考研复试,4点化解报考博士罗马尼亚语复试问答

考研复试,4点化解报考博士罗马尼亚语复试问答

   
很多同学在大考过后认为一年以来紧绷的神经终于可以得到彻底放松了,于是,开始捡起自己为考研[微博]丢掉的娱乐活动,如打游戏、打牌等,玩儿得很开心,作息不规律,书本也都扔到一边,想着一切等到出分以后再说。等到出分了,准备复试,发现自己不在状态、而且似乎很多知识又还给老师了,结果很多初试很不错的同学在最后的这复试环节上功亏一篑。
   
跨考英语教研室刘老师建议大家初试过后,可以适当放松,可以看看美剧或者感兴趣的英文电影,找找听英语的感觉。因为初试不考听力,所以大部分同学在复习时都把听力遗忘了,而很多院校在复试环节会考察听力,听力的提高却不是一朝一夕能完成的,因此建议大家早点开始练听力,而且保证每天至少认真听15分钟。在看电影、电视剧娱乐之余,可以找四、六级的听力题来做找找感觉,做做托福[微博]、雅思[微博]的听力题,当然最好是能找到所报考院校的历年复试真题,这样复习起来更有针对性。接下来刘老师将考研英语复试口语当中的常见问题以及答题技巧给大家做一个精炼的总结。
  第一,怎么将专业术语整合在自我介绍中?
  例如:My first job was a net supervisor in a small company. Although
I worked there for only six months, I had wide experiences in 术语. But
I gradually focused on(术语). So I took part in the Red Hat
Authorization test and passed it with honor. In 2010, I was accepted by
the Information Department, China Unicom,in charge of专业.
  To be honest, this position brings me good salary and a promotion
opportunity, however, I decided to apply for the Master of 术语… And
that’s why I’m here. 2010年毕业在小公司做半年网管,考取红帽中级认证(Red
Hat
Authorization),经过三轮面试,进入中国联通的信息化部录用,系统维护工程师。工作努力、薪酬好、有提升机会。
  第二,专业术语会的不多怎么办?
  办法1:说永远对的:Being open to new theories and new ideas is
important, especially in telecommunications. Knowledge from field work
tells others what you can do, but that from theoretical studies tells
others how you’re inventive, creative and sensible. I think postgraduate
studies at this university can give me a mental power and realistic
approach.接受新的理论、新思想、新的挑战是很重要的,所以准备考研、工作中学习的知识来自经验,但是必须有理论的验证,才有继续发展
  办法2:挑选一个熟悉的,用自己的经历简述:The cutting-edge technology
focuses on 自己会的术语. Its guideline is like this: A company needs a
powerful machine, and wants to lower its cost. So as an engineer, I
tried to put some out-of-date equipment and servers together. To do so,
I had to use some integrated technology, for example,
(用简写和代码代替:VM, WWK and AMX).
现在的前沿技术是…,其基本设想为,公司处于成本节约,将一些即将淘汰的、低配置的设备或者服务器通过软件技术以逻辑的形式进行整合、以得到一台功能强大的高性能计算机,这样做,就必须运用合成技术,如…
  办法3:不提理论,说自己的职责:The team had to work round the clock
and checked it up from time to time. In this way, the whole system
wouldn’t crash. Other feedback mechanism
includes术语(如一些常用的设备或者零部件名称:如servers, data base as
well as hard disc)
  第三,如果碰到不熟悉的怎么办?
  直接说“我不清楚”就可以了,别硬撑着:In this process, I’m in charge
of the maintenance of servers. So my knowledge in 不熟悉的领域is
limited. Sorry, it is difficult for me to say more. But I know that it
is important, and it is my plan to keep track of its latest trend. In
this way, I can improve my analytical thinking and problem-solving
abilities, especially during my postgraduate
studies.由于我在这个工作过程中主要负责服务器维,其他领域的知识有涉及,但是不熟悉,但是我也逐渐意识到它在专业中的重要性,尤其是在我读研期间。
  第四,改专业怎么说?
  改专业:I show keen interest in the law studies, the commercial and
economic laws in particular, even though my major is Economics. You
might ask me why, well, let’s tell you like this. Economics are too
abstract, full of terms, far away from the real world. I don’t mean that
economics is useless. But law studies seem more challenging, and
promising for my future career. My plan is like this: start my work in a
law firm and work as a lawyer so that I can try my best to help the
clients, who they’re and where they’re from, whether they’re rich or
poor. That’s why I made up my mind to change my major and applied for
this law school.
我对法学感兴趣,尤其是商法和经济法,尽管我的专业是经济,您可能问我为什么该专业,嗯,这么说吧,经济比较抽象,术语多,脱离现实世界。当然我不是说经济没有用,对它也没有偏见。不过我觉得法学更挑战性,也更有前途:我的计划是:在律所开始我的工作,尽己所能帮助客户,无论他们是谁,来自哪里,是贫穷还是富有。所以我决定改专业,申请法学院。
最后一点,信心是最重要的。因此同学们在面试时一定要精神饱满,把自己最好的状态展现在导师面前。

