Social loafing
(Ⅰ)
원본
Maximilian Ringelmann, a French engineer, studied the performance of horses in 1913. He concluded that the power of two animals pulling a coach did not equal twice the power of a single horse. Surprised by this result, he extended his research to humans. He had several men pull a 22803 rope and measured the force applied by each individual. On average, if two people were pulling together, each invested just 93 percent of his individual strength, when three pulled together, it was 85 percent, and with eight people, just 49 percent. Science calls this the social loafing effect. It occurs when individual performance is not directly visible; it blends into the group effort. It occurs among rowers, but not in relay races, because here, individual contributions are evident.
Social loafing is rational behavior: Why invest all of your energy when half will do-specially when this little shortcut goes unnoticed? Quite simply, social loafing is a form of cheating of which we are all guilty even if it takes place unconsciously, just as it does with the horses. When people work together, individual performances decrease. This isn't surprising. What is noteworthy, however, is that our input doesn't grind to a complete halt.
So what stops us from putting our feet up and GIF letting the others do the hard work? The consequences. Zero performance would be noticed, and it brings with it weighty punishments, such as exclusion from the group or vilification. Evolution has led us to develop many fine-uned senses, including how much idleness we can get away with and how to recognize it in others. 245H Social loafing does not occur solely in physical performance.
We slack off mentally, too. For example, in meetings, the larger the team, the weaker our individual participation. However, once a certain number of participants are involved, our performance plateaus. Whether the group consists of twenty or one hundred people is not important-maximum inertia has been achieved.
◆ 한줄해석
Maximilian Ringelmann, a French engineer, studied the performance of horses in 1913.
프랑스의 엔지니어인 막시밀리앙 링겔만은 1913년에 말들의 작업 능력을 연구했다.
He concluded that the power of two animals pulling a coach did not equal twice the power of a single horse.
그는 마차를 끄는 두 마리의 동물의 힘이 한 마리 말의 힘의 두 배와 같지 않다는 결론을 내렸다.
Surprised by this result, he extended his research to humans.
이 결과에 놀란 그는 연구를 인간에게까지 확장했다.
He had several men pull a rope and measured the force applied by each individual.
그는 여러 남자들에게 밧줄을 당기게 하고 각 개인이 가한 힘을 측정했다.
On average, if two people were pulling together, each invested just 93 percent of his individual strength.
평균적으로 두 사람이 함께 당길 때 각 사람은 자신의 개인적인 힘의 93%만 사용했다.
When three pulled together, it was 85 percent, and with eight people, just 49 percent.
세 사람이 함께 당길 때는 85%였고, 여덟 명일 때는 단지 49%였다.
Science calls this the social loafing effect.
과학에서는 이것을 사회적 태만 효과라고 부른다.
It occurs when individual performance is not directly visible.
이것은 개인의 수행이 직접적으로 보이지 않을 때 발생한다.
It blends into the group effort.
개인의 노력은 집단의 노력 속에 섞여 버린다.
It occurs among rowers, but not in relay races.
이 현상은 노 젓는 선수들 사이에서는 나타나지만 계주 경기에서는 나타나지 않는다.
This is because individual contributions are evident.
이는 개인의 기여가 분명하게 드러나기 때문이다.
Social loafing is rational behavior.
사회적 태만은 합리적인 행동이다.
Why invest all of your energy when half will do?
절반의 노력만으로도 충분한데 왜 모든 에너지를 투자하겠는가?
Especially when this little shortcut goes unnoticed.
특히 이런 작은 요령이 눈에 띄지 않을 때라면 더욱 그렇다.
Quite simply, social loafing is a form of cheating.
간단히 말해 사회적 태만은 일종의 속임수이다.
We are all guilty of it even if it takes place unconsciously.
우리는 그것이 무의식적으로 일어나더라도 모두 이에 대해 책임이 있다.
When people work together, individual performances decrease.
사람들이 함께 일할 때 개인의 수행은 감소한다.
This isn't surprising.
이것은 놀라운 일이 아니다.
What is noteworthy, however, is that our input doesn't grind to a complete halt.
그러나 주목할 만한 점은 우리의 기여가 완전히 멈추지는 않는다는 것이다.
So what stops us from putting our feet up and letting the others do the hard work?
그렇다면 우리가 아무것도 하지 않고 다른 사람들이 힘든 일을 하게 두지 않는 이유는 무엇일까?
The consequences.
그것은 바로 결과 때문이다.
Zero performance would be noticed.
아무런 성과가 없다면 그것은 눈에 띄게 될 것이다.
It brings with it weighty punishments.
그리고 그것은 무거운 처벌을 가져온다.
These include exclusion from the group or vilification.
그러한 처벌에는 집단에서의 배제나 비난이 포함된다.
Evolution has led us to develop many fine-tuned senses.
진화는 우리로 하여금 많은 정교하게 조정된 감각을 발달시키도록 만들었다.
These include how much idleness we can get away with.
여기에는 우리가 어느 정도까지 게으름을 피워도 되는지 아는 감각이 포함된다.
They also include how to recognize it in others.
또한 그것을 다른 사람에게서 알아보는 방법도 포함된다.
Social loafing does not occur solely in physical performance.
사회적 태만은 신체적인 수행에서만 발생하는 것은 아니다.
We slack off mentally, too.
우리는 정신적으로도 게을러진다.
For example, in meetings, the larger the team, the weaker our individual participation.
예를 들어 회의에서는 팀의 규모가 클수록 개인의 참여는 약해진다.
However, once a certain number of participants are involved, our performance plateaus.
그러나 일정 수 이상의 참여자가 포함되면 우리의 수행은 정체 상태에 이른다.
Whether the group consists of twenty or one hundred people is not important.
집단이 스무 명이든 백 명이든 그것은 중요하지 않다.
Maximum inertia has been achieved.
최대의 관성이 이미 달성된 상태이기 때문이다.
◆ 해석연습
Maximilian Ringelmann, a French engineer, studied the performance of horses in 1913.
He concluded that the power of two animals pulling a coach did not equal twice the power of a single horse.
Surprised by this result, he extended his research to humans.
He had several men pull a rope and measured the force applied by each individual.
On average, if two people were pulling together, each invested just 93 percent of his individual strength.
When three pulled together, it was 85 percent, and with eight people, just 49 percent.
Science calls this the social loafing effect.
It occurs when individual performance is not directly visible.
It blends into the group effort.
It occurs among rowers, but not in relay races.
This is because individual contributions are evident.
Social loafing is rational behavior.
Why invest all of your energy when half will do?
Especially when this little shortcut goes unnoticed.
Quite simply, social loafing is a form of cheating.
We are all guilty of it even if it takes place unconsciously.
When people work together, individual performances decrease.
This isn't surprising.
What is noteworthy, however, is that our input doesn't grind to a complete halt.
So what stops us from putting our feet up and letting the others do the hard work?
The consequences.
Zero performance would be noticed.
It brings with it weighty punishments.
These include exclusion from the group or vilification.
Evolution has led us to develop many fine-tuned senses.
These include how much idleness we can get away with.
They also include how to recognize it in others.
Social loafing does not occur solely in physical performance.
We slack off mentally, too.
For example, in meetings, the larger the team, the weaker our individual participation.
However, once a certain number of participants are involved, our performance plateaus.
Whether the group consists of twenty or one hundred people is not important.
Maximum inertia has been achieved.
(Ⅱ)
원본
One question remains: Who came up with the much-aunted idea that teams achieve more than individual workers? Maybe the Japanese. Thirty years ago, they flooded global markets with their products. Business economists looked more closely at the industrial miracle and saw that Japanese factories were organized into teams. This model was copied- with mixed success. What worked very well in Japan could not be replicated with the Americans and Europeans-perhaps because social loafing rarely happens there. In the West, teams function better if and only if they are small and consist of diverse, specialized people.
This makes sense, because within such groups, individual performances can be traced back to each specialist. Social loafing has interesting implications. In groups, we tend to hold back not only in terms of participation but also in terms of accountability. Nobody wants to take the rap for the misdeeds or poor decisions of the whole group. A glaring example is the prosecution of the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials or, less controversially, any board or management team. We hide behind team decisions.
The technical term for this is "diffusion of responsibility." For the same reason, teams tend to take bigger risks than their members would take on their own. The individual group members reason that they are not the only ones who will be blamed if things go wrong. This effect is called "risky shift" and is especially hazardous among company and pension-und strategists, where billions are at stake, or in the Defense Department, where groups decide on the use of nuclear weapons. In conclusion: People behave differently in groups than when alone (otherwise there would be no groups). The disadvantages of groups can be mitigated by making individual performances as visible as possible. Long live meritocracy! Long live the performance society!
◆ 한줄해석
One question remains: Who came up with the much-aunted idea that teams achieve more than individual workers?
한 가지 질문이 남는다: 팀이 개인보다 더 많은 성과를 낸다는 그 널리 칭송받는 생각을 누가 처음 냈을까?
Maybe the Japanese.
아마 일본 사람들이 아닐까.
Thirty years ago, they flooded global markets with their products.
30년 전, 그들은 전 세계 시장에 제품을 쏟아냈다.
Business economists looked more closely at the industrial miracle and saw that Japanese factories were organized into
teams.
경제학자들은 그 산업적 기적을 자세히 살펴보았고, 일본 공장들이 팀 단위로 조직되어 있음을 발견했다.
This model was copied—with mixed success.
이 모델은 모방되었지만, 성공은 들쭉날쭉했다.
What worked very well in Japan could not be replicated with the Americans and Europeans—perhaps because social
loafing rarely happens there.
