교수님 출제문제를 분석해 봤는데요
페이지 정보
작성자 gracekim 이름으로 검색 작성일14-04-29 14:06 조회2,735회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
세번 연속으로 올려서 죄송합니다. 오랜 검색 후에 찾아낸 교수님 홈페이지는 수십개의 합격자 수기들 보다는 제게 가뭄에 단비같아서요 교수님.
제가 한번 기출문제를 살펴보았는데요. (밑에 붙여놓았습니다)
요 며칠동안 외대에 붙을 만큼 주어진 내용을 '잘 요약' 하려면 어떻게 해야 하는 것일까라는 질문이 제 머릿 속을 떠나지가 않네요. 과거에 GRE 와 LSAT를 공부한 적이 있었는데 거기들 리딩에서 필자가 말하고자 하는게 뭐냐고 5개 중에 하나 고르라고 하는데, 다섯개의 답안이 다 그럴듯 해서 상당히 고전했던 기억이 납니다. 그래서요 제가 한번 해봤거든요. 촛점이 '요약'이라서 영어보다는 더 잘하는 한국어로 한 점 용서 바랍니다.
일단 이 화자는 처음엔 1950년대에 많지 않았던 한 여성 의사로서의 어려운 상황과 와 연구자로서의 어려웠던 환경에 대해 상당부분을 할애 합니다. (그런데 이것이 주제도 아니고 언급하지 않아도 될 주제와 관계없는 부차적인 내용이라 생각이 들었습니다)
그러다가 성향이 완전 다르던 동료와의 협업을 통해 연구에서 최상의 결과를 도출했다는 것,
그 과정에서 싸움과 충돌이라는 방법이 중요한 역할을 했다는 것,
조지는 내내 앨리스의 연구에 대해 딴지를 걸고 헛점을 찾아내려 애를 썼지만, 그것이 오히려
앨리스를 도왔다는 점을 언급하며
단체나 조직에서 사람들이 서로의 의견의 불일치에 대한 문제를 해결하는 것에 꺼려하고 충돌을 회피하는 것이 가장 독이라는 것을 말합니다.
그리고 조직에서 가장 큰 폐혜가 흔히들 말하듯, information 이 은폐되고 모두에게 공개되지 않아서 비롯된 것이 아니라, 아무리 정보가 투명하다 한들, 앞의 과정을 겪지 않으면 그게 큰 문제를 만드는 것이다.
(정보)의 투명함과 접근의 용이함은 모든 것을 해결해 주는 것이 아니라 기본 전제 일 뿐이다.
혹시 제가 지금까지 말한 것 중에 메신저로서의 역할을 망각하고 제가 자의적으로 해석을 했거나, 없는 말을 붙였거나, 중요한 내용을 누락한 것이 있을까요? 모범답안을 알 수 있을까요?
제가 생각하기엔 두번 정도 정독 후 요약후 드는 감상은 어렵지는 않지만, 요약문으로 하기에는
좀 함정이 많은 까다로운 글이다 라는 생각이 드는데 어떤 기준으로 스크립트를 고르시거나 작성하시는 지 여쭤봐도 될까요? 감사합니다 교수님.
Dare to disagree
In Oxford in the 1950s, there was a fantastic doctor, who was very unusual, named Alice Stewart. And Alice was unusual partly because, of course, she was a woman, which was pretty rare in the 1950s. And she was brilliant. She was one of, at the time, the youngest Fellows to be elected to the Royal College of Physicians. She was unusual too because she continued to work after she got married, after she had kids, and even after she got divorced and was a single parent, she continued her medical work.
And she was unusual because she was really interested in a new science, the emerging field of epidemiology, the study of patterns in disease. But like every scientist, she appreciated that to make her mark, what she needed to do was find a hard problem and solve it. The hard problem that Alice chose was the rising incidence of childhood cancers. Most disease is correlated with poverty, but in the case of childhood cancers, the children who were dying seemed mostly to come from affluent families. So, what, she wanted to know, could explain this anomaly?
Now, Alice had trouble getting funding for her research. In the end, she got just 1,000 pounds. And that meant she knew she only had one shot at collecting her data. Now, she had no idea what to look for.This really was a needle in a haystack sort of search, so she asked everything she could think of. Had the children eaten boiled sweets? Had they consumed colored drinks? Did they eat fish and chips? Did they have indoor or outdoor plumbing? What time of life had they started school?