图片 1

I need to make a confession at the outset here. A little over 20 years
ago, I did something that I regret, something that I’m not particularly
proud of. Something that, in many ways, I wish no one would ever know,
but here I feel kind of obliged to reveal.
(Laughter)
In the late 1980s, in a moment of youthful indiscretion, I went to law
school.
(Laughter)
In America, law is a professional degree: after your university degree,
you go on to law school. When I got to law school, I didn’t do very
well. To put it mildly, I didn’t do very well. I, in fact, graduated in
the part of my law school class that made the top 90% possible.
(Laughter)
Thank you. I never practiced law a day in my life; I pretty much wasn’t
allowed to.
(Laughter)
But today, against my better judgment, against the advice of my own
wife, I want to try to dust off some of those legal skills — what’s
left of those legal skills. I don’t want to tell you a story. I want to
make a case. I want to make a hard-headed, evidence-based, dare I say
lawyerly case, for rethinking how we run our businesses.
So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, take a look at this. This is
called the candle problem. Some of you might know it. It’s created in
1945 by a psychologist named Karl Duncker. He created this experiment
that is used in many other experiments in behavioral science. And here’s
how it works. Suppose I’m the experimenter. I bring you into a room. I
give you a candle, some thumbtacks and some matches. And I say to you,
“Your job is to attach the candle to the wall so the wax doesn’t drip
onto the table.” Now what would you do?
Many people begin trying to thumbtack the candle to the wall. Doesn’t
work. I saw somebody kind of make the motion over here — some people
have a great idea where they light the match, melt the side of the
candle, try to adhere it to the wall. It’s an awesome idea. Doesn’t
work. And eventually, after five or ten minutes, most people figure out
the solution, which you can see here.
The key is to overcome what’s called functional fixedness. You look at
that box and you see it only as a receptacle for the tacks. But it can
also have this other function, as a platform for the candle. The candle
problem.
I want to tell you about an experiment using the candle problem, done by
a scientist named Sam Glucksberg, who is now at Princeton University,
US, This shows the power of incentives.
He gathered his participants and said: “I’m going to time you, how
quickly you can solve this problem.” To one group he said, “I’m going to
time you to establish norms, averages for how long it typically takes
someone to solve this sort of problem.”
To the second group he offered rewards. He said, “If you’re in the top
25% of the fastest times, you get five dollars. If you’re the fastest of
everyone we’re testing here today, you get 20 dollars.” Now this is
several years ago, adjusted for inflation, it’s a decent sum of money
for a few minutes of work. It’s a nice motivator.
Question: How much faster did this group solve the problem?
Answer: It took them, on average, three and a half minutes longer. 3.5
min longer. This makes no sense, right? I mean, I’m an American. I
believe in free markets. That’s not how it’s supposed to work, right?
(Laughter)
If you want people to perform better, you reward them. Right? Bonuses,
commissions, their own reality show. Incentivize them. That’s how
business works. But that’s not happening here. You’ve got an incentive
designed to sharpen thinking and accelerate creativity, and it does just
the opposite. It dulls thinking and blocks creativity.
What’s interesting about this experiment is that it’s not an aberration.
This has been replicated over and over again for nearly 40 years. These
contingent motivators — if you do this, then you get that — work in
some circumstances. But for a lot of tasks, they actually either don’t
work or, often, they do harm. This is one of the most robust findings in
social science, and also one of the most ignored.
I spent the last couple of years looking at the science of human
motivation, particularly the dynamics of extrinsic motivators and
intrinsic motivators. And I’m telling you, it’s not even close. If you
look at the science, there is a mismatch between what science knows and
what business does.
What’s alarming here is that our business operating system — think of
the set of assumptions and protocols beneath our businesses, how we
motivate people, how we apply our human resources– it’s built entirely
around these extrinsic motivators, around carrots and sticks. That’s
actually fine for many kinds of 20th century tasks. But for 21st century
tasks, that mechanistic, reward-and-punishment approach doesn’t work,
often doesn’t work, and often does harm. Let me show you.
Glucksberg did another similar experiment, he presented the problem in a
slightly different way, like this up here. Attach the candle to the wall
so the wax doesn’t drip onto the table. Same deal. You: we’re timing for
norms. You: we’re incentivizing.
What happened this time? This time, the incentivized group kicked the
other group’s butt. Why? Because when the tacks are out of the box, it’s
pretty easy isn’t it?
(Laughter)