일본에서 매우 잘 작동했던 방식은 미국이나 유럽에서는 재현되지 않았는데, 아마도 그곳에서는 ‘사회적 태만(social loafing)’이 거
의 일어나지 않기 때문일 것이다.
In the West, teams function better if and only if they are small and consist of diverse, specialized people.
서구에서는 팀이 작고, 다양한 전문성을 가진 사람들로 구성될 때에만 더 잘 기능한다.
This makes sense, because within such groups, individual performances can be traced back to each specialist.
이는 이해가 된다. 왜냐하면 이런 그룹에서는 각 개인의 성과가 각 전문가에게 추적될 수 있기 때문이다.
Social loafing has interesting implications.
사회적 태만에는 흥미로운 의미가 있다.
In groups, we tend to hold back not only in terms of participation but also in terms of accountability.
우리는 그룹 안에서 참여뿐만 아니라 책임감 면에서도 자신을 억제하는 경향이 있다.
Nobody wants to take the rap for the misdeeds or poor decisions of the whole group.
누구도 그룹 전체의 잘못된 행동이나 나쁜 결정에 대한 책임을 지고 싶어하지 않는다.
A glaring example is the prosecution of the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials or, less controversially, any board or
management team.
눈에 띄는 예로는 뉘른베르크 재판에서 나치들을 기소한 사례가 있으며, 논란이 덜한 예로는 어떤 이사회나 경영진 팀도 있다.
We hide behind team decisions.
우리는 팀의 결정 뒤에 숨는다.
The technical term for this is "diffusion of responsibility."
이를 기술적으로 ‘책임의 분산(diffusion of responsibility)’이라고 부른다.
For the same reason, teams tend to take bigger risks than their members would take on their own.
같은 이유로, 팀은 개인이 혼자서 감수할 위험보다 더 큰 위험을 감수하는 경향이 있다.
The individual group members reason that they are not the only ones who will be blamed if things go wrong.
각 팀원들은 일이 잘못되더라도 자신만이 비난받는 것은 아니라고 생각한다.
This effect is called "risky shift" and is especially hazardous among company and pension-fund strategists, where billions
are at stake, or in the Defense Department, where groups decide on the use of nuclear weapons.
이 효과를 ‘위험 이동(risky shift)’이라고 하며, 수십억 달러가 걸린 회사나 연금 기금 전략가들에게 특히 위험하고, 군수부서처럼 그
룹이 핵무기 사용 여부를 결정하는 경우에도 위험하다.
In conclusion: People behave differently in groups than when alone (otherwise there would be no groups).
결론적으로, 사람들은 혼자일 때와 달리 그룹 안에서 다르게 행동한다(그렇지 않다면 애초에 그룹이 존재하지 않을 것이다).
The disadvantages of groups can be mitigated by making individual performances as visible as possible.
그룹의 단점은 개인의 성과를 최대한 가시적으로 만들면 완화할 수 있다.
Long live meritocracy! Long live the performance society!
실력주의 만세! 성과 사회 만세!
◆ 해석연습
One question remains: Who came up with the much-aunted idea that teams achieve more than individual workers?
Maybe the Japanese.
Thirty years ago, they flooded global markets with their products.
Business economists looked more closely at the industrial miracle and saw that Japanese factories were organized into
teams.
This model was copied—with mixed success.
What worked very well in Japan could not be replicated with the Americans and Europeans—perhaps because social
loafing rarely happens there.
In the West, teams function better if and only if they are small and consist of diverse, specialized people.
This makes sense, because within such groups, individual performances can be traced back to each specialist.
Social loafing has interesting implications.
In groups, we tend to hold back not only in terms of participation but also in terms of accountability.
Nobody wants to take the rap for the misdeeds or poor decisions of the whole group.
A glaring example is the prosecution of the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials or, less controversially, any board or
management team.
We hide behind team decisions.
The technical term for this is "diffusion of responsibility."
For the same reason, teams tend to take bigger risks than their members would take on their own.
The individual group members reason that they are not the only ones who will be blamed if things go wrong.
This effect is called "risky shift" and is especially hazardous among company and pension-fund strategists, where billions
are at stake, or in the Defense Department, where groups decide on the use of nuclear weapons.
In conclusion: People behave differently in groups than when alone (otherwise there would be no groups).
The disadvantages of groups can be mitigated by making individual performances as visible as possible.
Long live meritocracy! Long live the performance society!
tranny of merit
원본
1.
In March 2019, as high school students awaited the results of their college applications, federal prosecutors made a stunning announcement. They charged thirty-hree wealthy parents with engaging in an elaborate cheating scheme to get their children admitted to elite universities, including Yale, Stanford, Georgetown, and the University of Southern California. At the heart of the scam was an unscrupulous college-counseling consultant named William Singer, who ran a business that catered to anxious, affluent parents. Singer's company specialized in gaming the intensely competitive college admissions system that had in recent decades become the primary gateway to prosperity and prestige. For students lacking the stellar academic credentials top colleges required, Singer devised corrupt workarounds-paying proctors of standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT to boost students' scores by correcting their answer sheets, and bribing coaches to designate applicants as recruited athletes, even if the students did not play the sport. He even provided fake athletic credentials, photoshopping applicants' faces onto action photos of real athletes.
◆ 한줄해석
In March 2019, as high school students awaited the results of their college applications, federal prosecutors made a stunning announcement.
2019년 3월, 고등학생들이 대학 지원 결과를 기다리고 있을 때 연방 검사들은 충격적인 발표를 했다.
They charged thirty-three wealthy parents with engaging in an elaborate cheating scheme to get their children admitted to elite universities, including Yale, Stanford, Georgetown, and the University of Southern California.
그들은 예일대, 스탠퍼드대, 조지타운대, 남캘리포니아대를 포함한 명문 대학에 자녀를 입학시키기 위해 정교한 부정행위 계획에 가담한 혐의로 부유한 부모 33명을 기소했다.
At the heart of the scam was an unscrupulous college-counseling consultant named William Singer, who ran a business that catered to anxious, affluent parents.
이 사기의 중심에는 불안해하는 부유한 부모들을 대상으로 사업을 운영하던 비양심적인 대학 입시 컨설턴트 윌리엄 싱어가 있었다.
Singer's company specialized in gaming the intensely competitive college admissions system that had in recent decades become the primary gateway to prosperity and prestige.
싱어의 회사는 최근 수십 년 동안 부와 명성을 얻는 주요 관문이 된 극도로 경쟁적인 대학 입시 제도를 교묘하게 이용하는 데 특화되어 있었다.
For students lacking the stellar academic credentials top colleges required, Singer devised corrupt workarounds—paying proctors of standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT to boost students' scores by correcting their answer sheets, and bribing coaches to designate applicants as recruited athletes, even if the students did not play the sport.
상위 대학이 요구하는 뛰어난 학업 성적을 갖추지 못한 학생들을 위해 싱어는 부정한 편법을 고안했는데, SAT나 ACT 같은 표준화 시험 감독관에게 돈을 주어 답안을 고쳐 학생들의 점수를 올리게 하거나, 학생이 그 운동을 하지 않더라도 지원자를 운동 특기생으로 지정하도록 코치에게 뇌물을 주는 방식이었다.
He even provided fake athletic credentials, photoshopping applicants' faces onto action photos of real athletes.
그는 심지어 지원자들의 얼굴을 실제 선수들의 경기 사진에 포토샵으로 합성해 가짜 운동 경력까지 만들어 주었다.
◆ 한줄해석쓰기
In March 2019, as high school students awaited the results of their college applications, federal prosecutors made a stunning announcement.
They charged thirty-three wealthy parents with engaging in an elaborate cheating scheme to get their children admitted to elite universities, including Yale, Stanford, Georgetown, and the University of Southern California.
At the heart of the scam was an unscrupulous college-counseling consultant named William Singer, who ran a business that catered to anxious, affluent parents.
Singer's company specialized in gaming the intensely competitive college admissions system that had in recent decades become the primary gateway to prosperity and prestige.
For students lacking the stellar academic credentials top colleges required, Singer devised corrupt workarounds—paying proctors of standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT to boost students' scores by correcting their answer sheets, and bribing coaches to designate applicants as recruited athletes, even if the students did not play the sport.
He even provided fake athletic credentials, photoshopping applicants' faces onto action photos of real athletes.
2.
Singer's illicit admissions service did not come cheap. The chairman of a prestigious law firm paid $75,000 for his daughter to take a college entrance exam at a test center supervised by a proctor paid by Singer to ensure the student received the score she needed. One family paid Singer $1.2 million to get their daughter admitted to Yale as a soccer recruit, despite the fact that she did not play soccer. Singer used $400,000 of the payment to bribe the obliging Yale soccer coach, who was also indicted. A television actress and her husband, a fashion designer, paid Singer $500,000 to get their two daughters admitted to USC as bogus recruits to the crew team. Another celebrity, the actress Felicity Huffman, known for her role in the television series Desperate Housewives, somehow got a bargain rate; for only $15,000, Singer put in the fix for her daughter's SAT. In all, Singer took in $25 million over eight years running his college admissions scam
◆ 한줄해석
Singer's illicit admissions service did not come cheap.
싱어의 불법 입학 서비스는 결코 값싸지 않았다.
The chairman of a prestigious law firm paid $75,000 for his daughter to take a college entrance exam at a test center supervised by a proctor paid by
Singer to ensure the student received the score she needed.
