Section 5 第一篇
该文选自2012年9月5日英国《卫报》的文章，主要讲述的是英国金融服务监管局(FSA)出重拳整顿英国retailbanking行业。监管局在调查中发现，英国金融机构普遍存在“重销售，轻服务”的现象。银行业设计的销售激励机制让销售员赚的彭满钵满，导致了银行理财产品丑闻频现。因此，监管局导致下令银行整改，要求银行必须重拾过去“以服务客户为中心”的服务理念，否则将面临严厉的处罚。其中英国著名的劳埃德银行集团被证实由于问题严重，被移交监管局的执法部门，如调查属实，那么集团将面临数十亿的罚款，以达杀鸡儆猴之效。金融监管局的命令下发后，银行纷纷表示拥护，并开始自我内部审查。
主要词汇：
l bonus/incentives scheme 激励机制
l payment protection insurance, endowments, pensions 这些都是银行业的理财产品针对的方向。
l prioritise 优先考虑
l enforcement division 执法部门
这篇文章沿袭了高口阅读部分针砭时弊、紧跟趋势的特点。由于援引新闻报道，因此文章的脉络采用”倒金字塔”结构，即，文章一开始开门见山，概括主要思想，然后逐层展开，将故事来龙去脉娓娓道来。
附： 全文供参考
A Right to Choose Single-Sex Public Education
By KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON And BARBARA MIKULSKI
Education proponents across the political spectrum were dismayed by recent attempts toeradicate the single-gender options in public schools in Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama,Mississippi, Maine and Florida. We were particularly troubled at efforts to thwart educationchoice for American students and their families because it is a cause we have worked hard toadvance.
Studies have shown that some students learn better in a single-gender environment,particularly in math and science. But federal regulations used to prevent public schools fromoffering that option. So in 2001 we joined with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Susan Collinsto author legislation that allowed public schools to offer single-sex education. It was an epicbipartisan battle against entrenched bureaucracy, but well worth the fight.
Since our amendment passed, thousands of American children have benefited. Now,though, some civil libertarians are claiming that single-sex public-school programs arediscriminatory and thus illegal.
To be clear: The 2001 law did not require that children be educated in single-genderprograms or schools. It simply allowed schools and districts to offer the choice of single-sexschools or classrooms, as long as opportunities were equally available to boys and girls. In thevast and growing realm of education research, one central tenet has been confirmedrepeatedly: Children learn in different ways. For some, single-sex classrooms make all thedifference.
Critics argue that these programs promote harmful gender stereotypes. Ironically, it isexactly these stereotypes that the single-sex programs seek to eradicate.
As studies have confirmed - and as any parent can tell you - negative gender roles areoften sharpened in coeducational environments. Boys are more likely, for instance, to buy intothe notion that reading isn't masculine when they're surrounded by (and showing off for) girls.
Girls, meanwhile, have made so much progress in educational achievement that women areoverrepresented in postgraduate education. But they still lag in the acquisition of bachelor'sand graduate degrees in math and the sciences. It has been demonstrated time and again thatyoung girls are more willing to ask and answer questions in classrooms without boys.
A 2008 Department of Education study found that "both principals and teachers believedthat the main benefits of single-sex schooling are decreasing distractions to learning andimproving student achievement." The gender slant - the math-is-for-boys, home-EC-is-for-girls trope - is eliminated.
In a three-year study in the mid-2000s, researchers at Florida's Stetson Universitycompared the performance of single-gender and mixed-gender classes at an elementaryschool, controlling for the likes of class sizes, demographics and teacher training. When thechildren took the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (which measures achievement inmath and literacy, for instance), the results were striking: Only 59% of girls in mixed classeswere scored as proficient, while 75% of girls in single-sex ones achieved proficiency. Similarly, 37% of boys in coeducational classes scored proficient, compared with 86% of boys in the all-boys classes.
Booker T. Washington High School in Memphis, Tenn., the winner of the 2011 Race to theTop High School Commencement Challenge, went to a 81.6% graduation rate in 2010 from agraduation rate of 55% in 2007. Among the changes at the school? Implementing all-girls andall-boys freshman academies.
In Dallas, the all-boys Barack Obama Leadership Academy opened its doors last year. Thereis every reason to believe it will follow the success of the first all-girls public school, Irma RangelYoung Women's Leadership School, which started in 2004. Irma Rangel, which has been aTexas Education Agency Exemplary School since 2006, also took sixth place at the DallasIndependent School District's 30th Annual Mathematics Olympiad that year.
No one is arguing that single-sex education is the best option for every student. But it ispreferable for some students and families, and no one has the right to deny them an optionthat may work best for a particular child. Attempts to eliminate single-sex education areequivalent to taking away students' and parents' choice about one of the most fundamentallyimportant aspects of childhood and future indicators of success - a child's education.
America once dominated educational attainment among developed countries, but we havefallen disastrously in international rankings. As we seek ways to offer the best education for allour children, in ways that are better tailored to their needs, it seems not justcounterproductive but damaging to reduce the options. single-sex education in public schoolswill continue to be a voluntary choice for students and their families. To limit or eliminatesingle-sex education is irresponsible. To take single-sex education away from students whostand to benefit is unforgivable.
Ms. Hutchison, a Republican, is the senior senator from Texas. Ms. Mikulski, a Democrat, isthe senior senator from Maryland.
