Text 1
It has been a wretched few weeks for America’ s celebrity bosses. AIG’ s Maurice "Hank" Greenberg has been dramatically ousted from the firm through which he dominated global insurance for decades. At Morgan Stanley a mutiny is forcing Philip Purcell, a boss used to getting his own way, into an increasingly desperate campaign to save his skin. At Boeing, Harry Stonecipher was called out of retirement to lead the scandal-hit firm and raise ethical standards, only to commit a lapse of his own, being sacked (it seems) for sending e-mails to a lover who was also an employee. Curly Fiorina was the most powerful woman in corporate America until a few weeks ago, when Hewlett-Packard (HP) sacked her for poor performance. The fate of Bernie Ebbers is much grimmer. The once high-profile boss of World-Com could well spend the rest of his life behind bars following his conviction last month on fraud charges.
In different ways, each of these examples appears to point to the same, welcome conclusion: that the imbalance in corporate power of the late 1990s, when many bosses were allowed to behave like absolute monarchs, has been corrected. Alas, appearances can be deceptive. While each of these recent tales of chief-executive woe is a sign of progress, none provides much evidence that the crisis in American corporate governance is yet over. In fact, each of these cases is an example of failed, not successful, governance.
At the very least, the boards of both Morgan Stanley and HP were far too slow to ad dress their bosses’ inadequacies. The record of the Boeing board in picking chiefs prone to ethical lapses is too long to be dismissed as mere bad luck. The fall of Messrs Green berg and Ebbers, meanwhile, highlights the growing role of government--and, in particular, of criminal prosecutors--in holding bosses to account: a development that is, at best, a mixed blessing. The Sarbanes-Oxley act, passed in haste following the Enron and WorldCom scandals, is imposing heavy costs on American companies; whether these are exceeded by any benefits is the subject of fierce debate and many not be known for years.
Eliot Spitzer, New York’ s attorney-general, is the leading advocate and practitioner of an energetic "law enforcement" approach. He may be right that the recent burst of punitive actions has been good for the economy, even if ( as is surely the case) some of his own decisions have been open to question. Where he is undoubtedly right is in arguing that corporate America has done a lamentable job of governing itself. As he says in an article in the Wall Street Journal this week: "The honour code among CEOS didn’ t work. Board oversight didn’ t work. Self-regulation was a complete failure." AIG’ s board, for example, did nothing about Mr Greenberg’ s use of murky accounting, or the conflicts posed by his use of offshore vehicles, or his constant bullying of his critics--let alone the firm’s alleged participation in bid-rigging--until Mr Spitzer threatened a criminal prosecution that might have destroyed the firm.

It can be inferred from the last paragraph that Mr Spitzer（）

A:threatened AIG's board, B:prompted AIG's action. C:prosecuted AIG's crime. D:destroyed AIG's accounting.

Accounting has become political. Fair-value rules, which require assets to be marked to market prices, are blamed by some for exaggerating banks’ losses. Although it will take years to establish whether banks’ accounts have painted too bleak a picture, the rows are already in full swing. Confidence in "efficient" market prices has been hammered, as has the principle that accounts are designed mainly for investors.
The Intemational Accounting Standards Board (IASB), which sets rules for most countries apart from America, has made tactical concessions to avoid the nightmare scenario of banks and politicians writing the rules themselves. On November 12th it issued new rules for financial assets that will be optional from this year and mandatory from 2013.
Loans, or securities similar to loans, will be held at the price banks paid for them, provided the bit of the firm that owns them is not engaged in trading. Everything else will be held at fair value. Most observers, including the IASB, reckon this will cut the proportion of assets held at fair value. Critically, for those who believe most firms try to warm up, if not fully cook, their books, the notes to the accounts will disclose all assets at fair value.
The IASB also proposes a rearrangement of how bad debts are recognized. Instead of booking losses as things go sour, they will be spread over the life of a loan, although the draft rules do not go as far as Spain’s system of "generic provisions" which leads to more reserves being built up in good times than in bad, smooth- ing profits even more. The IASB also wants to end the practice of banks marking the price of their own debt to market, though details are not agreed.
The IASB has made big concessions. Yet it is the European Commission (EC) which decides if the European Union adopts the standard-setter’s new rules. The G20 has called for independent, global standards, that "reaffirm... the framework of fair value", but a few countries, notably France, are hostile. In a letter to Sir David Tweedie, the IASB’s chairman, the commission said the rules "may not yet have struck the fight balance". The IASB will probably plough on and hope the commission backs down.
The IASB’s position has been weakened by differences with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), which sets rules in America and which wants to merge eventually with the IASB. The FASB has yet to produce proposals on financial assets and is more wedded to a fair-value regime. It also faces a proposal in Congress that could allow America’s new systemic-risk regulator to suspend the rules. Strength comes from unity--without it, accounting risks becoming just another tool for governments to attempt to manage the economic cycle.
The statement "the rows are already in full swing" (Line 3, Par