한 유명 로펌의 회장은 자신의 딸이 필요한 점수를 받도록 싱어에게 돈을 받은 감독관이 관리하는 시험장에서 대학 입학 시험을 치르게 하기 위해 7만 5천 달러를 지불했다.
One family paid Singer $1.2 million to get their daughter admitted to Yale as a soccer recruit, despite the fact that she did not play soccer.
한 가족은 딸이 축구를 하지 않는데도 축구 특기생으로 예일대에 입학시키기 위해 싱어에게 120만 달러를 지불했다.
Singer used $400,000 of the payment to bribe the obliging Yale soccer coach, who was also indicted.
싱어는 그 돈 중 40만 달러를 협조적인 예일대 축구 코치에게 뇌물로 사용했는데, 그 코치 역시 기소되었다.
A television actress and her husband, a fashion designer, paid Singer $500,000 to get their two daughters admitted to USC as bogus recruits to the crew team.
한 TV 여배우와 그녀의 남편인 패션 디자이너는 두 딸을 조정팀의 가짜 특기생으로 USC에 입학시키기 위해 싱어에게 50만 달러를 지불했다.
Another celebrity, the actress Felicity Huffman, known for her role in the television series Desperate Housewives, somehow got a bargain rate; for only $15,000, Singer put in the fix for her daughter's SAT.
TV 시리즈 ‘Desperate Housewives’에서의 역할로 알려진 또 다른 유명 인사인 배우 펠리시티 허프먼은 어떻게든 할인된 가격을 받았는데, 단지 1만 5천 달러만으로 싱어가 그녀 딸의 SAT 점수를 조작해 주었다.
In all, Singer took in $25 million over eight years running his college admissions scam.
결국 싱어는 8년 동안 대학 입시 사기를 운영하면서 총 2,500만 달러를 벌어들였다.
◆ 한줄해석쓰기
Singer's illicit admissions service did not come cheap.
The chairman of a prestigious law firm paid $75,000 for his daughter to take a college entrance exam at a test center supervised by a proctor paid by Singer to ensure the student received the score she needed.
One family paid Singer $1.2 million to get their daughter admitted to Yale as a soccer recruit, despite the fact that she did not play soccer.
Singer used $400,000 of the payment to bribe the obliging Yale soccer coach,
who was also indicted.
A television actress and her husband, a fashion designer, paid Singer $500,000 to get their two daughters admitted to USC as bogus recruits to the crew team.
Another celebrity, the actress Felicity Huffman, known for her role in the television series Desperate Housewives, somehow got a bargain rate; for only $15,000, Singer put in the fix for her daughter's SAT.
In all, Singer took in $25 million over eight years running his college admissions scam.
3. The admissions scandal provoked universal outrage. In a polarized time, when Americans could scarcely agree on anything, it drew massive coverage and condemnation across the political spectrum-on Fox News and MSNBC, in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Everyone agreed that bribing and cheating to gain admission to elite colleges was reprehensible. But the outrage expressed something deeper than anger at privileged parents using illicit means to help their kids get into prestigious colleges. In ways that people struggled to articulate, it was an emblematic scandal, one that raised larger questions about who gets ahead, and why.
◆ 한줄해석
The admissions scandal provoked universal outrage.
그 입시 스캔들은 전반적인 분노를 불러일으켰다.
In a polarized time, when Americans could scarcely agree on anything, it drew massive coverage and condemnation across the political spectrum—on Fox News and MSNBC, in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.
미국인들이 거의 어떤 것에도 의견을 같이하기 어려운 정치적으로 양극화된 시기에, 그 사건은 Fox News와 MSNBC, The Wall Street Journal과 The New York
Times 등 정치적 스펙트럼 전반에서 대대적인 보도와 비난을 불러일으켰다.
Everyone agreed that bribing and cheating to gain admission to elite colleges was reprehensible.
명문 대학에 입학하기 위해 뇌물을 주고 부정행위를 하는 것은 비난받아 마땅하다는 데 모두가 동의했다.
But the outrage expressed something deeper than anger at privileged parents using illicit means to help their kids get into prestigious colleges.
그러나 그 분노는 특권층 부모들이 자녀를 명문 대학에 보내기 위해 불법적인 수단을 사용한 것에 대한 분노보다 더 깊은 무언가를 드러냈다.
In ways that people struggled to articulate, it was an emblematic scandal, one that raised larger questions about who gets ahead, and why.
사람들이 명확히 표현하기는 어려웠지만, 그것은 상징적인 스캔들이었으며 누가 성공하고 왜 그런지에 대한 더 큰 질문을 제기하는 사건이었다.
◆ 한줄해석쓰기
The admissions scandal provoked universal outrage.
In a polarized time, when Americans could scarcely agree on anything, it drew massive coverage and condemnation across the political spectrum—on Fox News and MSNBC, in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.
Everyone agreed that bribing and cheating to gain admission to elite colleges was reprehensible.
But the outrage expressed something deeper than anger at privileged parents using illicit means to help their kids get into prestigious colleges.
In ways that people struggled to articulate, it was an emblematic scandal, one that raised larger questions about who gets ahead, and why.
4. Inevitably, the expressions of outrage were politically inflected. Surrogates for President Trump took to Twitter and Fox News to taunt the Hollywood liberals ensnared in the scam. "Look at who these people are," Lara Trump, the president's daughter-in-law, said on Fox. "The Hollywood elites, the liberal elites who were always talking about equality for all, and everyone should get a fair shot, when here is the biggest hypocrisy of all: That they're writing checks to cheat and get their kids into these schools - when the spots really should've gone to kids that were actually deserving of them."
◆ 한줄해석
Inevitably, the expressions of outrage were politically inflected.
필연적으로 그 분노의 표현에는 정치적 색채가 묻어 있었다.
Surrogates for President Trump took to Twitter and Fox News to taunt the Hollywood liberals ensnared in the scam.
트럼프 대통령의 대변자들은 트위터와 Fox News에 나와 이 사기에 연루된 할리우드의 자유주의자들을 조롱했다.
"Look at who these people are," Lara Trump, the president's daughter-in-law, said on Fox.
“이 사람들이 누구인지 보세요,”라고 대통령의 며느리인 라라 트럼프가 Fox에서 말했다.
"The Hollywood elites, the liberal elites who were always talking about equality for all, and everyone should get a fair shot, when here is the biggest hypocrisy of all: That they're writing checks to cheat and get their kids into these schools - when the spots really should've gone to kids that were actually deserving of them."
“모두의 평등과 모든 사람이 공정한 기회를 가져야 한다고 늘 말하던 할리우드 엘리트들, 자유주의 엘리트들이 바로 이 사람들입니다. 그런데 여기 가장 큰 위선이 있습니다. 그들이 돈으로 부정을 저질러 자기 자녀들을 이 학교들에 입학시키고 있다는 것입니다. 사실 그 자리는 진짜로 그 자격이 있는 아이들에게 돌아갔어야 했습니다.”
◆ 한줄해석쓰기
Inevitably, the expressions of outrage were politically inflected.
Surrogates for President Trump took to Twitter and Fox News to taunt the Hollywood liberals ensnared in the scam.
"Look at who these people are," Lara Trump, the president's daughter-in-law, said on Fox.
"The Hollywood elites, the liberal elites who were always talking about equality for all, and everyone should get a fair shot, when here is the biggest hypocrisy of all: That they're writing checks to cheat and get their kids into these schools - when the spots really should've gone to kids that were actually deserving of them."
5. For their part, liberals agreed that the scam deprived qualified kids of the places they deserved. But they saw the scandal as a blatant instance of a more pervasive injustice: the role of wealth and privilege in college admission, even where no illegality was involved. In announcing the indictment, the U.S. Attorney declared what he took to be the principle at stake: "There can be no separate college admissions system for the wealthy." But editorial and opinion writers were quick to point out that money routinely plays a role in admissions, most explicitly in the special consideration many American universities accord children of alumni and generous donors. Responding to Trump supporters' attempts to blame liberal elites for the admissions scandal, liberals cited published reports that Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, had been admitted to Harvard despite a modest academic record after his father, a wealthy real estate developer, had donated $2.5 million to the university. Trump himself reportedly gave $1.5 million to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania around the time his children Donald Jr. and Ivanka attended the school.
◆ 한줄해석
For their part, agreed that the scam deprived qualified kids of the places they deserved.
한편 자유주의자들도 그 사기가 자격 있는 학생들에게 돌아가야 할 자리를 빼앗았다는 데에는 동의했다.
But they saw the scandal as a blatant instance of a more pervasive injustice: the role of wealth and privilege in college admission, even where no illegality was involved.
그러나 그들은 이 사건을 불법이 개입되지 않은 경우에도 대학 입학에서 부와 특권이 작용하는 더 광범위한 불공정의 노골적인 사례로 보았다.
In announcing the indictment, the U.S. Attorney declared what he took to be the principle at stake: "There can be no separate college admissions system for the wealthy."
기소를 발표하면서 미국 연방 검사는 문제의 핵심 원칙이라고 여긴 것을 다음과 같이 밝혔다. “부유층만을 위한 별도의 대학 입학 제도는 있을 수 없다.”
But editorial and opinion writers were quick to point out that money routinely plays a role in admissions, most explicitly in the special consideration many American universities accord children of alumni and generous donors.
그러나 사설과 칼럼을 쓰는 필자들은 돈이 입학 과정에서 일상적으로 역할을 한다는 점을 곧바로 지적했는데, 특히 많은 미국 대학들이 동문이나 거액 기부자의 자녀들에게 특별한 고려를 해 준다는 점에서 가장 분명하게 드러난다고 했다.