If-then rewards work really well for those sorts of tasks, where there
is a simple set of rules and a clear destination to go to. Rewards, by
their very nature, narrow our focus, concentrate the mind; that’s why
they work in so many cases. So, for tasks like this, a narrow focus,
where you just see the goal right there, zoom straight ahead to it, they
work really well.
But for the real candle problem, you don’t want to be looking like this.
The solution is on the periphery. You want to be looking around. That
reward actually narrows our focus and restricts our possibility.
Let me tell you why this is so important. In western Europe, in many
parts of Asia, in North America, in Australia, white-collar workers are
doing less of this kind of work, and more of this kind of work. That
routine, rule-based, left-brain work — certain kinds of accounting,
financial analysis, computer programming — has become fairly easy to
outsource, fairly easy to automate. Software can do it faster. Low-cost
providers can do it cheaper. So what really matters are the more
right-brained creative, conceptual kinds of abilities.
Think about your own work. Think about your own work. Are the problems
that you face, or even the problems we’ve been talking about here, do
they have a clear set of rules, and a single solution? No. The rules are
mystifying. The solution, if it exists at all, is surprising and not
obvious. Everybody in this room is dealing with their own version of the
candle problem. And for candle problems of any kind, in any field, those
if-then rewards, the things around which we’ve built so many of our
businesses, don’t work!
It makes me crazy. And here’s the thing. This is not a feeling. Okay?
I’m a lawyer; I don’t believe in feelings. This is not a philosophy. I’m
an American; I don’t believe in philosophy.
(Laughter)
This is a fact — or, as we say in my hometown of Washington, D.C., a
true fact.
(Laughter)
(Applause)
Let me give you an example. Let me marshal the evidence here. I’m not
telling a story, I’m making a case. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
some evidence: Dan Ariely, one of the great economists of our time, he
and three colleagues did a study of some MIT students. They gave these
MIT students a bunch of games, games that involved creativity, and motor
skills, and concentration. And the offered them, for performance, three
levels of rewards: small reward, medium reward, large reward. If you do
really well you get the large reward, on down.
What happened? As long as the task involved only mechanical skill
bonuses worked as they would be expected: the higher the pay, the better
the performance. Okay? But once the task called for even rudimentary
cognitive skill, a larger reward led to poorer performance.
Then they said, “Let’s see if there’s any cultural bias here. Let’s go
to Madurai, India and test it.” Standard of living is lower. In Madurai,
a reward that is modest in North American standards, is more meaningful
there. Same deal. A bunch of games, three levels of rewards.
What happens? People offered the medium level of rewards did no better
than people offered the small rewards. But this time, people offered the
highest rewards, they did the worst of all. In eight of the nine tasks
we examined across three experiments, higher incentives led to worse
performance.
Is this some kind of touchy-feely socialist conspiracy going on here?
No, these are economists from MIT, from Carnegie Mellon, from the
University of Chicago. Do you know who sponsored this research? The
Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. That’s the American
experience.
Let’s go across the pond to the London School of Economics, LSE, London
School of Economics, alma mater of eleven Nobel Laureates in economics.
Training ground for great economic thinkers like George Soros, and
Friedrich Hayek, and Mick Jagger.
(Laughter)
Last month, just last month, economists at LSE looked at 51 studies of
pay-for-performance plans, inside of companies. Here’s what they said:
“We find that financial incentives can result in a negative impact on
overall performance.”
There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does.
And what worries me, as we stand here in the rubble of the economic
collapse, is that too many organizations are making their decisions,
their policies about talent and people, based on assumptions that are
outdated, unexamined, and rooted more in folklore than in science. And
if we really want to get out of this economic mess, if we really want
high performance on those definitional tasks of the 21st century, the
solution is not to do more of the wrong things, to entice people with a
sweeter carrot, or threaten them with a sharper stick. We need a whole
new approach.
The good news is that the scientists who’ve been studying motivation
have given us this new approach. It’s built much more around intrinsic
motivation. Around the desire to do things because they matter, because
we like it, they’re interesting, or part of something important. And to
my mind, that new operating system for our businesses revolves around
three elements: autonomy, mastery and purpose. Autonomy: the urge to
direct our own lives. Mastery: the desire to get better and better at