A:A．1) implies that many people blame fair-value rules for its exaggeration. many banks have suffered from huge financial losses. many investors lose confidence in the accounting principles. many disputes have erupted centering on fair-value rules.

Accounting has become political. Fair-value rules, which require assets to be marked to market prices, are blamed by some for exaggerating banks’ losses. Although it will take years to establish whether banks’ accounts have painted too bleak a picture, the rows are already in full swing. Confidence in "efficient" market prices has been hammered, as has the principle that accounts are designed mainly for investors.
The Intemational Accounting Standards Board (IASB), which sets rules for most countries apart from America, has made tactical concessions to avoid the nightmare scenario of banks and politicians writing the rules themselves. On November 12th it issued new rules for financial assets that will be optional from this year and mandatory from 2013.
Loans, or securities similar to loans, will be held at the price banks paid for them, provided the bit of the firm that owns them is not engaged in trading. Everything else will be held at fair value. Most observers, including the IASB, reckon this will cut the proportion of assets held at fair value. Critically, for those who believe most firms try to warm up, if not fully cook, their books, the notes to the accounts will disclose all assets at fair value.
The IASB also proposes a rearrangement of how bad debts are recognized. Instead of booking losses as things go sour, they will be spread over the life of a loan, although the draft rules do not go as far as Spain’s system of "generic provisions" which leads to more reserves being built up in good times than in bad, smooth- ing profits even more. The IASB also wants to end the practice of banks marking the price of their own debt to market, though details are not agreed.
The IASB has made big concessions. Yet it is the European Commission (EC) which decides if the European Union adopts the standard-setter’s new rules. The G20 has called for independent, global standards, that "reaffirm... the framework of fair value", but a few countries, notably France, are hostile. In a letter to Sir David Tweedie, the IASB’s chairman, the commission said the rules "may not yet have struck the fight balance". The IASB will probably plough on and hope the commission backs down.
The IASB’s position has been weakened by differences with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), which sets rules in America and which wants to merge eventually with the IASB. The FASB has yet to produce proposals on financial assets and is more wedded to a fair-value regime. It also faces a proposal in Congress that could allow America’s new systemic-risk regulator to suspend the rules. Strength comes from unity--without it, accounting risks becoming just another tool for governments to attempt to manage the economic cycle.
From the text we can conclude that the author

A:does not favor the IASB’s new rules. B:urges the IASB and the FASB to unite. C:thinks accounting is a tool for governments. D:holds the FASB should unite with the Congress.