Responding to Trump supporters' attempts to blame liberal elites for the admissions scandal, liberals cited published reports that Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, had been admitted to Harvard despite a modest academic record after his father, a wealthy real estate developer, had donated $2.5 million to the university.
트럼프 지지자들이 입시 스캔들의 책임을 자유주의 엘리트들에게 돌리려 하자, 자유주의자들은 부유한 부동산 개발업자인 그의 아버지가 대학에 250만 달러를 기부한 뒤 대통령의 사위 재러드 쿠슈너가 평범한 학업 성적에도 불구하고 하버드에 입학했다는 보도들을 인용했다.
Trump himself reportedly gave $1.5 million to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania around the time his children Donald Jr. and Ivanka attended the school.
또한 트럼프 자신도 그의 자녀 도널드 주니어와 이방카가 그 학교에 다니던 시기에 펜실베이니아 대학교 와튼 스쿨에 150만 달러를 기부했다고 전해진다.
◆ 한줄해석쓰기
For their part, liberals agreed that the scam deprived qualified kids of the places they deserved.
But they saw the scandal as a blatant instance of a more pervasive injustice: the role of wealth and privilege in college admission, even where no illegality was involved.
In announcing the indictment, the U.S. Attorney declared what he took to be the principle at stake: "There can be no separate college admissions system for the wealthy."
But editorial and opinion writers were quick to point out that money routinely plays a role in admissions, most explicitly in the special consideration many American universities accord children of alumni and generous donors.
\
Responding to Trump supporters' attempts to blame liberal elites for the admissions scandal, liberals cited published reports that Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, had been admitted to Harvard despite a modest academic record after his father, a wealthy real estate developer, had donated $2.5 million to the university.
Trump himself reportedly gave $1.5 million to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania around the time his children Donald Jr. and Ivanka attended the school.
6. Singer, the mastermind of the admissions scam, acknowledged that a big gift sometimes gets marginally qualified applicants admitted through the "back door." But he pitched his own technique, which he called the "side door," as a cost-effective alternative. He told clients that the standard "back door" approach was "ten times as much money" as his cheating scheme, and less certain. A major gift to the college offered no guarantee of admission, while his "side door" of bribes and fake test scores did. "My families want a guarantee," he explained. Although money buys access in both "back door" and "side door" admissions, these modes of entry are not morally identical. For one thing, the back door is legal, while the side door is not. The U.S. Attorney made this clear: "We are not talking about donating a building so that a school is more likely to take your son or daughter. We are talking about deception and fraud, fake test scores, fake athletic credentials, fake photographs, bribed college officials."
◆ 한줄해석
Singer, the mastermind of the admissions scam, acknowledged that a big gift sometimes gets marginally qualified applicants admitted through the "back door."
입시 사기의 주모자인 싱어는 큰 기부가 때때로 자격이 겨우 되는 지원자들을 ‘뒷문(back door)’을 통해 입학하게 만든다는 것을 인정했다.
But he pitched his own technique, which he called the "side door," as a cost-effective alternative.
그러나 그는 자신이 ‘옆문(side door)’이라고 부른 자신의 방식을 비용 효율적인 대안으로 내세웠다.
He told clients that the standard "back door" approach was "ten times as much money" as his cheating scheme, and less certain.
그는 고객들에게 일반적인 ‘뒷문’ 방식은 자신의 부정행위 계획보다 “열 배나 더 많은 돈”이 들고, 성공도 더 불확실하다고 말했다.
A major gift to the college offered no guarantee of admission, while his "side door" of bribes and fake test scores did.
대학에 큰 기부를 해도 입학이 보장되지는 않지만, 그의 ‘옆문’ 방식인 뇌물과 가짜 시험 점수는 입학을 보장해 준다는 것이었다.
"My families want a guarantee," he explained.
그는 “내 고객 가족들은 보장을 원한다”고 설명했다.
Although money buys access in both "back door" and "side door" admissions, these modes of entry are not morally identical.
‘뒷문’ 입학이든 ‘옆문’ 입학이든 돈이 접근을 가능하게 한다는 점은 같지만, 이러한 입학 방식들은 도덕적으로 동일하지는 않다.
For one thing, the back door is legal, while the side door is not.
우선 ‘뒷문’은 합법이지만 ‘옆문’은 그렇지 않다.
The U.S. Attorney made this clear: "We are not talking about donating a building so that a school is more likely to take your son or daughter. We are talking about deception and fraud, fake test scores, fake athletic credentials, fake photographs, bribed college officials."
미국 연방 검사는 이를 분명히 하며 이렇게 말했다. “우리는 학교가 당신의 아들이나 딸을 더 받아들이게 하려고 건물을 기부하는 것에 대해 말하는 것이 아닙니다. 우리는 속임수와 사기, 가짜 시험 점수, 가짜 운동 경력, 가짜 사진, 그리고 뇌물을 받은 대학 관계자들에 대해 말하고 있습니다.”
◆ 한줄해석쓰기
Singer, the mastermind of the admissions scam, acknowledged that a big gift sometimes gets marginally qualified applicants admitted through the "back door."
But he pitched his own technique, which he called the "side door," as a cost-effective alternative.
He told clients that the standard "back door" approach was "ten times as much money" as his cheating scheme, and less certain.
A major gift to the college offered no guarantee of admission, while his "side door" of bribes and fake test scores did.
"My families want a guarantee," he explained.
Although money buys access in both "back door" and "side door" admissions, these modes of entry are not morally identical.
For one thing, the back door is legal, while the side door is not.
The U.S. Attorney made this clear: "We are not talking about donating a building so that a school is more likely to take your son or daughter. We are talking about deception and fraud, fake test scores, fake athletic credentials, fake photographs, bribed college officials."
7. In prosecuting Singer, his clients, and the bribe-taking coaches, the feds were not telling colleges they could not sell seats in the freshman class; they were simply cracking down on a fraudulent scheme. Legality aside, the back door and the side door differ in this respect: When parents buy their child's admission through a big donation, the money goes to the college, which can use it to improve the education it offers all students. With Singer's scheme, the money goes to third parties, and so does little or nothing to help the college itself. (At least one of the coaches Singer bribed, the sailing coach at Stanford, apparently used the bribe to support the sailing program. Others pocketed the money.) From the standpoint of fairness, however, it is hard to distinguish between the "back door" and the "side door." Both give an edge to children of wealthy parents who are admitted instead of better-qualified applicants. Both allow money to override merit. Admission based on merit defines entry through the "front door." As Singer put it, the front door means you get in on your own." This mode of entry is what most people consider fair: applicants hould be admitted based on their own merit, not their parents' money.
◆ 한줄해석
In prosecuting Singer, his clients, and the bribe-taking coaches, the feds were not telling colleges they could not sell seats in the freshman class; they were simply cracking down on a fraudulent scheme.
싱어와 그의 고객들, 그리고 뇌물을 받은 코치들을 기소하면서 연방 당국은 대학들이 신입생 자리를 돈으로 팔 수 없다고 말한 것이 아니라 단지 사기적인 계획을 단속한 것뿐이었다.
Legality aside, the back door and the side door differ in this respect:
합법성의 문제를 제외하면, ‘뒷문’과 ‘옆문’은 다음과 같은 점에서 다르다.
When parents buy their child's admission through a big donation, the money goes to the college, which can use it to improve the education it offers all students.
부모가 큰 기부를 통해 자녀의 입학을 사게 되면 그 돈은 대학으로 들어가고, 대학은 그 돈을 모든 학생에게 제공하는 교육을 개선하는 데 사용할 수 있다.
With Singer's scheme, the money goes to third parties, and so does little or nothing to help the college itself.
하지만 싱어의 방식에서는 돈이 제3자에게 들어가기 때문에 대학 자체에는 거의 혹은 전혀 도움이 되지 않는다.
(At least one of the coaches Singer bribed, the sailing coach at Stanford, apparently used the bribe to support the sailing program. Others pocketed the money.)
(적어도 싱어에게 뇌물을 받은 코치들 중 한 명인 스탠퍼드의 요트팀 코치는 그 돈을 요트 프로그램을 지원하는 데 사용한 것으로 보이지만, 다른 사람들은 그 돈을 개인적으로 챙겼다.)
From the standpoint of fairness, however, it is hard to distinguish between the "back door" and the "side door."
그러나 공정성의 관점에서 보면 ‘뒷문’과 ‘옆문’을 구분하기는 어렵다.
Both give an edge to children of wealthy parents who are admitted instead of better-qualified applicants.
두 방식 모두 더 자격이 있는 지원자 대신 부유한 부모의 자녀들에게 유리한 기회를 준다.
Both allow money to override merit.
두 방식 모두 돈이 능력을 압도하도록 만든다.
Admission based on merit defines entry through the "front door."
능력에 근거한 입학은 ‘정문(front door)’을 통한 입학을 의미한다.
As Singer put it, the front door means you get in on your own."
싱어의 표현을 빌리면, ‘정문’은 “자기 힘으로 입학하는 것”을 의미한다.
This mode of entry is what most people consider fair: applicants should be admitted based on their own merit, not their parents' money.
이러한 입학 방식이 대부분의 사람들이 공정하다고 여기는 방식이다. 즉 지원자는 부모의 돈이 아니라 자신의 능력에 근거해 입학해야 한다.
◆ 한줄해석쓰기
In prosecuting Singer, his clients, and the bribe-taking coaches, the feds were not telling colleges they could not sell seats in the freshman class; they were simply cracking down on a fraudulent scheme.
Legality aside, the back door and the side door differ in this respect:
When parents buy their child's admission through a big donation, the money goes to the college, which can use it to improve the education it offers all students.
