武汉科技大学
关注试译宝服务号
试译宝译后编辑实践平台
本校课程
科技笔译专题
103
CATTI二笔备考
66
姚老师的Catti 培训 （10月31日）
55
肖老师的CATTI培训
67
笔译理论与技巧-MTI2020级
49
笔译工作坊-翻译1801班
29
查看更多
好课推荐 前往试译宝，备考CATTI  MTI
智能翻译技术2026全年班
41
校企合作
武汉科技大学—学生翻译实践
以下内容为武汉科技大学学生最近一个月内的翻译实践成果
Elite colleges are returning to the SAT and ACT. Will others follow?

All eight Ivy League institutions have either moved away from COVID-era test-optional policies or plan to do so now that Columbia University has announced it will reinstate standardized testing requirements for undergraduate applicants in August 2027. Other top-ranked institutions, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Johns Hopkins University, already returned to requiring SAT or ACT scores following the pandemic. The Trump administration, meanwhile, has taken a firm position in favor of standardized test requirements for college admissions. In sweeping guidance released in February 2025 — which has since been struck down in court — the U.S. Department of Education’s then-Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor warned colleges against using proxies for race, writing that it would be unlawful, “for an educational institution to eliminate standardized testing to achieve a desired racial balance or to increase racial diversity.” The Trump administration later proposed a compact to give institutions preferential treatment in funding if they adopted the federal government’s policy priorities, including requiring all undergraduate applicants to take a standardized test such as the SAT or ACT. None of the nine institutions initially offered the compact accepted. For now, it has been mostly top-ranked universities — including some major public institutions — that are returning to SAT and ACT requirements. But it remains to be seen whether the Trump administration’s position will spur more colleges to follow the Ivy League’s lead. “A lot of higher ed institutions tend to take their lead from the more selective institutions,” said Pamela Burdman, founder and executive director of the California-based Just Equations, a nonprofit focused on equity in mathematics education. “So the question is: Will the practices of the Ivy League seep down into the rest of higher ed?” So far, however, the Trump administration’s stance and the move of the Ivy League institutions are hardly the death knell for test-optional policies nationwide. While there is no question the coronavirus pandemic drove the rapid growth of the test-optional movement nixing SAT or ACT requirements, the impact of those changes remains strong. According to FairTest, an organization that advocates for limiting standardized testing in college admissions, more than 2,000 bachelor’s-degree granting institutions are test optional or test free. “The truth is over 90% of schools are still test optional. A variety of schools have just double downed again,” said Harry Feder, executive director of FairTest. What does the data say? Feder said high school grades are far more indicative of how students will perform in college than the SAT or ACT. A 2014 study of colleges that don’t require standardized testing scores found almost no difference between the graduation rates of applicants who submitted scores and those who didn’t. Meanwhile, it found strong GPAs in high school were linked to high GPAs in college. Feder also contended that standardized tests have “all sorts of class and race discriminatory properties” that make them exclusionary. There have been persistent findings of racial disparities, for instance, in standardized testing performance, with a 2020 Brookings Institution report showing that Asian and White students consistently outperform their Black and Latino peers on the SAT's math section. But a January 2025 working paper studying Dartmouth College applicants, co-authored by Dartmouth economics professor Bruce Sacerdote, found that standardized test requirements often help high-achieving students from disadvantaged backgrounds. “There’s not really an association between being test optional and having a more diverse pool, at least in a lot of places,” Sacerdote said. “It’s not like there’s some cutoff score that everybody’s got to hit and then you’re in or you’re out. It’s much more about: Are you succeeding in the context of your environment?” Brown University economics professor John Friedman agrees. Friedman helped lead a May 2025 study on standardized test scores and academic performance at “Ivy-Plus” colleges, which included the eight Ivy League institutions plus MIT, Stanford University, Duke University and the University of Chicago. “Test scores at Ivy-Plus institutions are way more predictive of academic preparation than high school grades. High school grades are, in fact, not that predictive at all of academic preparation,” he said, adding that too many students are getting 4.0 GPAs or close to that. He called the decision by Ivy League schools to revert to standardized test requirements a positive development. “My sense is this is the right policy to go to, and it really comes out of the work I did as a researcher,” said Friedman. MIT Dean of Admissions and Student Financial Services Stuart Schmill referenced the university’s own internal research when it reinstated its standardized testing requirement in 2022. “Our research has shown that, in most cases, we cannot reliably predict students will do well at MIT unless we consider standardized test results alongside grades, coursework, and other factors,” he said at the time. Similarly, Friedman’s and Sacerdote’s research played a role in the decisions to reinstate the requirements at Brown and Dartmouth, respectively. But