It never rains but it pours. Just as bosses and boards have finally sorted out their worst accounting and compliance troubles, and improved their feeble corporation governance, a new problem threatens to earn them -- especially in American--the sort of nasty headlines that inevitably lead to heads rolling in the executive suite: data insecurity. Left, until now, to odd, low-level IT staff to put right, and seen as a concern only of data-rich industries such as banking, telecoms and air travel, information protection is now high on the boss’s agenda in businesses of every variety.
Several massive leakages of customer and employee data this year-- from organizations as diverse as Time Warner, the American defense contractor Science Applications International Corp and even the University of California, Berkeley——have left managers hurriedly peering into their intricate IT systems and business processes in search of potential vulnerabilities.
"Data is becoming an asset which needs to be guarded as much as ally other asset," says Haim Mendelson of Stanford University’s business school. "The ability to guard customer data is the key to market value, which the board is responsible for on behalf of shareholders". Indeed, just as there is the concept of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), perhaps it is time for GASP. Generally Accepted Security Practices, suggested Eli Norm of New York’s Columbia Business School. "Setting the proper investment level for security, redundancy, and recovery is a management issue, not a technical one." he says.
The mystery is that this should come as a surprise to any boss. Surely it should be obvious to the dimmest executive that trust, that most valuable of economic assets, is easily destroyed and hugely expensive to restore -- and that few things are more likely to destroy trust than a company letting sensitive personal data get into the wrong hands.
The current state of affairs may have been encouraged -- though not justified-- by the lack of legal penalty (in America, but not Europe) for data leakage. Until California recently passed a law, American firms did not have to tell anyone, even the victim, when data went astray. That may change fast: lots of proposed data-security legislation is now doing the rounds in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, the theft of information about some 40 million credit-card accounts in America, disclosed on June 17^th, overshadowed a hugely important decision a day earlier by America’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that puts corporate America on notice that regulators will act if firms fall to provide adequate data security.
In bringing up the concept of GASP the author is making the point that ______.

A:shareholders’ interests should be properly attended to B:information protection should be given due attention C:businesses should enhance their level of accounting security D:the market value of customer data should be emphasized

It never rains but it pours. Just as bosses and boards have finally sorted out their worst accounting and compliance troubles, and improved their feeble corporation governance, a new problem threatens to earn them ― especially in America ― the sort of nasty headlines that inevitably lead to heads rolling in the executive suite: data insecurity. Left, until now, to odd, low-level IT staff to put right, and seen as a concern only of data-rich industries such as banking, telecoms and air travel, information protection is now high on the boss’s agenda in businesses of every variety. Several massive leakages of customer and employee data this year ― from organizations as diverse as Time Warner, the American defense contractor Science Applications International Corp and even the University of California. Berkeley ― have left managers hurriedly peering into their intricate IT systems and business processes in search of potential vulnerabilities. "Data is becoming an asset which needs to be guarded as much as any other asset," says Haim Mendelson of Stanford University’s business school, "The ability to guard customer data is the key to market value, which the board is responsible for on behalf of shareholders". Indeed, just as there is the concept of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), perhaps it is time for GASP. Generally Accepted Security Practices, suggested Eli Noam of New York’s Columbia Business School. "Setting the proper investment level for security, redundancy, and recovery is a management issue, not a technical one." he says. The mystery is that this should come as a surprise to any boss. Surely it should be obvious to the dimmest executive that trust, that most valuable of economic assets, is easily destroyed and hugely expensive to restore ― and that few things are more likely to destroy trust than a company letting sensitive personal data get into the wrong hands. The current state of affairs may have been encouraged ― though not justified ― by the lack of legal penalty (in America, but not Europe) for data leakage. Until California recently passed a law. American firms did not have to tell anyone, even the victim, when data went astray. That may change fast: lots of proposed data-security legislation is now doing the rounds in Washington. D.C. Meanwhile, the theft of information about some 40 million credit-card accounts in America, disclosed on June 17th, overshadowed a hugely important decision a day earlier by America’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that puts corporate America on notice that regulators will act if firms fail to provide adequate data security. In bringing up the concept of GASP the author is making the point that

A:shareholders’ interests should be properly attended to. B:information protection should be given due attention. C:businesses should enhance their level of accounting security. D:the market value of customer data should be emphasized.