With Singer's scheme, the money goes to third parties, and so does little or nothing to help the college itself.
(At least one of the coaches Singer bribed, the sailing coach at Stanford, apparently used the bribe to support the sailing program. Others pocketed the money.)
From the standpoint of fairness, however, it is hard to distinguish between the "back door" and the "side door."
Both give an edge to children of wealthy parents who are admitted instead of better-qualified applicants.
Both allow money to override merit.
Admission based on merit defines entry through the "front door."
As Singer put it, the front door means you get in on your own."
This mode of entry is what most people consider fair: applicants should be admitted based on their own merit, not their parents' money.
8. In practice, of course, it is not that simple. Money hovers over the front door as well as the back. Measures of merit are hard to disentangle from economic advantage. Standardized tests such as the SAT purport to measure merit on its own, so that students from modest backgrounds can demonstrate intellectual promise. In practice, however, SAT scores closely track family income. The richer a student's family, the higher the score he or she is likely to receive. Not only do wealthy parents enroll their children in SAT prep courses; they hire private admissions counselors to burnish their college applications, enroll them in dance and music lessons, and train them in elite sports such as fencing, squash, golf, tennis, crew, lacrosse, and sailing, the better to qualify for recruitment to college teams. These are among the costly means by which affluent, striving parents equip their progeny to compete for admission. And then there is tuition. At all but the handful of colleges wealthy enough to admit students without regard for their ability to pay, those who do not need financial aid are more likely than their needy counterparts to get in.
◆ 한줄해석
In practice, of course, it is not that simple.
물론 실제로는 그렇게 단순하지 않다.
Money hovers over the front door as well as the back.
돈은 뒷문뿐만 아니라 정문 위에도 영향을 미친다.
Measures of merit are hard to disentangle from economic advantage.
능력을 측정하는 기준은 경제적 이점과 분리하기가 어렵다.
Standardized tests such as the SAT purport to measure merit on its own, so that students from modest backgrounds can demonstrate intellectual promise.
SAT와 같은 표준화 시험은 능력만을 측정한다고 주장하며, 이를 통해 비교적 평범한 가정 출신 학생들도 지적 잠재력을 보여 줄 수 있다고 한다.
In practice, however, SAT scores closely track family income.
그러나 실제로는 SAT 점수가 가정의 소득 수준과 밀접하게 연관되어 있다.
The richer a student's family, the higher the score he or she is likely to receive.
학생의 가정이 부유할수록 더 높은 점수를 받을 가능성이 크다.
Not only do wealthy parents enroll their children in SAT prep courses; they hire private admissions counselors to burnish their college applications, enroll them in dance and music lessons, and train them in elite sports such as fencing, squash, golf, tennis, crew, lacrosse, and sailing, the better to qualify for recruitment to college teams.
부유한 부모들은 자녀를 SAT 준비 학원에 보내는 것뿐만 아니라 대학 지원서를 더 돋보이게 하기 위해 개인 입시 컨설턴트를 고용하고, 춤과 음악 수업을 듣게 하며, 펜싱·스쿼시·골프·테니스·조정·라크로스·요트 같은 엘리트 스포츠를 훈련시켜 대학 팀의 특기생으로 선발될 자격을 더 잘 갖추게 한다.
These are among the costly means by which affluent, striving parents equip their progeny to compete for admission.
이것들은 부유하고 경쟁적인 부모들이 자녀가 입학 경쟁을 할 수 있도록 준비시키기 위해 사용하는 값비싼 방법들 가운데 일부이다.
And then there is tuition.
그리고 등록금 문제도 있다.
At all but the handful of colleges wealthy enough to admit students without regard for their ability to pay, those who do not need financial aid are more likely than their needy counterparts to get in.
학비 지불 능력과 상관없이 학생을 선발할 만큼 충분히 부유한 소수의 대학을 제외하면, 재정 지원이 필요 없는 학생들이 경제적으로 어려운 학생들보다 입학할 가능성이 더 높다.
◆ 한줄해석쓰기
In practice, of course, it is not that simple.
Money hovers over the front door as well as the back.
Measures of merit are hard to disentangle from economic advantage.
Standardized tests such as the SAT purport to measure merit on its own, so that students from modest backgrounds can demonstrate intellectual promise.
In practice, however, SAT scores closely track family income.
The richer a student's family, the higher the score he or she is likely to receive.
Not only do wealthy parents enroll their children in SAT prep courses; they hire private admissions counselors to burnish their college applications, enroll them in dance and music lessons, and train them in elite sports such as fencing, squash, golf, tennis, crew, lacrosse, and sailing, the better to qualify for recruitment to college teams.
These are among the costly means by which affluent, striving parents equip their progeny to compete for admission.
And then there is tuition.
At all but the handful of colleges wealthy enough to admit students without regard for their ability to pay, those who do not need financial aid are more likely than their needy counterparts to get in.
9. Given all this, it is not surprising that more than two-thirds of students at Ivy League schools come from the top 20 percent of the income scale: at Princeton and Yale, more students come from the top 1 percent than from the entire bottom 60 percent of the country. This staggering inequality of access is due partly to legacy admissions and donor appreciation (the back door), but also to advantages that propel children from well-off families through the front door. Critics point to this inequality as evidence that higher education is not the meritocracy it claims to be. From this point of view, the college admissions scandal is an egregious instance of the broader, pervasive unfairness that prevents higher education from living up to the meritocratic principle it professes.
◆ 한줄해석
Given all this, it is not surprising that more than two-thirds of students at Ivy League schools come from the top 20 percent of the income scale: at Princeton and Yale, more students come from the top 1 percent than from the entire bottom 60 percent of the country.
이 모든 점을 고려하면 아이비리그 대학 학생의 3분의 2 이상이 소득 상위 20퍼센트 가정 출신이라는 사실은 놀라운 일이 아니다. 프린스턴과 예일에서는 상위 1퍼센트 가정 출신 학생 수가 전국 하위 60퍼센트 전체에서 온 학생 수보다 더 많다.
This staggering inequality of access is due partly to legacy admissions and donor appreciation (the back door), but also to advantages that propel children from well-off families through the front door.
이러한 놀라운 접근 기회의 불평등은 부분적으로는 동문 자녀 우대 입학과 기부자 우대(뒷문) 때문이지만, 또한 부유한 가정의 자녀들이 정문을 통해 들어가도록 밀어 주는 여러 이점들 때문이기도 하다.
Critics point to this inequality as evidence that higher education is not the meritocracy it claims to be.
비판자들은 이러한 불평등을 고등 교육이 스스로 주장하는 것처럼 능력주의 체제가 아니라는 증거로 지적한다.
From this point of view, the college admissions scandal is an egregious instance of the broader, pervasive unfairness that prevents higher education from living up to the meritocratic principle it professes.
이러한 관점에서 보면, 대학 입시 스캔들은 고등 교육이 스스로 내세우는 능력주의 원칙을 제대로 실현하지 못하게 만드는 더 광범위하고 만연한 불공정의 심각한 사례라고 할 수 있다.
◆ 한줄해석쓰기
Given all this, it is not surprising that more than two-thirds of students at Ivy League schools come from the top 20 percent of the income scale: at Princeton and Yale, more students come from the top 1 percent than from the entire bottom 60 percent of the country.
This staggering inequality of access is due partly to legacy admissions and donor appreciation (the back door), but also to advantages that propel children from well-off families through the front door.
Critics point to this inequality as evidence that higher education is not the meritocracy it claims to be.
From this point of view, the college admissions scandal is an egregious instance of the broader, pervasive unfairness that prevents higher education from living up to the meritocratic principle it professes.
10. Despite their disagreements, those who consider the cheating scandal a shocking departure from standard admissions practices and those who consider it an extreme example of tendencies already prevalent in college admissions share a common premise: Students should be admitted to college based on their own abilities and talents, not based on factors beyond their control. They agree, in other words, that admission should be based on merit. They also agree, implicitly at least, that those who get in based on merit have earned their admission and therefore deserve the benefits that flow from it. If this familiar view is right, then the problem with meritocracy is not with the principle but with our failure to live up to it. Political argument between conservatives and liberals bears this out. Our public debates are not about meritocracy itself but about how to achieve it. Conservatives argue, for example, that affirmative action policies that consider race and ethnicity as factors in admission amount to a betrayal of merit-based admission: liberals defend affirmative action as a way of remedying persisting unfairness and argue that a true meritocracy can be achieved only by leveling the playing field between the privileged and the disadvantaged. But this debate overlooks the possibility that the problem with meritocracy runs deeper.
◆ 한줄해석
Despite their disagreements, those who consider the cheating scandal a shocking departure from standard admissions practices and those who consider it an extreme example of tendencies already prevalent in college admissions share a common premise: Students should be admitted to college based on their own abilities and talents, not based on factors beyond their control.
의견 차이에도 불구하고, 이 부정 스캔들을 일반적인 입학 관행에서 크게 벗어난 충격적인 사건으로 보는 사람들과 이미 대학 입학에서 널리 존재하는 경향의 극단적 사례로 보는 사람들은 공통된 전제를 공유한다. 즉, 학생들은 자신이 통제할 수 없는 요인이 아니라 자신의 능력과 재능에 근거해 대학에 입학해야 한다는 것이다.
They agree, in other words, that admission should be based on merit.
다시 말해, 그들은 입학이 능력에 근거해야 한다는 데 동의한다.
They also agree, implicitly at least, that those who get in based on merit have earned their admission and therefore deserve the benefits that flow from it.
