2025 年 12 月大学英语四级考试真题（第 3 套）

A)Ageism and long-term unemployment are most damaging for those in the second half of their careers. Changing careers is hard. Getting back into work after you've been laid off is even harder. Those over 45 make up the bulk of the long-term unemployed, in America and elsewhere. Hiring managers admit they are reluctant to hire those over 40 or 45, arguing they probably won't be a good "fit," their experience won't be relevant to the workplace, and they'll be unable or unwilling to learn new skills.

B)But the one thing that can really make a difference? More education and training. These are the results from a new study by Generation, a nonprofit founded by former McKinsey consultants. They've just published a global survey on midcareer employment, based on surveys of over 5,000 workers and managers in seven countries.

C)"Older midcareer workers...make up the bulk of the long-term unemployed in many countries," Generation's analysts write in their report. Those over 45 comprise over 40% of the long-term unemployed, for example. And if you're out of work past the age of 45, there's nearly a two in three chance you'll be out of work for over a year, they find. "Midcareer individuals are finding it harder to get jobs," they write. "People age 45+ face persistent and rising pressure in the global job market. They are unemployed for much longer than the average, and their age is indeed one of the greatest barriers to their finding a job."

D)A substantial part of this, they report, is "widespread ageism" on the part of hiring managers. Although such managers admit that post-45 hires turn out on average to be just as good as or better than younger workers, they still don't want to hire them. "Hiring managers have a strong perception bias against 45+ job candidates — they believe that members of this age group have poor skills and low adaptability," Generation's analysts report.

E)The survey results are remarkable. Hiring managers are three times as likely to rate job applicants age 35-44 as a better "fit" than those over 45. They rate the post-45 job seekers lower on average on all three measures — even experience — than those ages 18 to 34. This is true even though nearly nine managers in 10 also said their post-45 workers were as good as or better than younger employees in the same jobs.

F)Their biggest fears about hiring those over 45? Managers said they worry that older hires will be reluctant to try new technologies, and will be unable to learn new skills. Besides, the majority of hiring managers are under 45 — and seem reluctant to hire people older than themselves.

G)But here's the good news. Older workers who've actively engaged in more education and training relevant to their jobs turn this pretty much on its head. Three-quarters of hiring managers said they'd be more likely to hire an over-45 who had relevant education, training or credentials (文凭). Among those over 45 who'd successfully switched careers, 74% said training helped them get their new job.

H)"Midcareer switchers overwhelmingly say that training enabled them to shift to a new career path," the analysts write. And when they asked over-45 candidates about their attitudes, they found that "those who are excited by training are unemployed for less time, receive more job offers, and are more satisfied by the job offers they receive."

I)Hiring managers said training was three times more likely to get them to hire applicants over age 45 than, say, government subsidies (补贴). What training are we talking about? Obviously it depends on the job. And, yes, managers are most likely to be impressed by industry qualifications you get in school. These things cost money, and time. But these aren't the only things helpful. Those who had successfully changed careers after 45 told Generation that education and training had been a big help — and that included in-person, on-the-job training, "informal learning," and online courses — with or without certification.

J)If they think we're too old to learn new skills after we're 45, just learning some new skills may have an effect on its own. There's a downside to this. The people least interested in retraining are more likely to come from historically disadvantaged communities, more likely to have low incomes, and are more likely to have the least schooling after getting their high-school diploma or earlier. On average, post-45 job switchers with higher incomes participate in 2.5 training programs each. Those with lower incomes: 0.9 programs on average.

K)Many years ago, I wrote about a study which found that employers are much more likely to hire a college graduate who has some work experience in the industry than a college graduate who took the "right" degree. A bank is more likely to hire a literature graduate who spent their summers working in their local bank than a finance or economics graduate who spent their summers surfing or traveling around Italy. They've learned through long experience. The person who worked in the bank is more likely ready, willing and able to be part of the team and do the job from day 1.

L)We can rail against "ageism" all we like. It gets us nowhere. And it's easy to forget that employers, like everyone else, are under time pressure and are just trying to solve problems. Any and all "training," including inexpensive and informal training, is going to help resolve their worries about hiring someone over 45. And it has never been easier or cheaper to gain instruction in new skills, thanks to the internet. Online schools like Udemy and Lynda.com offer sweet deals at signup. And courses on YouTube are free.

M)Bottom line? Yes, it really can be difficult getting a new job after age 45, let alone changing careers. One of the best things we can do to help ourselves is to go online and learn new, relevant skills. Sadly, the people who most need the help are least likely to take it — which raises a challenge for society as a whole. Not only do we not want to see lives go to waste, but we all benefit if more people are working and fewer are unemployed.

New York's Eleven Madison Park became the first vegan restaurant to receive three Michelin stars, the highest rating a restaurant can achieve. The award, in the 2024 Michelin guide, was a major milestone for plant-based dining. Eleven Madison Park was founded in 1998 and became one of the world's most celebrated restaurants, earning three Michelin stars in 2017 for its lavish tasting menus featuring high-end ingredients like lobster and duck. In 2021, chef Daniel Humm made the dramatic decision to remove all animal products from the menu, a move that shocked the fine dining world. Humm said he wanted to help build a more sustainable food system. He believed the current food system, with its heavy reliance on animal agriculture, was not sustainable. "We knew this was going to be the hardest thing we've ever done," Humm said. "But even if we fail, it was worth trying." The restaurant lost its three-star rating following the switch to a fully plant-based menu. Michelin's 2022 New York guide awarded Eleven Madison Park only one star but praised the restaurant's "bold and forward-thinking vision" for the future of fine dining. However, the restaurant persisted, and the gamble paid off. In 2024, Michelin restored all three stars, making Eleven Madison Park the first vegan restaurant in the world to achieve this distinction. Gwendal Poullennec, the international director of the Michelin Guides, said the award was "a recognition of the increasing importance of plant-based cuisine in the fine dining world."

Genetic tests are being used for a growing number of purposes, from diagnosing diseases to finding out about our ancestors. But how accurate are these tests? And what does accuracy even mean in this context? There are important things to understand about genetic testing accuracy. The accuracy of a genetic test depends on the specific question being asked and how complex the genetics behind a trait are. For relatively simple genetic conditions where a single gene is responsible, tests tend to be quite reliable. For example, tests for conditions like cystic fibrosis (囊性纤维化) or sickle cell disease (镰状细胞病) are generally very accurate because we understand the genetic basis of these diseases well. However, for most common diseases, the picture is more complicated. Conditions like heart disease, diabetes, and most cancers are influenced by hundreds of genes, each contributing a small amount of risk. They are also affected by environmental factors and lifestyle choices. For these multi-factorial conditions, genetic health tests can only identify a fraction of the potential disease risk on their own. What makes genetic tests for multi-factorial traits particularly tricky to interpret is the interaction between genes. Even if we know that hundreds of genes are involved in a trait, predicting how those genes will interact with each other is extremely difficult. The combined effect of multiple genes is not simply the sum of their individual effects. Some companies also offer DNA tests that claim to predict personality traits, athletic ability, or even help you find a romantic partner. At present, using DNA to predict such complex traits does not have a solid scientific basis. The genetics behind personality and talents involve thousands of genes and complex environmental interactions, making any predictions essentially meaningless with current technology.