It never rains but it pours. Just as bosses and boards have finally sorted out their worst accounting and compliance troubles, and improved their feeble corporation governance, a new problem threatens to earn them -- especially in American--the sort of nasty headlines that inevitably lead to heads rolling in the executive suite: data insecurity. Left, until now, to odd, low-level IT staff to put right, and seen as a concern only of data-rich industries such as banking, telecoms and air travel, information protection is now high on the boss’s agenda in businesses of every variety.
Several massive leakages of customer and employee data this year-- from organizations as diverse as Time Warner, the American defense contractor Science Applications International Corp and even the University of California, Berkeley——have left managers hurriedly peering into their intricate IT systems and business processes in search of potential vulnerabilities.
"Data is becoming an asset which needs to be guarded as much as ally other asset," says Haim Mendelson of Stanford University’s business school. "The ability to guard customer data is the key to market value, which the board is responsible for on behalf of shareholders". Indeed, just as there is the concept of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), perhaps it is time for GASP. Generally Accepted Security Practices, suggested Eli Norm of New York’s Columbia Business School. "Setting the proper investment level for security, redundancy, and recovery is a management issue, not a technical one." he says.
The mystery is that this should come as a surprise to any boss. Surely it should be obvious to the dimmest executive that trust, that most valuable of economic assets, is easily destroyed and hugely expensive to restore -- and that few things are more likely to destroy trust than a company letting sensitive personal data get into the wrong hands.
The current state of affairs may have been encouraged -- though not justified-- by the lack of legal penalty (in America, but not Europe) for data leakage. Until California recently passed a law, American firms did not have to tell anyone, even the victim, when data went astray. That may change fast: lots of proposed data-security legislation is now doing the rounds in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, the theft of information about some 40 million credit-card accounts in America, disclosed on June 17^th, overshadowed a hugely important decision a day earlier by America’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that puts corporate America on notice that regulators will act if firms fall to provide adequate data security.

In bringing up the concept of GASP the author is making the point that （）

A:shareholders’ interests should be properly attended to B:information protection should be given due attention C:businesses should enhance their level of accounting security D:the market value of customer data should be emphasized

Passage Two
In the past, people who graduated from college felt proud of their academic achievement and confident that their degree would help them to find a good job.
However, in the past four years the job market has changed dramatically. This year’s college graduates are facing one of the worst job markets in years. For example,. Ryan Stewart, a graduate of San Jose State University, got a degree in religious studies, but he has not gotten any job offers. He points out that many people already working are getting laid off and don’t have jobs, so it’s even harder for new college graduates to find jobs.
Four years ago, the future looked bright for the class of 2003. There were many high- tech ( "dot com") job opportunities, graduates received many job offers, and they were able to get jobs with high salaries and benefits such as insurance and paid vacations. However, "Times have changed. It’s a new market," according to Cheryl Allmen-Vinnidge of the San Jose State Career Center.
Allmen-Vinnidge says students who do find jobs started preparing two years ago. They worked during summer vacations, they have had several internships, and they majored in fields that are still paying well, such as accounting or nursing.
Even teaching is not a secure profession now. Ryan Stewart wanted to be a teacher, but instead he will probably go back to school in order to become a college teacher. He thinks college teaching could be a good career even in a bad economy.
In conclusion, these days a college degree does not automatically lead to a good job with a high salary. Some students can only hope that the value of their degree will increase in the future.

Which of the following majors has the best job prospects, according to the story（）

A:Information systems management. B:Accounting. C:Computer science. D:Teachin

Passage Two In the past, people who graduated from college felt proud of their academic achievement and confident that their degree would help them to find a good job. However, in the past four years the job market has changed dramatically. This year’s college graduates are facing one of the worst job markets in years. For example,. Ryan Stewart, a graduate of San Jose State University, got a degree in religious studies, but he has not gotten any job offers. He points out that many people already working are getting laid off and don’t have jobs, so it’s even harder for new college graduates to find jobs. Four years ago, the future looked bright for the class of 2003. There were many high- tech ( "dot com") job opportunities, graduates received many job offers, and they were able to get jobs with high salaries and benefits such as insurance and paid vacations. However, "Times have changed. It’s a new market," according to Cheryl Allmen-Vinnidge of the San Jose State Career Center. Allmen-Vinnidge says students who do find jobs started preparing two years ago. They worked during summer vacations, they have had several internships, and they majored in fields that are still paying well, such as accounting or nursing. Even teaching is not a secure profession now. Ryan Stewart wanted to be a teacher, but instead he will probably go back to school in order to become a college teacher. He thinks college teaching could be a good career even in a bad economy. In conclusion, these days a college degree does not automatically lead to a good job with a high salary. Some students can only hope that the value of their degree will increase in the future.

Which of the following majors has the best job prospects, according to the story（）

A:Information systems management. B:Accounting. C:Computer science. D:Teaching.