something that matters. Purpose: the yearning to do what we do in the
service of something larger than ourselves. These are the building
blocks of an entirely new operating system for our businesses.
I want to talk today only about autonomy. In the 20th century, we came
up with this idea of management. Management did not emanate from nature.
Management is not a tree, it’s a television set. Somebody invented it.
It doesn’t mean it’s going to work forever. Management is great.
Traditional notions of management are great if you want compliance. But
if you want engagement, self-direction works better.
Some examples of some kind of radical notions of self-direction. You
don’t see a lot of it, but you see the first stirrings of something
really interesting going on, what it means is paying people adequately
and fairly, absolutely — getting the issue of money off the table, and
then giving people lots of autonomy.
Some examples. How many of you have heard of the company Atlassian? It
looks like less than half.
(Laughter)
Atlassian is an Australian software company. And they do something
incredibly cool. A few times a year they tell their engineers, “Go for
the next 24 hours and work on anything you want, as long as it’s not
part of your regular job. Work on anything you want.” Engineers use this
time to come up with a cool patch for code, come up with an elegant
hack. Then they present all of the stuff that they’ve developed to their
teammates, to the rest of the company, in this wild and woolly all-hands
meeting at the end of the day. Being Australians, everybody has a
beer.
They call them FedEx Days. Why? Because you have to deliver something
overnight. It’s pretty; not bad. It’s a huge trademark violation, but
it’s pretty clever.
(Laughter)
That one day of intense autonomy has produced a whole array of software
fixes that might never have existed.
It’s worked so well that Atlassian has taken it to the next level with
20% time — done, famously, at Google — where engineers can spend 20%
of their time working on anything they want. They have autonomy over
their time, their task, their team, their technique. Radical amounts of
autonomy. And at Google, as many of you know, about half of the new
products in a typical year are birthed during that 20% time: things like
Gmail, Orkut, Google News.
Let me give you an even more radical example of it: something called the
Results Only Work Environment (the ROWE), created by two American
consultants, in place at a dozen companies around North America. In a
ROWE people don’t have schedules. They show up when they want. They
don’t have to be in the office at a certain time, or any time. They just
have to get their work done. How they do it, when they do it, where they
do it, is totally up to them. Meetings in these kinds of environments
are optional.
What happens? Almost across the board, productivity goes up, worker
engagement goes up, worker satisfaction goes up, turnover goes down.
Autonomy, mastery and purpose, the building blocks of a new way of doing
things.
Some of you might look at this and say, “Hmm, that sounds nice, but it’s
Utopian.” And I say, “Nope. I have proof.” The mid-1990s, Microsoft
started an encyclopedia called Encarta. They had deployed all the right
incentives, They paid professionals to write and edit thousands of
articles. Well-compensated managers oversaw the whole thing to make sure
it came in on budget and on time. A few years later, another
encyclopedia got started. Different model, right? Do it for fun. No one
gets paid a cent, or a euro or a yen. Do it because you like to do it.
Just 10 years ago, if you had gone to an economist, anywhere, “Hey, I’ve
got these two different models for creating an encyclopedia. If they
went head to head, who would win?” 10 years ago you could not have found
a single sober economist anywhere on planet Earth who would have
predicted the Wikipedia model.
This is the titanic battle between these two approaches. This is the
Ali-Frazier of motivation, right? This is the Thrilla in Manila.
Intrinsic motivators versus extrinsic motivators. Autonomy, mastery and
purpose, versus carrot and sticks, and who wins? Intrinsic motivation,
autonomy, mastery and purpose, in a knockout.
Let me wrap up. There is a mismatch between what science knows and what
business does. Here is what science knows. One: Those 20th century
rewards, those motivators we think are a natural part of business, do
work, but only in a surprisingly narrow band of circumstances. Two:
Those if-then rewards often destroy creativity. Three: The secret to
high performance isn’t rewards and punishments, but that unseen
intrinsic drive– the drive to do things for their own sake. The drive
to do things cause they matter.
And here’s the best part. We already know this. The science confirms
what we know in our hearts. So, if we repair this mismatch between
science and business, if we bring our motivation, notions of motivation
into the 21st century, if we get past this lazy, dangerous, ideology of
carrots and sticks, we can strengthen our businesses, we can solve a lot
of those candle problems, and maybe, maybe — we can change the world.
I rest my case.
(Applause)