And when her carbon copied questionnaire started to come back, one thing and one thing only jumped out with the statistical clarity of a kind that most scientists can only dream of. By a rate of two to one, the children who had died had had mothers who had been X-rayed when pregnant. Now that finding flew in the face of conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom held that everything was safe up to a point, a threshold. It flew in the face of conventional wisdom, which was huge enthusiasm for the cool new technology of that age, which was the X-ray machine. And it flew in the face of doctors' idea of themselves, which was as people who helped patients, they didn't harm them.
Nevertheless, Alice Stewart rushed to publish her preliminary findings in 1956. People got very excited. There was talk of a Nobel Prize, and Alice really was in a big hurry to try to study all the cases of childhood cancer she could find before they disappeared. In fact, she need not have hurried. It was fully 25 years before the British and American medical establishments abandoned the practice of X-raying pregnant women.The data was out there. It was freely available, but nobody wanted to know. A child a week was dying, but nothing changed. Openness alone can't drive change.
So for 25 years Alice Stewart had a very big fight on her hands. So, how did she know that she was right? Well, she had a fantastic model for thinking. She worked with a statistician named George Kneale, and George was pretty much everything that Alice wasn't. Alice was very outgoing and sociable, and George was a recluse. Alice was very warm, very empathetic with her patients.George frankly preferred numbers to people. But he said this fantastic thing about their working relationship.He said, "My job is to prove Dr. Stewart wrong." He actively sought disconfirmation. Different ways of looking at her models, at her statistics, different ways of crunching the data in order to disprove her. He saw his job as creating conflict around her theories. Because it was only by not being able to prove that she was wrong, that George could give Alice the confidence she needed to know that she was right.
It's a fantastic model of collaboration --thinking partners who aren't echo chambers. I wonder how many of us have, or dare to have, such collaborators. Alice and George were very good at conflict.They saw it as thinking.
So what does that kind of constructive conflict require? Well, first of all, it requires that we find people who are very different from ourselves. That means we have to resist the neurobiological drive, which means that we really prefer people mostly like ourselves, and it means we have to seek out people with different backgrounds, different disciplines, different ways of thinking and different experience, and find ways to engage with them.That requires a lot of patience and a lot of energy.
And the more I've thought about this, the more I think, really, that that's a kind of love. Because you simply won't commit that kind of energy and time if you don't really care. And it also means that we have to be prepared to change our minds. Alice's daughter told me that every time Alice went head-to-head with a fellow scientist, they made her think and think and think again."My mother," she said, "My mother didn't enjoy a fight, but she was really good at them."
So it's one thing to do that in a one-to-one relationship. But it strikes me that the biggest problems we face, many of the biggest disasters that we've experienced, mostly haven't come from individuals, they've come from organizations, some of them bigger than countries, many of them capable of affecting hundreds, thousands, even millions of lives.So how do organizations think? Well, for the most part, they don't. And that isn't because they don't want to. It's really because they can't. And they can't because the people inside of them are too afraid of conflict.
In surveys of European and American executives, fully 85 percent of them acknowledged that they had issues or concerns at work that they were afraid to raise. Afraid of the conflict that that would provoke, afraid to get embroiled in arguments that they did not know how to manage, and felt that they were bound to lose. Eighty-five percent is a really big number. It means that organizations mostly can't do what George and Alice so triumphantly did.They can't think together. And it means that people like many of us, who have run organizations, and gone out of our way to try to find the very best people we can, mostly fail to get the best out of them.
So how do we develop the skills that we need? Because it does take skill and practice, too. If we aren't going to be afraid of conflict, we have to see it as thinking, and then we have to get really good at it.
The fact is that most of the biggest catastrophes that we've witnessed rarely come from information that is secret or hidden. It comes from information that is freely available and out there, but that we are willfully blind to, because we can't handle, don't want to handle, the conflict that it provokes. But when we dare to break that silence, or when we dare to see, and we create conflict, we enable ourselves and the people around us to do our very best thinking.
Open information is fantastic. Open networks are essential. But the truth won't set us free until we develop the skills and the habit and the talent and the moral courage to use it. Openness isn't the end. It's the beginning.