they also are quick to acknowledge that test scores are merely one factor in admissions. Meanwhile, Feder expressed concern that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling striking down race-conscious admissions, coupled with a return to standardized test requirements, has harmed diversity. An analysis by Class Action, a nonprofit organization, showed that Black and Hispanic enrollment at Ivy-Plus institutions dropped in the aftermath of the court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. “It’s very clear that as a result of that decision, the percentage of Black and brown kids at the elite institutions being admitted has decreased. Going away from test optional contributes to that,” Feder said. But Friedman and Sacerdote counter that part of the issue is that some students from disadvantaged backgrounds err by not submitting standardized test scores, failing to realize that the scores they attained may be more of an asset than they think. Which colleges are staying test-optional? There is no universal answer to whether schools should use test scores or not, said Friedman. “The answer depends on what one finds when universities go do the work on their data,” he said. It was data that took the University of Vermont in a different direction, according to its vice president for enrollment management, Jay Jacobs. UVM made its test-optional policy permanent for undergraduate admissions in 2025. According to Jacobs, the university studied fall and first-year cumulative GPA for its students with standardized test scores on record versus those without. What the admissions team found, he said, was little difference between the groups. “The admissions team and the faculty student affairs committee started to ask questions,” said Jacobs. “Are these differences big enough to warrant the test requirement, given what we know about the tests and who performs well on them from a socioeconomic perspective, from a racial and ethnic diversity perspective, from a gender diversity perspective?” Officials also decided it was important for UVM to be accessible, given its status as a public flagship and land-grant institution. “That drove us to think about whether this would work,” Jacobs said. He added that during UVM’s test-optional admission pilot program, which started in the 2020-21 academic year, both retention and graduation rates increased. “In fact, we’re sitting this year on the second straight year of the highest one-year retention rate in university history and our highest graduation rates in university history.” Many other colleges from various parts of the country, including the University of Michigan, Syracuse University and Texas Tech University, have stood by their test-optional policies as well. Uproar in the Golden State The University of California system implemented a test-free admissions policy in 2020. But could that be changing? More than 2,300 University of California faculty members have signed an open letter urging the system to reinstate the SAT/ACT mathematics requirement for STEM majors, starting with the 2027 admissions cycle. The letter alleged students are coming to college badly underprepared in math and that objective benchmarks are needed. In July, UC’s board chair said a standardized testing review would be a “major focus” of the board and that she expects the academic senate to make a recommendation on the system’s testing policy by the end of the academic year. Burdman, the founder of Just Equations, said math underpreparedness is a national trend but questions the remedy some professors are proposing. “I’m skeptical that returning to standardized tests is going to be the solution to the problem they’ve identified, particularly for a public university that has an obligation to serve the broad diversity of the state’s population, whether it’s geography, income, ethnicity or race,” Burdman said. The UC faculty letter stated, “The SAT/ACT mathematics requirement is not an obstacle to equity; rather, it is a prerequisite for it.” But Burdman countered that multiple ways of addressing math readiness don’t involve using standardized tests. Feder agreed and went a step further. “It’s a manufactured crisis,” Feder said. “You’re getting rid of a lot of potential doctors in a lot of communities if you start sifting them out by SAT scores. This isn’t MIT or Harvard.” But Sacerdote called periodic standardized test assessments “part of life” for potential doctors. He suggested that reinstating these requirements may provide applicants with a better understanding of how to study for the MCAT exam and other tests down the road. No one-size-fits-all solution Many experts agree there is no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to standardized test requirements versus test-optional policies. Sacerdote and Friedman both pointed to a working paper by City University of New York researchers that concluded that high school grades were more helpful in predicting academic success in college than standardized test scores at a large, urban public university system. “In cases like CUNY, if the test scores are not helpful as part of assessing students’ academic preparation, then I don’t see any reason to require test scores there,” Friedman said. Sacerdote added, “It’s definitely not for me to say just because we found this at Dartmouth, every institution should step up and do it the same way we do it.” Jacobs voiced a similar sentiment for the test-optional camp. “We’re not sitting on a high horse at the University of Vermont,” Jacobs said. “It was the right thing to do for our university per our vigorous data analysis.”

