TEXT 1 [FOR INDIVIDUAL HOMEWORK ONLY]

The Dangers of Cramming

Keith Ablow

Midnight, and the spiral notebook barely half full. The rest of its pages, scribbled with
organic chemistry equations, litter the dorm-room floor. Every few minutes the figure hunched over
the desk tears away another page, having memorised as much as he can, and passes it on to his
friend. And thus the two roommates continue all night, dropping the pages to the carpet after each
has absorbed his fill.

Welcome to the all-night cramming session, which most students resort to at some desperate
point in their college careers. Armed with the energy of youth, they simply ignore their bodies' cries
for sleep, trying to fend off fatigue with doses of coffee or, occasionally, drugs. Teachers and parents
have long argued that cramming does more harm than good -- and the latest research into sleep
needs and patterns suggests that they are right.

For some people, disruption in the regular sleep cycle can cause temporary intellectual
lapses -- and stimulants can set off severe side effects. Thus, for every student who manages to
memorise the chemical synthesis of bona-S-rubber at 5 a.m. and then triumphantly finds that precise
question on his test at 9, there are more than a few who lament the "obvious" answers they blew on a
multiple-choice exam because they "just couldn't focus."

The outcome of all-nighters is unpredictable because the impact of sleep loss varies so
widely. "Some people are markedly impaired by even a small decrease in sleep time," says David
Buchholtz, a neurologist and sleep therapist at The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, "while
others can go without sleep for a few nights without any demonstrable loss of performance." People
also have vastly different minimum requirements: a full night's rest can range from 4 to 10 hours. It
is critical, experts stress, for each person to know how much sleep he needs.

Heavy use of stimulants can compound the problem. Many students assume that large
quantities of coffee or a few amphetamines will increase alertness; they don't. In fact, stimulants
merely disguise -- briefly -- a reduced capacity to grasp, retain, and retrieve information. "Caffeine
does not correct the cognitive impairment caused by lost sleep," Buchholtz says. "A person may be
awake, but he'll have to deal with an intellectual deficit, and his concentration won't be there. He can
actually have 'microsleeps' and stare at the same word for five minutes."

Nor are unpredictable naps the only penalty of substance abuse. Coffee drinkers should
watch out for Caffeine Intoxication Syndrome, an onset of anxiety, panic, headaches and a
frustrating inability to sleep. Most people would have to drink about 10 cups to fall into this
condition, but some are so sensitive that it can hit them after only 2 to 3 cups. Speed [an
amphetamine] is far more hazardous. Overdoses can lead to auditory hallucinations and paranoia. In
addition, according to Larry Alessi, assistant professor of psychiatry at The Johns Hopkins Medical
School, "if someone uses speed for many weeks and then stops, he may 'crash' into severe
depression."
 Unless a person abuses his body with stimulants, he should be able to snap back fairly
quickly form an all-nighter. One full night of rest will usually produce complete recovery from up to
48 hours of sleep deprivation; normal, healthy people have been known to stay awake for as long as
a week without lasting ill effects. On the second night, there is usually an increase in REM (rapid
eye movement) sleep, the phase in which dreaming occurs. Normally, REM sleep is beneficial, but
some people report particularly graphic and disturbing nightmares associated with a sudden increase
in REM.

Then there are the problems of students who want to get a good night's sleep before an exam
but just can't. Stress often promotes insomnia. It may cause the reticular activating system, the
structure in the brain that is responsible for alertness, to stay on too long; this prevents sleep-
inducing mechanisms from doing their job. What do experts advise a student who finds himself
tossing and turning for a half hour or so on the eve of a test? He should get up and try an ordinarily
relaxing activitiy, like snacking or watching television, until he is tired. Some people find that
making notes about what's worrying them can exorcise those concerns until the morning.

Sleeping too much, authorities agree, should not worry most people. Even after an extended
night of "rebound" sleep, the brain arouses itself when its needs have been fulfilled. Clinically
depressed people do often retreat into slumber to avoid the waking hours, but true clinical depression
is accompanied by other noticeable symptoms such as loss of appetite, decreased self-esteem and
even thoughts of suicide.

In the end, the best formula to follow when finals arrive is one that students have been
taught for years -- moderation. There will surely by times when excelling, or perhaps just passing,
requires pushing bedtime back, but any major changes in sleep patterns should be made cautiously.
As Buchholtz suggests, "The key is keeping perspective and not ever overdoing it."

