective. That allows researchers to measure only the effects of being chosen or not. Studies in this area have
8found conflicting results. In the competitive game of biomedical science, research has been done on scientists who
9narrowly lost or won grant money. It suggests that narrow winners become even bigger winners down the line. In other
10words, the rich get richer.
11C) A 2018 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, followed researchers in
12the Netherlands. Researchers concluded that those who just barely qualified for a grant were able to get twice as much
13money within the next eight years as those who just missed out. And the narrow winners were 50 percent more likely to be
14given a professorship.
15D) Others in the US have found similar effects with National Institutes of Health early-career fellowships launching
16narrow winners far ahead of close losers. The phenomenon is often referred to as the Matthew effect, inspired by the
17Bible's wisdom that to those who have, more will be given. There's a good explanation for the phenomenon in the book The
18Formula: The Universal Laws of Success by Albert Laszlo Barabasi. According to Barabasi, it's easier and less risky for
19those in positions of power to choose to hand awards and funding to those who've already been so recognized.
20E) This is bad news for the losers. Small early career setbacks seem to have a disproportionate effect down the
21line.What didn't kill them made them weaker. But other studies using the same technique have shown there's sometimes no
22penalty to a near miss. Students who just miss getting into top high schools or universities do just as well later in
23life as those who just manage to get accepted. In this case, what didn't kill them simply didn't matter. So is there any
24evidence that setbacks might actually improve our career prospects? There is now.
25F) In a study published in Nature Communications, Northwestern University sociologist Dashun Wang tracked more than
261,100 scientists who were on the border between getting a grant and missing out between 1990 and 2005. He followed
27various measures of performance over the next decade. These included how many papers they authored and how influential
28those papers were, as measured by the number of subsequent citations. As expected, there was a much higher rate of
29attrition (减员) among scientists who didn't get grants. But among those who stayed on, the close losers performed even
30better than the narrow winners. To make sure this wasn't by chance, Wang conducted additional tests using different
31performance measures. He examined how many times people were first authors on influential studies, and the like.
32G) One straightforward reason close losers might outperform narrow winners is that the two groups have comparable
33ability. In Wang's study, he selected the most determined, passionate scientists from the loser group and culled (剔除)
34what he deemed the weakest members of the winner group. Yet the persevering losers still came out on top. He thinks that
35being a close loser might give people a psychological boost, or the proverbial kick in the pants.
36H) Utrecht University sociologist Arnout van de Rijt was the lead author on the 2018 paper showing the rich get richer.
37He said the new finding is apparently reasonable and worth some attention. His own work showed that although the narrow
38winners did get much more money in the near future, the actual performance of the close losers was just as good.
39I) He said the people who should be paying regard to the Wang paper are the funding agents who distribute government
40grant money. After all, by continuing to pile riches on the narrow winners, the taxpayers are not getting the maximum
41bang for their buck if the close losers are performing just as well or even better. There's a huge amount of time and
42effort that goes into the process of selecting who gets grants, he said, and the latest research shows that the
43scientific establishment is not very good at distributing money. “Maybe we should spend less money trying to figure out
44who is better than who,” he said, suggesting that some more equal dividing up of money might be more productive and more
45efficient. Van de Rijt said he's not convinced that losing out gives people a psychological boost. It may yet be a
46selection effect. Even though Wang tried to account for this by culling the weakest winners, it's impossible to know
47which of the winners would have quit had they found themselves on the losing side.
48J) For his part, Wang said that in his own experience, losing did light a motivating fire. He recalled a recent paper he
49submitted to a journal, which accepted it only to request extensive editing, and then reversed course and rejected it.
50He submitted the unedited version to a more respected journal and got accepted.
51K) In sports and many areas of life, we think of failures as evidence of something we could have done better. We regard
52these disappointments as a fate we could have avoided with more careful preparation, different training,a better
53strategy, or more focus. And there it makes sense that failures show us the road to success. These papers deal with a
54kind of failure people have little control over-rejection. Others determine who wins and who loses.But at the very
55least, the research is starting to show that early setbacks don't have to be fatal. They might even make us better at
56our jobs. Getting paid like a winner, though? That's a different matter.
🎉 全部完成！共 56 行