또한 적어도 암묵적으로는 능력에 근거해 입학한 사람들은 그 입학을 스스로 얻어낸 것이며 따라서 그로부터 따르는 혜택을 받을 자격이 있다고도 동의한다.
If this familiar view is right, then the problem with meritocracy is not with the principle but with our failure to live up to it.
만약 이 익숙한 관점이 옳다면, 능력주의의 문제는 그 원칙 자체가 아니라 우리가 그것을 제대로 실현하지 못한다는 데 있다.
Political argument between conservatives and liberals bears this out.
보수와 진보 사이의 정치적 논쟁도 이를 보여 준다.
Our public debates are not about meritocracy itself but about how to achieve it.
우리의 공적 논쟁은 능력주의 자체에 대한 것이 아니라 그것을 어떻게 실현할 것인가에 대한 것이다.
Conservatives argue, for example, that affirmative action policies that consider race and ethnicity as factors in admission amount to a betrayal of merit-based admission: liberals defend affirmative action as a way of remedying persisting unfairness and argue that a true meritocracy can be achieved only by leveling the playing field between the privileged and the disadvantaged.
예를 들어 보수주의자들은 인종과 민족을 입학 요소로 고려하는 적극적 우대 조치가 능력에 기반한 입학을 배신하는 것이라고 주장한다. 반면 자유주의자들은 적극적 우대 조치를 지속되는 불공정을 바로잡는 방법으로 옹호하며, 특권층과 불리한 집단 사이의 출발선을 평등하게 만들어야만 진정한 능력주의가 실현될 수 있다고 주장한다.
But this debate overlooks the possibility that the problem with meritocracy runs deeper.
그러나 이러한 논쟁은 능력주의의 문제가 더 깊은 곳에 있을 가능성을 간과하고 있다.
◆ 한줄해석쓰기
Despite their disagreements, those who consider the cheating scandal a shocking departure from standard admissions practices and those who consider it an extreme example of tendencies already prevalent in college admissions share a common premise: Students should be admitted to college based on their own abilities and talents, not based on factors beyond their control.
They agree, in other words, that admission should be based on merit.
They also agree, implicitly at least, that those who get in based on merit have earned their admission and therefore deserve the benefits that flow from it.
If this familiar view is right, then the problem with meritocracy is not with the principle but with our failure to live up to it.
Political argument between conservatives and liberals bears this out.
Our public debates are not about meritocracy itself but about how to achieve it.
Conservatives argue, for example, that affirmative action policies that consider race and ethnicity as factors in admission amount to a betrayal of merit-based admission: liberals defend affirmative action as a way of remedying persisting unfairness and argue that a true meritocracy can be achieved only by leveling the playing field between the privileged and the disadvantaged.
But this debate overlooks the possibility that the problem with meritocracy runs deeper.
11. Consider again the admissions scandal. Most of the outrage focused on the cheating, and the unfairness of it. Equally troubling, however, are the attitudes that fueled the cheating. Lying in the background of the scandal was the assumption, now so familiar that it is scarcely noticed, that admission to an elite university is a highly sought prize. The scandal was attention-rabbing not only because it implicated celebrities and private equity moguls but also because the access they tried to buy was so widely desired, the object of fevered striving. Why is this so? Why has admission to prestigious universities become so fiercely sought that privileged parents commit fraud to get their kids in? Or, short of fraud, spend tens of thousands of dollars on private admissions consultants and test prep courses to boost their children's chances, turning their high school years into a stress-strewn gauntlet of AP classes, résumé building, and pressure-packed striving? Why has admission to elite colleges come to loom so large in our society that the FBI would devote massive law enforcement resources to ferreting out the scam, and that news of the scandal would command headlines and public attention for months, from the indictment to the sentencing of the perpetrators?
◆ 한줄해석
Consider again the admissions scandal.
입시 스캔들을 다시 생각해 보자.
Most of the outrage focused on the cheating, and the unfairness of it.
대부분의 분노는 그 부정행위와 그로 인한 불공정성에 집중되었다.
Equally troubling, however, are the attitudes that fueled the cheating.
그러나 그 부정행위를 부추긴 태도들 또한 똑같이 문제적이다.
Lying in the background of the scandal was the assumption, now so familiar that it is scarcely noticed, that admission to an elite university is a highly sought prize.
이 스캔들의 배경에는 이제 너무 익숙해져 거의 인식되지도 않는 하나의 가정이 깔려 있었는데, 그것은 명문 대학에 입학하는 것이 매우 탐나는 보상이라는 생각이다.
The scandal was attention-grabbing not only because it implicated celebrities and private equity moguls but also because the access they tried to buy was so widely desired, the object of fevered striving.
이 스캔들이 사람들의 관심을 끈 이유는 유명 인사들과 사모펀드 거물들이 연루되었기 때문만이 아니라, 그들이 돈으로 사려고 했던 그 기회가 매우 널리 갈망되는 것이며 치열한 경쟁의 대상이기 때문이기도 했다.
Why is this so?
왜 그런 것일까?
Why has admission to prestigious universities become so fiercely sought that privileged parents commit fraud to get their kids in?
왜 명문 대학 입학이 특권층 부모들이 자녀를 입학시키기 위해 사기까지 저지를 정도로 그렇게 치열하게 추구되는 것이 되었을까?
Or, short of fraud, spend tens of thousands of dollars on private admissions consultants and test prep courses to boost their children's chances, turning their high school years into a stress-strewn gauntlet of AP classes, résumé building, and pressure-packed striving?
혹은 사기까지는 아니더라도 자녀의 합격 가능성을 높이기 위해 개인 입시 컨설턴트와 시험 준비 강의에 수만 달러를 쓰며, 그들의 고등학교 시절을 AP 수업, 이력서 만들기, 압박이 가득한 경쟁으로 가득 찬 스트레스의 연속으로 만들어 버리는 것일까?
Why has admission to elite colleges come to loom so large in our society that the FBI would devote massive law enforcement resources to ferreting out the scam, and that news of the scandal would command headlines and public attention for months, from the indictment to the sentencing of the perpetrators?
왜 명문 대학 입학이 우리 사회에서 이렇게까지 큰 의미를 갖게 되어 FBI가 이 사기를 밝혀내기 위해 막대한 수사 자원을 투입하고, 이 사건의 뉴스가 기소에서 가해자들의 선고에 이르기까지 몇 달 동안이나 헤드라인과 대중의 관심을 차지하게 되었을까?
◆ 한줄해석쓰기
Consider again the admissions scandal.
Most of the outrage focused on the cheating, and the unfairness of it.
Equally troubling, however, are the attitudes that fueled the cheating.
Lying in the background of the scandal was the assumption, now so familiar that it is scarcely noticed, that admission to an elite university is a highly sought prize.
The scandal was attention-grabbing not only because it implicated celebrities and private equity moguls but also because the access they tried to buy was so widely desired, the object of fevered striving.
Why is this so?
Why has admission to prestigious universities become so fiercely sought that privileged parents commit fraud to get their kids in?
Or, short of fraud, spend tens of thousands of dollars on private admissions consultants and test prep courses to boost their children's chances, turning their high school years into a stress-strewn gauntlet of AP classes, résumé building, and pressure-packed striving?
Why has admission to elite colleges come to loom so large in our society that the FBI would devote massive law enforcement resources to ferreting out the scam, and that news of the scandal would command headlines and public attention for months, from the indictment to the sentencing of the perpetrators?
12. The admissions obsession has its origins in the growing inequality of recent decades. It reflects the fact that more is at stake in who gets in where. As the wealthiest 10 percent pulled away from the rest, the stakes of attending a prestigious college increased. Fifty years ago, applying to college was less fraught. Fewer than one in five Americans went to a four year college, and those who did tended to enroll in places close to home. College rankings mattered less than they do today. But as inequality increased, and as the earnings gap between those with and those without a college degree widened, college mattered more. So did college choice. Today, students commonly seek out the most selective college that will admit them. Parenting styles have also changed, especially among the professional classes. As the income gap grows, so does the fear of falling. Seeking to avert this danger, parents became intensely involved with their children's lives-managing their time, monitoring their grades, directing their activities, curating their college qualifications.
◆ 한줄해석
The admissions obsession has its origins in the growing inequality of recent decades.
입시 집착은 최근 수십 년간 심화된 불평등에서 비롯되었다.
It reflects the fact that more is at stake in who gets in where.
누가 어디에 합격하느냐에 더 많은 이해관계가 걸려 있다는 사실을 반영한다.
As the wealthiest 10 percent pulled away from the rest, the stakes of attending a prestigious college increased.
가장 부유한 10퍼센트가 나머지와 격차를 벌리면서, 명문 대학에 진학하는 것의 중요성이 커졌다.
Fifty years ago, applying to college was less fraught.
50년 전만 해도 대학 지원은 지금만큼 부담스럽지 않았다.
Fewer than one in five Americans went to a four year college, and those who did tended to enroll in places close to home.
5명 중 1명도 채 되지 않는 미국인이 4년제 대학에 다녔고, 다닌 사람들은 대체로 집 근처 대학에 등록했다.
College rankings mattered less than they do today.
대학 순위는 지금만큼 중요하지 않았다.
But as inequality increased, and as the earnings gap between those with and those without a college degree widened, college mattered more.
하지만 불평등이 심화되고, 대학 졸업자와 비졸업자 사이의 소득 격차가 커지면서 대학의 중요성은 더 커졌다.
So did college choice.
대학 선택의 중요성도 마찬가지로 커졌다.
Today, students commonly seek out the most selective college that will admit them.