(Keith Ablow, Newsweek on Campus, May 1985, p.9)

TEXT 2

Computers and Education in America

--Dudley Erskine Devlin

In the last decade, computers have invaded every aspect of education, from kindergarten
through college. The figures show that schools have spent over two billion dollars installing two
million new computers. Recently, with the explosive increase of sites on the Internet, computers
have taken another dramatic rise. In just five years, the number of Internet hosts has skyrocketed
from 2 million to nearly 20 million. It is not uncommon for 6th graders to surf the Net, design their
own home pages, and e-mail their friends or strangers they have "met" on the Web. Computer
literacy is a reality for many junior high students and most high school students.

In the midst of this technological explosion, we might well stop and ask some key questions.
Is computer technology good or bad for education? Are students learning more or less? What,
exactly, are they learning? And who stands to benefit from education's current infatuation with
computers and the Internet?

In the debate over the virtues of computers in education, the technological optimists think
that computers and the Internet are ushering us into the next literacy revolution, a change as
profound as Gutenberg's invention of the printing press. In contrast, a much smaller but growing
number of critics believe that cyberspace is not the ideal classroom. I agree with the critics. If you
consider your own experience, you'll agree that the benefits of computer literacy are at best wildly
overrated. At their worst, computers and the Internet pander to the short attention spans and the
passive viewing habits of a young television generation.

The technological optimists sing a siren song of an enchanted new land where the
educational benefits of computers and the Internet are boundless. First, they boast that children can
now access information on every conceivable subject. If little Eva or little Johnny wants to learn
about far-away cultures, they can access sites from their own homes that will teach them about the
great languages and cultures of the world. Second, these starry-eyed optimists warble about how the
Internet has created a truly democratic space, where all children--rich, poor, black, white, and
brown--have equal access to information and education. Third, they claim that computers will allow
students to have e-mail conversations with experts on any subject around the world. No longer will
students be limited by their own classroom, their teacher, or their environment. Distance learning is
the wave of the future, and classrooms will become obsolete or at least optional. In the words of
John Sculley, former CEO of Apple Computer, the new technologies have created an "avalanche of
personal creativity and achievement" and they have given students the "ability to explore, convey,
and create knowledge as never before." Children who used to hate going to school will now love to
learn to read and write, to do math and science. They will voluntarily spend hours learning on the
Web instead of being bored to death by endless books and stodgy teachers.

Sound too good to be true? Let's examine these claims, one by one. First, promoters of
computer learning are endlessly excited about the quantity of information available on the Internet.
The reality, however, is quite a different story. If you've worked on the Internet, you know that
finding and retrieving information from a Web site can sometimes be tedious and time consuming.
And once you find a site, you have no idea whether the information will be valuable. Popular search
engines such as Yahoo! are inefficient at finding relevant information, unless you just want to buy a
book on Amazon.com or find a street map for Fargo, North Dakota. Information is definitely
available on the Web, but the problem is finding relevant, reliable, and non-commercial information.

Next, the optimists claim that the Internet is truly a democratic space with equal access for
everyone. Again, the reality falls short. First, access to an Internet provider at home costs over a
hundred dollars a month, once you add up service and long distance fees. And then there's the
technology barrier--not every person has the skills to navigate the Web in any but the most
superficial way. Equal access is still only a theoretical dream, not a current reality.

Finally, computers do allow students to expand their learning beyond the classroom, but the
distance learning is not a utopia. Some businesses, such as Hewlett Packard, do have mentoring
programs with children in the schools, but those mentoring programs are not available to all
students. Distance learning has always been a dream of administrators, eager to figure out a cheaper
way to deliver education. They think that little Eva and Johnny are going to learn about Japanese
culture or science or algebra in the evening when they could be talking with their friends on the
phone or watching television. As education critic Neil Postman points out, these administrators are
not imagining a new technology but a new kind of child: "In [the administrator's] vision, there is a
confident and typical sense of unreality. Little Eva can't sleep, so she decides to learn a little algebra?
Where does little Eva come from? Mars?" Only students from some distant planet would prefer to
stick their nose in a computer rather than watch TV or go to school and be with their friends.