제가 한번 기출문제를 살펴보았는데요. (밑에 붙여놓았습니다)
요 며칠동안 외대에 붙을 만큼 주어진 내용을 '잘 요약' 하려면 어떻게 해야 하는 것일까라는 질문이 제 머릿 속을 떠나지가 않네요. 과거에 GRE 와 LSAT를 공부한 적이 있었는데 거기들 리딩에서 필자가 말하고자 하는게 뭐냐고 5개 중에 하나 고르라고 하는데, 다섯개의 답안이 다 그럴듯 해서 상당히 고전했던 기억이 납니다. 그래서요 제가 한번 해봤거든요. 촛점이 '요약'이라서 영어보다는 더 잘하는 한국어로 한 점 용서 바랍니다.
일단 이 화자는 처음엔 1950년대에 많지 않았던 한 여성 의사로서의 어려운 상황과 와 연구자로서의 어려웠던 환경에 대해 상당부분을 할애 합니다. (그런데 이것이 주제도 아니고 언급하지 않아도 될 주제와 관계없는 부차적인 내용이라 생각이 들었습니다)
그러다가 성향이 완전 다르던 동료와의 협업을 통해 연구에서 최상의 결과를 도출했다는 것,
그 과정에서 싸움과 충돌이라는 방법이 중요한 역할을 했다는 것,
조지는 내내 앨리스의 연구에 대해 딴지를 걸고 헛점을 찾아내려 애를 썼지만, 그것이 오히려
앨리스를 도왔다는 점을 언급하며
단체나 조직에서 사람들이 서로의 의견의 불일치에 대한 문제를 해결하는 것에 꺼려하고 충돌을 회피하는 것이 가장 독이라는 것을 말합니다.
그리고 조직에서 가장 큰 폐혜가 흔히들 말하듯, information 이 은폐되고 모두에게 공개되지 않아서 비롯된 것이 아니라, 아무리 정보가 투명하다 한들, 앞의 과정을 겪지 않으면 그게 큰 문제를 만드는 것이다.
(정보)의 투명함과 접근의 용이함은 모든 것을 해결해 주는 것이 아니라 기본 전제 일 뿐이다.
혹시 제가 지금까지 말한 것 중에 메신저로서의 역할을 망각하고 제가 자의적으로 해석을 했거나, 없는 말을 붙였거나, 중요한 내용을 누락한 것이 있을까요? 모범답안을 알 수 있을까요?
제가 생각하기엔 두번 정도 정독 후 요약후 드는 감상은 어렵지는 않지만, 요약문으로 하기에는
좀 함정이 많은 까다로운 글이다 라는 생각이 드는데 어떤 기준으로 스크립트를 고르시거나 작성하시는 지 여쭤봐도 될까요? 감사합니다 교수님.
Dare to disagree
In Oxford in the 1950s, there was a fantastic doctor, who was very unusual, named Alice Stewart. And Alice was unusual partly because, of course, she was a woman, which was pretty rare in the 1950s. And she was brilliant. She was one of, at the time, the youngest Fellows to be elected to the Royal College of Physicians. She was unusual too because she continued to work after she got married, after she had kids, and even after she got divorced and was a single parent, she continued her medical work.
And she was unusual because she was really interested in a new science, the emerging field of epidemiology, the study of patterns in disease. But like every scientist, she appreciated that to make her mark, what she needed to do was find a hard problem and solve it. The hard problem that Alice chose was the rising incidence of childhood cancers. Most disease is correlated with poverty, but in the case of childhood cancers, the children who were dying seemed mostly to come from affluent families. So, what, she wanted to know, could explain this anomaly?
Now, Alice had trouble getting funding for her research. In the end, she got just 1,000 pounds. And that meant she knew she only had one shot at collecting her data. Now, she had no idea what to look for.This really was a needle in a haystack sort of search, so she asked everything she could think of. Had the children eaten boiled sweets? Had they consumed colored drinks? Did they eat fish and chips? Did they have indoor or outdoor plumbing? What time of life had they started school?
And when her carbon copied questionnaire started to come back, one thing and one thing only jumped out with the statistical clarity of a kind that most scientists can only dream of. By a rate of two to one, the children who had died had had mothers who had been X-rayed when pregnant. Now that finding flew in the face of conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom held that everything was safe up to a point, a threshold. It flew in the face of conventional wisdom, which was huge enthusiasm for the cool new technology of that age, which was the X-ray machine. And it flew in the face of doctors' idea of themselves, which was as people who helped patients, they didn't harm them.