오늘날 학생들은 자신을 받아줄 가장 경쟁력 있는 대학을 흔히 찾는다.
Parenting styles have also changed, especially among the professional classes.
특히 전문직 계층에서 양육 방식도 변화했다.
As the income gap grows, so does the fear of falling.
소득 격차가 커지면서 추락에 대한 두려움도 커졌다.
Seeking to avert this danger, parents became intensely involved with their children's lives—managing their time, monitoring their grades, directing their activities, curating their college qualifications.
이 위험을 피하고자 부모들은 자녀의 삶에 깊이 관여하게 되었는데, 시간 관리, 성적 확인, 활동 지도, 대학 준비까지 세심히 챙겼다.
◆ 한줄해석쓰기
The admissions obsession has its origins in the growing inequality of recent decades.
It reflects the fact that more is at stake in who gets in where.
As the wealthiest 10 percent pulled away from the rest, the stakes of attending a prestigious college increased.
Fifty years ago, applying to college was less fraught.
Fewer than one in five Americans went to a four year college, and those who did tended to enroll in places close to home.
College rankings mattered less than they do today.
But as inequality increased, and as the earnings gap between those with and those without a college degree widened, college mattered more.
So did college choice.
Today, students commonly seek out the most selective college that will admit them.
Parenting styles have also changed, especially among the professional classes.
As the income gap grows, so does the fear of falling.
Seeking to avert this danger, parents became intensely involved with their children's lives—managing their time, monitoring their grades, directing their activities, curating their college qualifications.
13. This epidemic of overbearing, helicopter parenting did not come from nowhere. It is an anxious but understandable response to rising inequality and the desire of affluent parents to spare their progeny the precarity of middle-class life. A degree from a name-brand university has come to be seen as the primary vehicle of upward mobility for those seeking to rise and the surest bulwark against downward mobility for those hoping to remain ensconced in the comfortable classes. This is the mentality that led panicky, privileged parents to sign up for the college admissions scam. But economic anxiety is not the whole story. More than a hedge against downward mobility, Singer's clients were buying something else, something less tangible but more valuable. In securing a place for their kids in prestigious universities, they were buying the borrowed luster of merit.
◆ 한줄해석
This epidemic of overbearing, helicopter parenting did not come from nowhere.
이러한 과잉 간섭적 헬리콥터 육아의 확산은 갑자기 생긴 것이 아니다.
It is an anxious but understandable response to rising inequality and the desire of affluent parents to spare their progeny the precarity of middle-class life.
이는 증가하는 불평등과 부유한 부모들이 자녀를 중산층 삶의 불안정으로부터 보호하고자 하는 욕구에 대한 불안하지만 이해할 만한 반응이다.
A degree from a name-brand university has come to be seen as the primary vehicle of upward mobility for those seeking to rise and the surest bulwark against downward mobility for those hoping to remain ensconced in the comfortable classes.
명문 대학 학위는 사회적 상승을 추구하는 사람들에게는 주요한 상승 이동 수단으로, 안정된 계층에 남고자 하는 사람들에게는 하락 이동을 막는 가장 확실한 방패로 여겨지게 되었다.
This is the mentality that led panicky, privileged parents to sign up for the college admissions scam.
이러한 사고방식이 당황한 특권층 부모들을 대학 입시 사기에 뛰어들게 만들었다.
But economic anxiety is not the whole story.
하지만 경제적 불안만이 전부는 아니다.
More than a hedge against downward mobility, Singer's clients were buying something else, something less tangible but more valuable.
하락 이동에 대한 대비책 이상의 목적을 위해, 싱어의 고객들은 다른 것을 사고 있었다. 덜 실질적이지만 더 가치 있는 무언가를.
In securing a place for their kids in prestigious universities, they were buying the borrowed luster of merit.
자녀를 명문 대학에 입학시키면서, 그들은 성취의 빌려온 영광을 사고 있었던 것이다.
◆ 한줄해석쓰기
This epidemic of overbearing, helicopter parenting did not come from nowhere.
It is an anxious but understandable response to rising inequality and the desire of affluent parents to spare their progeny the precarity of middle-class life.
A degree from a name-brand university has come to be seen as the primary vehicle of upward mobility for those seeking to rise and the surest bulwark against downward mobility for those hoping to remain ensconced in the comfortable classes.
This is the mentality that led panicky, privileged parents to sign up for the college admissions scam.
But economic anxiety is not the whole story.
More than a hedge against downward mobility, Singer's clients were buying something else, something less tangible but more valuable.
In securing a place for their kids in prestigious universities, they were buying the borrowed luster of merit.
BIDDING FOR MERIT
14. In an unequal society, those who land on top want to believe their success is morally justified. In a meritocratic society, this means the winners must believe they have earned their success through their own talent and hard work. Paradoxically, this is the gift the cheating parents wanted to give their kids. If all they really cared about was enabling their children to live in affluence, they could have given them trust funds. But they wanted something else-the meritocratic cachet that admission to elite colleges confers. Singer understood this when he explained that the front door means "you get in on your own." His cheating scheme was the next best thing. Of course, being admitted on the basis of a rigged SAT or phony athletic credentials is not making it on your own. This is why most of the parents hid their machinations from their kids. Admission through the side door carries the same meritocratic honor as admission through the front door only if the illicit mode of entry is concealed. No one takes pride in announcing, "I've been admitted to Stanford because my parents bribed the sailing coach."
◆ 한줄해석
BIDDING FOR MERIT
In an unequal society, those who land on top want to believe their success is morally justified.
불평등한 사회에서 정상에 오른 사람들은 자신의 성공이 도덕적으로 정당하다고 믿고 싶어 한다.
In a meritocratic society, this means the winners must believe they have earned their success through their own talent and hard work.
능력주의 사회에서는, 이는 승자들이 자신의 성공을 자신의 재능과 노력으로 얻었다고 믿어야 한다는 의미다.
Paradoxically, this is the gift the cheating parents wanted to give their kids.
역설적으로, 이것이 부정한 부모들이 자녀에게 주고자 했던 선물이다.
If all they really cared about was enabling their children to live in affluence, they could have given them trust funds.
만약 그들이 진정으로 관심 있었던 것이 자녀를 부유하게 살게 하는 것뿐이라면, 신탁 기금을 주면 되었을 것이다.
But they wanted something else—the meritocratic cachet that admission to elite colleges confers.
그러나 그들은 다른 것을 원했다—명문 대학 입학이 부여하는 능력주의적 명성을.
Singer understood this when he explained that the front door means "you get in on your own."
싱어는 "정문 입학은 스스로 노력해서 들어가는 것"이라는 설명에서 이 점을 이해했다.
His cheating scheme was the next best thing.
그의 부정 계획은 그 다음으로 가장 가까운 대안이었다.
Of course, being admitted on the basis of a rigged SAT or phony athletic credentials is not making it on your own.
물론, 조작된 SAT 점수나 가짜 운동 능력을 기반으로 입학하는 것은 스스로 성공한 것이 아니다.
This is why most of the parents hid their machinations from their kids.
그래서 대부분의 부모들은 자녀에게 그들의 책략을 숨겼다.
Admission through the side door carries the same meritocratic honor as admission through the front door only if the illicit mode of entry is concealed.
측문 입학이 정문 입학과 같은 능력주의적 명예를 가지려면, 불법적인 입학 방식이 숨겨져야 한다.
No one takes pride in announcing, "I've been admitted to Stanford because my parents bribed the sailing coach."
누구도 "내가 스탠포드에 들어간 것은 부모가 요트 코치를 뇌물로 매수했기 때문"이라고 자랑하지 않는다.
◆ 한줄해석쓰기
BIDDING FOR MERIT
In an unequal society, those who land on top want to believe their success is morally justified.
In a meritocratic society, this means the winners must believe they have earned their success through their own talent and hard work.
Paradoxically, this is the gift the cheating parents wanted to give their kids.
If all they really cared about was enabling their children to live in affluence, they could have given them trust funds.
But they wanted something else—the meritocratic cachet that admission to elite colleges confers.
Singer understood this when he explained that the front door means "you get in on your own."
His cheating scheme was the next best thing.
Of course, being admitted on the basis of a rigged SAT or phony athletic credentials is not making it on your own.
This is why most of the parents hid their machinations from their kids.
Admission through the side door carries the same meritocratic honor as admission through the front door only if the illicit mode of entry is concealed.
No one takes pride in announcing, "I've been admitted to Stanford because my parents bribed the sailing coach."
15.
The contrast with admission based on merit seems obvious. Those admitted with sparkling, legitimate credentials take pride in their achievement, and consider that they got in on their own. But this is, in a way, misleading. While it is true that their admission reflects dedication and hard work, it cannot really be said that it is solely their own doing. What about the parents and teachers who helped them on their way? What about talents and gifts not wholly of their making? What about the good fortune to live in a society that cultivates and rewards the talents they happen to have? Those who, by dint of effort and talent, prevail in a competitive meritocracy are indebted in ways the competition obscures. As the meritocracy intensifies, the striving so absorbs us that our indebtedness recedes from view. In this way, even a fair meritocracy, one without cheating or bribery or special privileges for the wealthy, induces a mistaken impression-that we have made it on our own. The years of strenuous effort demanded of applicants to elite universities almost forces them to believe that their success is their own doing, and that if they fall short, they have no one to blame but themselves.
◆ 한줄해석
The contrast with admission based on merit seems obvious.
능력에 따른 입학과의 대비는 분명해 보인다.
Those admitted with sparkling, legitimate credentials take pride in their achievement, and consider that they got in on their own.