In addition to these drawbacks are other problems with computers in education. There is the
nasty issue of pornography and the rampant commercialism on the Internet. Schools do not want to
have their students spend time buying products or being exposed to pornography or pedophiles.
Second, the very attractiveness of most Web sites, with their color graphics and ingenious links to
other topics, promotes dabbling and skimming. The word "surfing" is appropriate, because most sites
encourage only the most surface exploration of a topic. The Internet thus accentuates what are
already bad habits for most students: Their short attention spans, their unwillingness to explore
subjects in depth, their poor reading and evaluation skills. Computers also tend to isolate students, to
turn them into computer geeks who think cyberspace is actually real. Some students have found they
have a serious and addictive case of "Webaholism," where they spend hours and hours on the
computer at the expense of their family and friends. Unfortunately, computers tend to separate, not
socialize students. Finally, we need to think about who has the most to gain or lose from computers
in the schools. Are administrators getting more students "taught" for less money? Are big companies
training a force of computer worker bees to run their businesses? Will corporate CEO's use
technology to isolate and control their employees?

In short, the much ballyhooed promise of computers for education has yet to be realized.
Education critic Theodore Roszak has a warning for us as we face the brave new world of computer
education:

Like all cults, this one has the intention of enlisting mindless allegiance and
acquiescence. People who have no clear idea of what they mean by information or why
they should want so much of it are nonetheless prepared to believe that we live in an
Information Age, which makes every computer around us what the relics of the True
Cross were in the Age of Faith: emblems of salvation.
I think if you examine your own experience with computers, you'll agree that the cult of computers
is still an empty promise for most students. Computers, the Internet, and the Web will not magically
educate students. It still must be done with reading, study, good teaching, and social interaction.
Excellence in education can only be achieved the old fashioned way--students must earn it.

- END OF TEXT 2 -

TEXT 3

SICK BUILDING SYNDROME

 When Oakland High School in California was moved into a new building, the students and
teachers noticed a strong smell. Then almost half of the students began to have headaches and sore
throats and to be very tired. These three symptoms disappeared on weekends. The reason was a
mystery. Experts came to investigate and find the cause of the sickness. Finally, they discovered that
the air in the building was not safe to breathe. They were surprised to find that the cause was the
shelves in the school library! These shelves were made of particleboard — that is, an inexpensive
kind of board made of very small pieces of wood held together with a chemical. This is just one
example of a modern problem that is most common in cities — indoor air pollution.
People have worried about smog for many years, and the government has spent billions of
dollars to try to clean up the air of big cities. But now we find that there is no escape from
unhealthful air. Recent studies have shown that air inside many homes, office buildings, and schools
is full of pollutants: chemicals, bacteria, smoke, and gases. These pollutants are causing a group of
unpleasant and dangerous symptoms that experts call “sick building syndrome.” A “sick building”
might be a small house in a rural area or an enormous office building in an urban center.
A recent study reached a surprising conclusion: Indoor air pollution is almost always two to
five times worse than outside pollution! This is true even in buildings that are close to factories that
produce chemicals. Better ventilation — a system for moving fresh air — can cut indoor air
pollution to a safe level, but lack of ventilation is seldom the main cause of the problem. Experts
have found that buildings create their own pollution. Imagine a typical home. The people who live
there burn oil, wood, or gas for cooking and heating. They might smoke cigarettes, pipes, or cigars.
They use chemicals for cleaning. They use hundreds of products made of plastics or particle boards;
these products — such as the bookshelves in Oakland High School — give off chemicals that we
cannot see, but that we do breathe in. And in many areas, the ground under the building might send a
dangerous gas called “radon” into the home. The people in the house are breathing in a “chemical
soup.”
There is a possible solution to the problem of “sick” buildings. Scientists at NASA (National
Aeronautical and Space Administration) were trying to find ways to clean the air in space stations.
They discovered that houseplants actually remove pollutants from the air. Certain plants seem to do
this better than others. Spider plants, for example, appear to do the best job. Even defoliated plants
(without leaves) worked well! In another study, scientists found that the chemical interaction among
soil, roots, and leaves works to remove pollutants.
This seems like a good solution, but we do not know enough yet. There are still many
unanswered questions. For instance, which pollutants can plants remove? Which pollutant cannot
they remove? How many plants are necessary to clean the air in a room — one or two or a whole
forest of plants? When we are able to answer these questions, we might find that plants offer an
important pollution-control system for the 21st century.