Nevertheless, Alice Stewart rushed to publish her preliminary findings in 1956. People got very excited. There was talk of a Nobel Prize, and Alice really was in a big hurry to try to study all the cases of childhood cancer she could find before they disappeared. In fact, she need not have hurried. It was fully 25 years before the British and American medical establishments abandoned the practice of X-raying pregnant women.The data was out there. It was freely available, but nobody wanted to know. A child a week was dying, but nothing changed. Openness alone can't drive change.
So for 25 years Alice Stewart had a very big fight on her hands. So, how did she know that she was right? Well, she had a fantastic model for thinking. She worked with a statistician named George Kneale, and George was pretty much everything that Alice wasn't. Alice was very outgoing and sociable, and George was a recluse. Alice was very warm, very empathetic with her patients.George frankly preferred numbers to people. But he said this fantastic thing about their working relationship.He said, "My job is to prove Dr. Stewart wrong." He actively sought disconfirmation. Different ways of looking at her models, at her statistics, different ways of crunching the data in order to disprove her. He saw his job as creating conflict around her theories. Because it was only by not being able to prove that she was wrong, that George could give Alice the confidence she needed to know that she was right.
It's a fantastic model of collaboration --thinking partners who aren't echo chambers. I wonder how many of us have, or dare to have, such collaborators. Alice and George were very good at conflict.They saw it as thinking.
So what does that kind of constructive conflict require? Well, first of all, it requires that we find people who are very different from ourselves. That means we have to resist the neurobiological drive, which means that we really prefer people mostly like ourselves, and it means we have to seek out people with different backgrounds, different disciplines, different ways of thinking and different experience, and find ways to engage with them.That requires a lot of patience and a lot of energy.
And the more I've thought about this, the more I think, really, that that's a kind of love. Because you simply won't commit that kind of energy and time if you don't really care. And it also means that we have to be prepared to change our minds. Alice's daughter told me that every time Alice went head-to-head with a fellow scientist, they made her think and think and think again."My mother," she said, "My mother didn't enjoy a fight, but she was really good at them."
So it's one thing to do that in a one-to-one relationship. But it strikes me that the biggest problems we face, many of the biggest disasters that we've experienced, mostly haven't come from individuals, they've come from organizations, some of them bigger than countries, many of them capable of affecting hundreds, thousands, even millions of lives.So how do organizations think? Well, for the most part, they don't. And that isn't because they don't want to. It's really because they can't. And they can't because the people inside of them are too afraid of conflict.
In surveys of European and American executives, fully 85 percent of them acknowledged that they had issues or concerns at work that they were afraid to raise. Afraid of the conflict that that would provoke, afraid to get embroiled in arguments that they did not know how to manage, and felt that they were bound to lose. Eighty-five percent is a really big number. It means that organizations mostly can't do what George and Alice so triumphantly did.They can't think together. And it means that people like many of us, who have run organizations, and gone out of our way to try to find the very best people we can, mostly fail to get the best out of them.
So how do we develop the skills that we need? Because it does take skill and practice, too. If we aren't going to be afraid of conflict, we have to see it as thinking, and then we have to get really good at it.
The fact is that most of the biggest catastrophes that we've witnessed rarely come from information that is secret or hidden. It comes from information that is freely available and out there, but that we are willfully blind to, because we can't handle, don't want to handle, the conflict that it provokes. But when we dare to break that silence, or when we dare to see, and we create conflict, we enable ourselves and the people around us to do our very best thinking.
Open information is fantastic. Open networks are essential. But the truth won't set us free until we develop the skills and the habit and the talent and the moral courage to use it. Openness isn't the end. It's the beginning.
| ||
| ||
| ||
| 이 텍스트는 제가 출제한 게 아닙니다. 제가 했더라도 이 홈피 공간에서 과외하듯 할 수는 없지요. 그럴 시간도 없고, 소문나면 홈피에서 하루 종일 무료 개인지도만 하게 되겠지요? Oh, grace, please! 미안합니다... | ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| 아 제 생각이 너무 짧았습니다 죄송합니다. |
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.