01

 

复试面试中到底考察我们哪方面的能力呢?

复试面试过程中其实主要考察考生的综合素质。包括考生本科期间的能力结构、知识结构、计算机操作能力、外语能力和应变能力,在回答问题的时候并不要求十分精准的答案,但是要求考生流畅清楚以及有逻辑性的陈述即可

02

 

专业课是重头戏 

综合知识运用和外语听说或专业外语考核,一般难不倒考生。专业基础知识方面的考核于是成为考生在复试中最容易出差错的部分,使得有些考生尤其是跨专业跨校考研的考生,容易在复试中暴露出专业基础方面的素养不够。

针对性提高自己在专业领域思考能力,尤其在复试当中较多采用些专业课专业术语来思考问题,这在跨专业同学复试中显得更加重要些,另外多思考自己所学领域专场与所选专业什关系,对本专业研究何促进,哪些是科学专业问题等,这些常见却能较客观表显出跨专业考生专业思维把握能力问题是很容易问到。

图片 2

03

 

导师篇

(1)复试时导师考查什么?

导师不但看重学生的专业功底,还会考察学生的性格、情商等。专业功底自然重要,但性格和情商往往会在不知不觉中给导师留下深刻印象。情商主要是指人在情绪、情感、意志、耐受挫折等方面的品质。性格与情商,这关系到日后学生读书是不是刻苦、有悟性,是否是逻辑清晰的可造之才。参加复试的同学,专业能力上相差并不大,即使有差别,导师也是可以后期培养的,但如果是性格和情商方面的缺陷,导师则难以改变。这也是部分学生纠结的:我的分数那么高,为什么不要我?因为,复试面试中情商在不知不觉地影响了你的成功。

从某种意义上讲,情商甚至比智商更重要

(2)导师的哪些事儿是我该了解的?

导师在学术上的方方面面你都需要了解,导师的主要研究方向是什么,次要研究方向是什么,他的主要学术成果有哪些,在领域里有什么独树一帜的研究,他的代表作有哪些,有没有出过书,有没有旗帜鲜明地反对过哪个学术观点,他除了招你的这个专业还有没有招别的专业,你的专业是不是他的主要研究方向,近几年他招了多少研究生……

如此这般,似乎在掘地三尺,但这是对导师负责更是对你负责。记住,一定要提前到目标院校去转转,去自习室、老师的办公大楼,会有意想不到的收获。

(3)给导师的邮件怎么写?

给导师的邮件有什么作用呢?就是让导师知道有你这么一个人,和导师建立联系。

在邮件中要详细说明自己是要报考他的研究生,然后介绍自己的情况,可以附上成绩单还有一些正面材料,不要写夸夸其谈的东西。最好就是一些硬件,如奖状的扫描件、你的论文(节选)等。

还要很深刻地讲出为什么选择这个专业,要真实不说大话,写出对该专业的理解,以及为什么选择跨校和报考该老师的原因。最后写上你对未来的憧憬和规划,让导师了解你想要什么,你未来想要过什么样的生活。

表示对导师的崇敬是必要的,但是不能过火,过火会感觉虚伪和轻浮,读研又讲究沉得下心,所以虚伪轻浮的是大忌。更不要出现这种让导师崩溃的语言–“老师,我特别特别崇拜你!”“老师,我是看你的书长大的!”“老师,我上研究生就是为了你!”