TEXT 4

THE SECRETS OF A VERY LONG LIFE

There are several places in the world that are famous for people who live a very long time.
These places are usually in mountainous areas, far away from modern cities. Doctors, scientists, and
public health experts often travel to these regions to solve the mystery of a long, healthy life. They
hope to bring to the modern world the secrets of longevity.
Hunza is high in the Himalayan Mountains of Asia. There, many people over one hundred
years of age are still in good physical health. Men of ninety are new fathers, and women of fifty still
have babies. What are the reasons for this good health? Scientists believe that the Hunzukuts (people
of Hunza) have, at least, three benefits. First, they do much physical work, usually in the fields or
with animals. Second, they live in a healthful environment with clean air and water. Third, they
consume a simple diet high in vitamins and nutrition, but low in fat, cholesterol, sugar, and
chemicals.
The Caucasan people in the Caucasus Mountains stretching across Russia and the Balkans
are also famous for their longevity. In this area, there are amazing examples of very long lived
people. Although birth records are not usually available, a woman called Tsurba probably lived until
the age of 160. In another case, a man called Shirali may have lived until the age of 168. His widow
was 120 years old. In general, the people not only live a long time, but they also live well. They are
almost never sick, and when they die, they have not only their own teeth but also a full head of hair,
and good eyesight.
Vilcabamba, Ecuador, is another area famous for the longevity of its inhabitants. This region
— like Hunza and Caucasus — is also in high mountains, far away from the cities. In Vilcabamba,
too, there is very little serious disease. One reason for the good health of the people might be the
clean, beautiful environment. The temperature is about 70º Fahrenheit all year long. The wind
always comes from the same direction. The region is also rich in flowers, fruits, vegetables, and
wildlife.
In some ways, the diets of the inhabitants in the three regions are quite different. Hunzukuts
eat mainly raw vegetables, fruit (especially apricots) and chapatis — a kind of pancake. They eat
meats only a few times a year. The Caucasan diet consists mainly of milk, cheese, vegetables, fruit,
and meat. Most people there drink the local red wine daily. In Vilcabamba, people eat a small
amount of meat each week. However, the diet consists largely of grain, corn, beans, potatoes, and
fruit.
Experts found one surprising fact in the mountains of Ecuador. This fact is about the habit of
the people there who consume a lot of coffee, drink large amount of alcohol, and smoke forty to
sixty cigarettes a day. This applies even to the old people.
Nonetheless, the diets in the three regions are similar in two general ways. First, the fruits
and vegetables that the inhabitants eat are all natural. This means the fruits and vegetables contain no
chemicals. Second, the people of the three regions consume fewer calories than people do in other
parts of the world. A typical North American takes in average of 3,300 calories every day while the
inhabitants of these mountainous areas take only between 1,700 and 2,000 calories a day.
Inhabitants in the three regions have more in common than calories natural food, their
mountains, and their distance from modern cities. Because these people live in the countryside and
are mostly farmers, their lives are physically tough. Thus, they do not need to go to health clubs
because they get a lot exercise in their daily work. In addition, although their lives are hard, the
people do not seem to have the worries of city people. Their lives are quiet. Consequently, some
experts believe that physical exercise and freedom from worry might be the two most important
secrets of longevity.
TEXT 5