빛나는 정당한 자격으로 입학한 사람들은 자신의 성취를 자랑스럽게 여기며, 스스로 입학했다고 생각한다.
But this is, in a way, misleading.
하지만 이것은 어떤 면에서는 오해의 소지가 있다.
While it is true that their admission reflects dedication and hard work, it cannot really be said that it is solely their own doing.
그들의 입학이 헌신과 노력의 결과인 것은 사실이지만, 그것이 전적으로 자신의 노력만으로 이루어진 것이라고는 할 수 없다.
What about the parents and teachers who helped them on their way?
그들을 도와준 부모와 교사는 어떠한가?
What about talents and gifts not wholly of their making?
그들이 전적으로 만들어낸 것이 아닌 재능과 능력은 어떠한가?
What about the good fortune to live in a society that cultivates and rewards the talents they happen to have?
그들이 우연히 가진 재능을 키우고 보상하는 사회에 살고 있는 행운은 어떠한가?
Those who, by dint of effort and talent, prevail in a competitive meritocracy are indebted in ways the competition obscures.
노력과 재능으로 경쟁적인 능력주의에서 성공한 사람들은, 경쟁 자체가 가리는 방식으로 빚지고 있다.
As the meritocracy intensifies, the striving so absorbs us that our indebtedness recedes from view.
능력주의가 심화될수록, 우리는 그 경쟁에 몰입한 나머지 우리의 빚짐을 잊게 된다.
In this way, even a fair meritocracy, one without cheating or bribery or special privileges for the wealthy, induces a mistaken impression—that we have made it on our own.
이런 방식으로, 부정, 뇌물, 부유층의 특권이 없는 공정한 능력주의조차도 우리가 스스로 성공했다는 잘못된 인상을 주게 된다.
The years of strenuous effort demanded of applicants to elite universities almost forces them to believe that their success is their own doing, and that if they fall short, they have no one to blame but themselves.
명문 대학 지원자들에게 요구되는 수년간의 고된 노력은 그들로 하여금 자신의 성공이 전적으로 자기 노력 덕분이라고 믿게 하고, 만약 실패하면 자신만을 탓해야 한다고 여기게 만든다.
◆ 한줄해석쓰기
The contrast with admission based on merit seems obvious.
Those admitted with sparkling, legitimate credentials take pride in their achievement, and consider that they got in on their own.
But this is, in a way, misleading.
While it is true that their admission reflects dedication and hard work, it cannot really be said that it is solely their own doing.
What about the parents and teachers who helped them on their way?
What about talents and gifts not wholly of their making?
What about the good fortune to live in a society that cultivates and rewards the talents they happen to have?
Those who, by dint of effort and talent, prevail in a competitive meritocracy are indebted in ways the competition obscures.
As the meritocracy intensifies, the striving so absorbs us that our indebtedness recedes from view.
In this way, even a fair meritocracy, one without cheating or bribery or special privileges for the wealthy, induces a mistaken impression—that we have made it on our own.
The years of strenuous effort demanded of applicants to elite universities almost forces them to believe that their success is their own doing, and that if they fall short, they have no one to blame but themselves.
16. This is a heavy burden for young people to bear. It is also corrosive of civic sensibilities. For the more we think of ourselves as self-made and self-sufficient, the harder it is to learn gratitude and humility. And without these sentiments, it is hard to care for the common good. College admission is not the only occasion for arguments about merit. Debates about who deserves what abound in contemporary politics. On the surface, these debates are about fairness: Does everyone have a truly equal opportunity to compete for desirable goods and social positions? But our disagreements about merit are not only about fairness. They are also about how we define success and failure, winning and losing and about the attitudes the winners should hold toward those less successful than themselves. These are highly charged questions, and we try to avoid them until they force themselves upon us.
◆ 한줄해석
This is a heavy burden for young people to bear.
이것은 젊은 사람들이 짊어지기에는 매우 무거운 짐이다.
It is also corrosive of civic sensibilities.
또한 시민적 감수성을 부식시키는 역할을 한다.
For the more we think of ourselves as self-made and self-sufficient, the harder it is to learn gratitude and humility.
우리가 자신을 자수성가하고 자립적이라고 생각할수록, 감사와 겸손을 배우기는 더 어려워진다.
And without these sentiments, it is hard to care for the common good.
이러한 감정이 없으면 공익에 관심을 가지기도 어렵다.
College admission is not the only occasion for arguments about merit.
대학 입학만이 능력에 대한 논쟁의 유일한 기회는 아니다.
Debates about who deserves what abound in contemporary politics.
현대 정치에서는 누가 무엇을 받을 자격이 있는가에 대한 논쟁이 풍부하다.
On the surface, these debates are about fairness: Does everyone have a truly equal opportunity to compete for desirable goods and social positions?
표면적으로, 이러한 논쟁은 공정성에 관한 것이다: 모두가 바람직한 자원과 사회적 지위를 경쟁할 동등한 기회를 갖고 있는가?
But our disagreements about merit are not only about fairness.
하지만 능력에 대한 우리의 의견 차이는 단지 공정성에 관한 것만은 아니다.
They are also about how we define success and failure, winning and losing and about the attitudes the winners should hold toward those less successful than themselves.
그것은 또한 우리가 성공과 실패, 승리와 패배를 어떻게 정의하는지, 그리고 승자가 자신보다 덜 성공한 사람들에게 어떤 태도를 가져야 하는지에 관한 문제이기도 하다.
These are highly charged questions, and we try to avoid them until they force themselves upon us.
이들은 매우 민감한 문제이며, 우리는 그것들이 강제로 다가올 때까지 회피하려 한다.
◆ 한줄해석쓰기
This is a heavy burden for young people to bear.
It is also corrosive of civic sensibilities.
For the more we think of ourselves as self-made and self-sufficient, the harder it is to learn gratitude and humility.
And without these sentiments, it is hard to care for the common good.
College admission is not the only occasion for arguments about merit.
Debates about who deserves what abound in contemporary politics.
On the surface, these debates are about fairness: Does everyone have a truly equal opportunity to compete for desirable goods and social positions?
But our disagreements about merit are not only about fairness.
They are also about how we define success and failure, winning and losing and about the attitudes the winners should hold toward those less successful than themselves.
These are highly charged questions, and we try to avoid them until they force themselves upon us.
17. Finding our way beyond the polarized politics of our time requires a reckoning with merit. How has the meaning of merit been recast in recent decades, in ways that erode the dignity of work and leave many people feeling that elites look down on them? Are the winners of globalization justified in the belief that they have earned and therefore deserve their success, or is this a matter of meritocratic hubris? At a time when anger against elites has brought democracy to the brink, the question of merit takes on a special urgency. We need to ask whether the solution to our fractious politics is to live more faithfully by the principle of merit, or to seek a common good beyond the sorting and the striving.
◆ 한줄해석
Finding our way beyond the polarized politics of our time requires a reckoning with merit.
오늘날의 양극화된 정치 상황을 넘어서는 길을 찾기 위해서는 ‘능력’에 대한 성찰이 필요하다.
How has the meaning of merit been recast in recent decades, in ways that erode the dignity of work and leave many people feeling that elites look down on them?
최근 수십 년간 능력의 의미가 어떻게 재해석되어 노동의 존엄성을 훼손하고, 많은 사람들이 엘리트들이 자신들을 얕본다고 느끼게 만들었는가?
Are the winners of globalization justified in the belief that they have earned and therefore deserve their success, or is this a matter of meritocratic hubris?
세계화의 승자들이 자신의 성공이 스스로 노력한 덕분이라고 믿고 정당하다고 여기는 것이 타당한가, 아니면 이것이 능력주의적 교만의 문제인가?
At a time when anger against elites has brought democracy to the brink, the question of merit takes on a special urgency.
엘리트에 대한 분노가 민주주의를 위태롭게 만드는 시점에서, 능력의 문제는 특별한 긴급성을 갖는다.
We need to ask whether the solution to our fractious politics is to live more faithfully by the principle of merit, or to seek a common good beyond the sorting and the striving.
우리의 분열된 정치 문제를 해결하려면, 능력 원칙을 더 충실히 따르는 것이 해법인지, 아니면 경쟁과 분류를 넘어선 공공선(common good)을 추구하는 것이 해법인지 물어봐야 한다.
◆ 한줄해석쓰기
Finding our way beyond the polarized politics of our time requires a reckoning with merit.
How has the meaning of merit been recast in recent decades, in ways that erode the dignity of work and leave many people feeling that elites look down on them?
Are the winners of globalization justified in the belief that they have earned and therefore deserve their success, or is this a matter of meritocratic hubris?
At a time when anger against elites has brought democracy to the brink, the question of merit takes on a special urgency.
We need to ask whether the solution to our fractious politics is to live more faithfully by the principle of merit, or to seek a common good beyond the sorting and the striving.
'분당지역고등학교내신자료' 카테고리의 다른 글
| 2026 1학기 중간 동탄국제고2 학습지 2회 원본+해석 (0) | 2026.04.23 |
|---|---|
| 2026 1학기 중간 동탄국제고2 학습지 1회 원본+해석 (0) | 2026.03.25 |
| 2026 1학기 중간 이매고1 Opening the Door of Your Heart Slow and steady 원본+해석+워크북 (1) | 2026.03.21 |
| 2026 1학기 중간 대진고1 올림포스 연합기출 5강 원본+해석+워크북 (1) | 2026.03.17 |
| 2026 1학기 중간 이매고1 The landlady 원본+해석+워크북 (1) | 2026.03.10 |