 

04

 

英语准备

1、对于口语的考查,各个学校各不相同

考生对下面几个问题一定要认真准备:一是自我介绍,如自己来自什么地方、毕业学校、所学专业、业余喜好、家庭基本情况等信息;二是做好用英语讲解自己专业的准备。口语测试时老师有可能要求你就本专业展开话题,考查你用英语讲解陌生概念的能力。

因此,考生对此要有所准备,先用笔头组织这些问题的要点,然后再以这些词组织语言。在阅读专业文献时,也要多积累一些专业方面的英语词汇。

2、考试形式汇总。

第一,个人介绍:让你以问答的方式或一个小小的独白来介绍自己。第二,深入对话:考官进一步问你关于一些基本话题的看法。第三,个人长谈:考官让你抽一个话题,给你1-2分钟准备,然后做两分钟左右的演讲。这部分考查比较接近雅思口语考试的第二部分。第四,考生对话:考官给你和另外一个考生一个话题,给你们一段准备的时间,然后让你们进行对话讨论。第五,图片描绘、分析与讨论:这种形式非常接近考研笔试写作的图片作文,只不过是以口语的形式来考查。每个学校会根据自己的想法来指定考试的具体形式,但一般都会包括以上的两到四个部分。

3、一般来说,评价一个人英语口语能力主要从看下几个方面:第一,语言的准确性和得体性;第二,语音、语调是否准确;第三、语法是否正确;第四,语句表达的流利程度。

1)准备一些相关的口语材料,如《英语中级口语教程》、《英语900句》等。当然如果确定参加哪种英语口试,又了解其口语考试的形式与内容,这些信息可以通过目标院校的师兄师姐或是专业的辅导机构来了解,进而选择针对其考试的口语材料更为有效,如雅思口语、托业口语等。

2)制定复习计划:在搜集了目标院校的相关复试信息后,根据备考时间与所要参加的口试类型制定复习计划。可以每天准备一个话题,话题的内容最好是热门话题或所要参加的口试常考的话题。热点话题在报纸、杂志上大多可以找到,也是很多考试写作部分常出的题目,因此也可以参照考研或四、六级作文范文。但切忌全篇背诵所找到的材料,最好只借用其中某些素材,然后用自己的语言重新整理。对日常生活题材的讨论是我们训练口语能力的一个重要阶段,在这个阶段中,我们通过参加多种形式的讨论活动和交流不断扩大知识面,促进思维能力及驾驭语言的能力。

3)熟悉考场情况与考试流程。首先,进入考场入室前要敲门,虽是小节,但关系到你给考官的第一印象。接着向考官问候,如果可以,微笑,但绝不可勉强。其次,自我介绍要求简洁、有新意,能够让考官记住你。最重要的是,发音要准,不要太快,以别人听懂为目的,一定要听考官的指示语。在回答讨论性的问题时需注意,千万不要只回答“YES”或“NO”,而要加上你的reason或者是example。对于看图说话题,不要过分局限于图中的内容,应充分开阔思路,尤其注意在讲述完图中内容后做适当的评价,对图中的事物或观点提出自己的看法或客观公正的评论。

4)克服心理障碍。自信是建立在大量练习上的,不经过口语练习是无法真正掌握英语这门语言的。开口把英语讲出来非常重要,这是每一个英语学习者的必经历程。所以要讲好口语就必须先把面子放在一边。

图片 3

 

05

 

大家早点开始练听力,而且保证每天至少认真听15分钟。可以找四、六级的听力题来做找找感觉,做做托福、雅思的听力题,当然最好是能找到所报考院校的历年复试真题。

接下来就将考研英语复试口语当中的常见问题以及答题技巧,给大家做一些总结。

第一,怎么将专业术语整合在自我介绍中?

例如:My first job was a net supervisor in a small company. Although I
worked there for only six months, I had wide experiences in 术语. But I
gradually focused on(术语). So I took part in the Red Hat Authorization
test and passed it with honor. In 2010, I was accepted by the
Information Department, China Unicom,in charge of专业.

To be honest, this position brings me good salary and a promotion
opportunity, however, I decided to apply for the Master of 术语… And
that’s why I’m here. 2010年毕业在小公司做半年网管,考取红帽中级认证(Red
Hat
Authorization),经过三轮面试,进入中国联通的信息化部录用,系统维护工程师。工作努力、薪酬好、有提升机会。

第二,专业术语会的不多怎么办?