Concepts, Challenges, and Controversies

HeLa Cells: Problems in a “Growing” Industry

Many basic advances in cell physiology, genetics, and cancer research have come about
through the use of cells grown, or cultured, outside the body. In the middle of the last century, many
attempts were made to culture human cells using tissues obtained from biopsies or surgical
procedures. These early attempts usually met with failure; the cells died after a few days or weeks in
culture, mostly without undergoing cell replication. These difficulties continued until February 1951,
when a researcher at Johns Hopkins University received a sample of cervical cancer from a patient
named Henrietta Lacks. Following convention, the culture was name HeLa by combining the first
two letters of the donor’s first and last names. This cell line not only grew but prospered under
culture conditions and represented one of the earliest cell lines successfully grown outside the body.
Researchers were eager to have human cells available on demand to study the effects of
drugs, toxic chemicals, radiation, and viruses on human tissue. For example, poliomyelitis virus
reproduced well in HeLa cells, providing a breakthrough in the development of polio vaccine. As
cell-culture techniques improved, human cell lines were started from other cancers and normal
tissues, including heart, kidney, and liver tissues. By the early 1960s, a central collection in
Washington, D.C, and cultured human cells were an important tool in many areas of biological
research.
But in 1966, geneticist Stanley Gartler made a devastating discovery. He analyzed 18
different human cell lines and found that all had been contaminated and taken over by HeLa cells.
Over the next two years, scientists confirmed that 24 of the 32 cell lines in the central repository
were actually HeLa cells. Researchers who had spent years studying what they thought were heart or
kidney cells had in reality been working with a cervical cancer cell instead. Gartler’s discovery
meant that hundreds of thousands of experiments performed in laboratories around the world were
invalid.
As painful as this lesson was, scientists started over, preparing new cell lines and using new,
stricter rules of technique to prevent contamination with HeLa cells. Unfortunately, the problem did
not end. In 1974, Walter Nelson-Rees published a paper demonstrating that 5 cell lines extensively
used in cancer research were in fact all HeLa cells. In 1976, 11 additional cell lines, each widely
used in research, were also found to be HeLa cells; and in 1981, Nelson-Rees listed 22 more cell
lines that were contaminated with HeLa. In all, one third of all cell lines used in cancer research
were apparently really HeLa cells. The result was an enormous waste of dollars and resources.
The invasion of other cultures by HeLa cells is a testament to the ferocious and aggressive
nature of some cancer cells. In cell-culture laboratories, rules of sterile technique are supposed to
ensure that cross-contamination of one culture with another does not occur. But researchers are only
human, and they sometimes make mistakes. For example, perhaps a bottle of culture medium was
contaminated through improper handling. Whatever the case clearly at some point one or more HeLa
cells were introduced into cultures where they did not belong.
HeLa cells divide more rapidly than most other human cells, whether normal or cancerous.
Because of their rapid growth and division, they use up the nutrients more quickly than other cell
types. What’s more, cells grown in culture are not readily distinguished from one another just by
looking; usually biochemical tests are needed for identification. The result is within a few cycles of
transfer, a culture that started out as kidney cells or some other human cell could be taken over
completely by rapidly growing HeLa cells. These cells then crowd out the original cell line, just as
cancer cells do in the body.
Henrietta Lacks died long ago from the cervical cancer that started the HeLa line, yet these
potent cells continue to live on. Their spread throughout human cell cultures underscores the
unrelenting nature of cancer, a disease of uncontrolled growth and resource consumption.

TEXT 6 [For Exercise only]

WHY DO WE LIE?

As little children, most of us were taught the virtue of honesty from fairy tales and other
stories. The story of Pinocchio, who begins life as a puppet, teaches us the importance of telling the
truth. The boy who lied by ‘crying wolf’ too many times lost all his sheep as well as the trust of his
fellow villagers. Even though we know that ‘honesty is the best policy,’ why do we often lie in our
everyday lives? The fact is that we lie for many reasons.
We sometimes lie to minimize our mistakes. While it is true that we all make blunders
occasionally, some of us do not have the courage to admit them because we might be blamed for the
errors. For example, students might lie to their teachers about unfinished homework. They might say
they left the work at home when, in fact, they did not even start doing the homework. These students
do not want to seem irresponsible, so they make up an excuse — a lie — to save face.
Another reason we lie is to get out of situations that we do not want to be in. If we just do
not want to attend the student body meeting early on Saturday morning, we might give this excuse:
“I’ve been fighting off a cold all week, and I need to sleep this Saturday. Anyway, I will come on the
next meeting.” We lie because we believe that telling the truth will cause problems. We may feel an
obligation to maintain good relations with our fellow students, for example. When we do not know
how to say ‘no’, and face whatever problems that may cause, we often use lies to avoid difficulties.
 However, lies are not always negative; in fact, two kinds of lies can yield positive results.
The first is commonly referred to as a “white lie.” We tell white lies when we do not want to hurt
other people’s feelings. For example, if a good friend shows up with an unflattering new haircut, we
could be truthful and say, “the haircut looks awful. It doesn’t suit you at all!” Instead of saying that,
we are more likely to say, “I like your haircut. It looks good on you,” and spare our friend’s feeling.
The second kind of positive lie is the “protective lie.” This one can help up get out of or avoid
dangerous situations. Parents often teach their children to use this kind of lie. For instance, they tell
their children not to say that they are home alone if they receive phone calls from strangers. In this
situation, lying can prevent harm or disaster.
People lie for many reasons, both good and bad. However, before we resort to lying to cover
up mistakes or to avoid unpleasant situations, perhaps we should rethink our motives for lying. We
never know when our lies might be exposed and cause us embarrassment or the loss of people’s
trust.