办法1:说永远对的:Being open to new theories and new ideas is
important, especially in telecommunications. Knowledge from field work
tells others what you can do, but that from theoretical studies tells
others how you’re inventive, creative and sensible. I think postgraduate
studies at this university can give me a mental power and realistic
approach.接受新的理论、新思想、新的挑战是很重要的,所以准备考研、工作中学习的知识来自经验,但是必须有理论的验证,才有继续发展

办法2:挑选一个熟悉的,用自己的经历简述:The cutting-edge technology
focuses on 自己会的术语. Its guideline is like this: A company needs a
powerful machine, and wants to lower its cost. So as an engineer, I
tried to put some out-of-date equipment and servers together. To do so,
I had to use some integrated technology, for example,
(用简写和代码代替:VM, WWK and AMX).
现在的前沿技术是…,其基本设想为,公司处于成本节约,将一些即将淘汰的、低配置的设备或者服务器通过软件技术以逻辑的形式进行整合、以得到一台功能强大的高性能计算机,这样做,就必须运用合成技术,如…

办法3:不提理论,说自己的职责:The team had to work round the clock and
checked it up from time to time. In this way, the whole system wouldn’t
crash. Other feedback mechanism
includes术语(如一些常用的设备或者零部件名称:如servers, data base as
well as hard disc)

第三,如果碰到不熟悉的怎么办?

直接说“我不清楚”就可以了,别硬撑着:In this process, I’m in charge of
the maintenance of servers. So my knowledge in 不熟悉的领域is limited.
Sorry, it is difficult for me to say more. But I know that it is
important, and it is my plan to keep track of its latest trend. In this
way, I can improve my analytical thinking and problem-solving abilities,
especially during my postgraduate
studies.由于我在这个工作过程中主要负责服务器维,其他领域的知识有涉及,但是不熟悉,但是我也逐渐意识到它在专业中的重要性,尤其是在我读研期间。

第四,改专业怎么说?

改专业:I show keen interest in the law studies, the commercial and
economic laws in particular, even though my major is Economics. You
might ask me why, well, let’s tell you like this. Economics are too
abstract, full of terms, far away from the real world. I don’t mean that
economics is useless. But law studies seem more challenging, and
promising for my future career. My plan is like this: start my work in a
law firm and work as a lawyer so that I can try my best to help the
clients, who they’re and where they’re from, whether they’re rich or
poor. That’s why I made up my mind to change my major and applied for
this law school.
我对法学感兴趣,尤其是商法和经济法,尽管我的专业是经济,您可能问我为什么该专业,嗯,这么说吧,经济比较抽象,术语多,脱离现实世界。当然我不是说经济没有用,对它也没有偏见。不过我觉得法学更挑战性,也更有前途:我的计划是:在律所开始我的工作,尽己所能帮助客户,无论他们是谁,来自哪里,是贫穷还是富有。所以我决定改专业,申请法学院。

 

图片 4

06

下面是老师给大家推荐一版超级完备的自我介绍模板,供大家参考:

Good morning / afternoon, honorable teachers. My name is
*****(你的姓名), a 22-year-old girl/ boy and I graduate from
****(你的大学)University. My major was****(你的专业). Four-year
study in **** department gives me all-round knowledge
about*****(专业名称).

In the past two years I have been preparing for the postgraduate
examination. I am a very hard-working person with great perseverance.
And also, I am very kind-hearted as well and ready to help others
especially when they are in troubles. Owing to my kindness I made a lot
of friends in university. In my spare time I like sports. Among all the
events, I like football best,because we should unite as one to achieve
success. In my opinion, it is the best slogan of team work spirit.

I also took some part-time jobs as a family tutor. One of my students
got his mark improved through our joint effort and I was very proud of
that.

This is all for my self-introduction. If I am lucky enough to get the
chance, I will devote all myself to my major and focus all of my energy
on it.

有些院校考官会在你自我介绍后,对你的背景信息提问,或者就专业知识进行提问。所以要对一些可能涉及的个人问题以及专业问题提前做好准备。比如,如果考官问到:What’s
your Plans during the postgraduate study? 你可以运用以下模板进行回答:

If luckily I got the chance to learn ***(专业) in ***(大学), I
will concentrate on the study and research in this field. And, I would
like to do some practical work with the help of the supervisor and
classmates. And through this, I can get something that cannot be
acquired from the textbooks. If possible, I will go on with my study for
doctorate degree. I believe after 2/3 years of learning , I will get
more progress.

图片 5

相关文章

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注

网站地图xml地图