2026-09-21 邹茜芫 教育资讯 英-中
尊师重教不是口号，这些变化正在落地！

9月10日，第42个教师节将如期而至。今年教师节的主题是“大力弘扬教育家精神，共筑尊师重教风尚”。 近年来，从中央到地方持续落地一揽子尊师、惠师举措：从“减负8条”到“教师发展国家行动”，从澄清正名到教龄津贴提标……一份份政策文件接连出台，一项项惠师举措密集落地，正在悄然改变1870万教师的职业生态。 减负松绑： 把宁静还给校园，把时间还给老师 填表、报数、迎检、评比……这些非教育教学事务，曾是压在老师身上的“隐形负担”。2025年10月，教育部印发《关于进一步减轻中小学教师非教育教学负担若干措施的通知》，从规范发文、清单管理、白名单、严控借调、精简填报、课后服务、监测核查、部门协同等8个方面打出“组合拳”。 权益撑腰： 手中有“矩”、心中有“度”、身后有“盾” “老师管学生反而被举报”的个案，曾让不少教师不敢管、不愿管。在第42个教师节前的新闻发布会上，教育部教师工作司司长王磊用三件事给出了明确回答： 第一件：手中有“矩”——加快推进制度完善，出台操作指引，让教育惩戒有法可依、有界可控、有例可循。 第二件：心中有“度”——健全社会事务进校园准入机制、实施“白名单”管理，把不必要的检查、评比、填表真正减下来。 第三件：身后有“盾”——对涉及教师的不实举报，及时为老师澄清、正名；对捏造事实、恶意诽谤教师的行为，联合相关部门依法严肃追责。 此前，教育部已会同公安部严厉打击诋毁、污名教师等违法行为。 “撑腰”不是护短，而是让正当履职的老师有底气、有尊严。当身后的“盾”真正立起来，老师们才能敢管、愿管、放心管。 惠师暖心： 尊师重教，落到“柴米油盐” 尊师重教不能只停留在口号，更要体现在体检报告上、工资条里、回家的路上。 2024年12月，教育部等七部门印发《进一步加强尊师惠师工作的若干措施》，覆盖各级各类学校在职教师，围绕医疗健康、文化提升、生活服务、住房保障四大方面，出台了一系列尊师惠师政策。 2026年教师节发布会上，惠师政策再“加码”：建立中小学教师工资待遇共保联动机制，实现教龄津贴提标；持续落实义务教育教师平均工资收入水平不低于当地公务员；绩效工资向教学一线、班主任、乡村教师倾斜；对中西部乡村教师给予生活补助…… 让老师在柴米油盐的日常里被尊重、被善待。“教师成为最受社会尊重的职业”，才不是一句空话。 强师育才： 好老师，是“育”出来的 好老师并非凭空而来，而是通过一套高质量、系统化的培养体系“育”出来的。近年来，国家在教师培养培训层面开展了一系列系统性行动，构建起从职前培养到职后发展的全链条支持体系： 2021年起实施“优师计划”，由教育部等九部门联合推动，每年为832个脱贫县和中西部边境县定向培养约1万名本科师范生，4年累计招收4.5万人，首届9300名毕业生已扎根基层从教。 2023年启动“国优计划”，支持北京大学、清华大学等30所“双一流”高校为中小学培养研究生层次高素质教师，首批吸引6300名学生参与，拓宽了高水平人才从教渠道。 《教育发展“十五五”规划》明确提出，推进“国培计划”改革，加快构建分级分类、梯次进阶的教师能力培训体系，重点支持中西部乡村教师及紧缺领域教师发展。 2026年9月，教育部召开新闻发布会，宣布实施“教师发展国家行动”，从精神引领、培养质量、公平发展、关心关爱四方面发力，同步启动建设约50所“国家卓越教师学院”，打造教师培养的改革试验田。 同时，推进“人工智能+教师发展”行动，建强用好国家智慧教育平台教师中心，启动教师人工智能素养全覆盖培训。 这些行动共同构成了新时代教师培养的“国家队”矩阵，让好老师的成长有路径、有支撑、有未来。 公平筑基： 把好老师，送到最需要的地方 好老师不仅要“育出来”，更要通过制度设计“流得动、留得住”，精准输送到教育最薄弱的环节。 近年来，国家以《国家银龄教师行动计划》、《县域普通高中振兴行动计划》及2026年9月启动的“教师发展国家行动”为政策矩阵，构建起三条清晰的优质师资流动通道，推动教育资源从“高地”向“洼地”精准滴灌： 退休教师“向下”流动，激活银龄资源。 自2018年启动中小学银龄讲学计划以来，国家持续挖潜退休教师红利。2023年十部门联合印发《国家银龄教师行动计划》，明确三年左右全国银龄教师队伍总量达12万人左右的目标。 城区师资“向县”流动，振兴县域高中。 针对县中人才流失痛点，2025年印发的《县域普通高中振兴行动计划》划定红线：严禁恶意抢挖县中优秀师资，违者取消评优评先资格。同时，通过深化“县管校聘”改革、探索教师轮岗交流、建设“强校带县中”发展共同体等举措，鼓励城区优秀教师向县中支教。 高校智力“向边”流动，守护国门教育。 依托高水平师范大学对口支援机制与2026年9月启动的“国门学校青年教师培养支持计划”，国家将优质师范教育资源直接导入边境地区。 这三条通道，让优质师资像活水一样，流向每一个需要滋养的角落。哪里最需要老师，好老师就应该出现在哪里。 一份份文件，一项项举措，正在汇聚成一股暖流，温暖1870万教师的从教之路。 正如王磊司长所说：“教育是照亮人的事业，教师就是那个执灯的人。教师先成为光，才能照亮孩子；教师先被温暖，才能温暖孩子的童年。” 第42个教师节，让我们向全国1870万人民教师道一声：辛苦了，谢谢您！ 也期待更多惠师强师的好政策落地生根。 本文为EOL教育在线原创文章 作者：黄卓 转载请注明“转载自：EOL教育在线”

2026-09-21 邹茜芫 教育资讯 中-英
Once globally preeminent, U.S. universities are sliding into decline

The nation was distracted by other things when a quiet warning sounded: Support was diminishing for American academic research that had led to breakthroughs and innovation. That familiar-sounding worry came not this year, but near the end of World War II, in a pivotal government study by the wartime Office of Scientific Research and Development. The response then: infusions of government cash that would propel the U.S. higher education system into international preeminence over the subsequent decades. American colleges and universities rose to the ranks of the best in the world. They attracted top scholars who won a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes. They helped drive the innovation economy. As trade deficits beset other industries, education became the sixth-largest U.S. services export. At their peak enrollment, international students brought in more than $40 billion a year. Now, as a new academic year begins, American dominance in higher education globally is incontrovertibly in decline, according to data, international rankings and independent experts. The slide has been accelerated by a year and a half of funding cuts, restrictions on international students and curbs on what can be said or taught. But it began before those political challenges, with enrollment declines, lackluster returns on ever-rising prices and public mistrust. “It takes a while for all of these problems to trickle down, but they are beginning to trickle down,” said Eric Mlyn, a faculty fellow at the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University who studies academic freedom. Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter. Top scholars are leaving. Fewer international students are coming. U.S. universities are slipping in international rankings. And American universities have failed to keep pace as other countries pour resources into their higher education systems. Chinese institutions, for example, have increased their production of graduates with doctoral degrees much faster than American ones in the critical fields of science, technology, engineering and math. Rather than expanding, U.S. doctoral programs are now admitting fewer candidates or have stopped accepting new applicants altogether. This has myriad impacts on all Americans. Falling behind in research imperils the nation’s economic competitiveness, for instance. And attracting fewer international learners — and the subsidies they represent to universities’ bottom lines — is already affecting the services and majors available to domestic students, and could increase the cost. So dire has the situation become that the American Academy of Arts and Sciences hosted a discussion about it in June. The title: “Is the U.S. Losing Its Edge as a Global Education Leader?” The answer is yes, said Mlyn, who was one of the panelists. “There are so many issues threatening America’s global standing,” he said. The number of U.S. universities in the top 100 of the QS World University Rankings has fallen from 31 to 26 in the past 10 years, while Chinese universities are moving up. The Times Higher Education World University Rankings still puts seven U.S. universities among the top 10. But the smallest number ever made the top 500, while Asian universities rose. Related: As international enrollment falls, U.S. students face program cuts and higher prices International standings like these “are the global symbol for geopolitical strength on the world stage, and they’re very influential in people’s decision about where to study,” said Phil Baty, the Times Higher’s chief global affairs officer. “If you start seeing the slow diminution of rankings, that means you’re becoming less attractive to that talent. Then it could be a really serious downward spiral.” In the next Times Higher rankings — due out Sept. 30 — U.S. institutions continue to fall in comparative measures of reputation and research quality, Baty said. “It does feel like a tipping point,” he said. Universities in China annually turn out nearly 50 percent more Ph.D. graduates in science, technology, engineering and math than U.S. universities do, according to the National Science Foundation, or NSF. That’s partly a reflection of China’s larger population. But the pace of STEM Ph.D. production is also rising much more quickly in China than in the United States. It doubled in the 15 years ending in 2022, while the number of U.S. Ph.D. graduates in STEM rose two-fifths as fast, or by 41 percent, an analysis by fDi Intelligence found. Chinese universities now hold seven of the top 10 places in the Leiden Rankings from the Centre for Science and Technology Studies at Leiden University, which ranks institutions based on the number of journal articles published by their faculties — a seemingly arcane but consequential measure of academic productivity in which Harvard has fallen from first in the world to third. Researchers in China produced 28 percent of English language articles about artificial intelligence, worldwide, between 2018 and 2023, compared with 16 percent by scholars in the United States, according to the Emerging Technology Observatory at Georgetown University. While they may have produced less research during that period than their Chinese counterparts, American scholars still ranked higher on how often their work was cited by others, the NSF noted — an important indication of its relative quality. And some of the most prestigious U.S. universities were still holding their own at the top of those most recent international rankings. Related: Threats of more closings have colleges and students worrying about how to save themselves But the Trump administration has since cut billions of dollars in research funding, resulting in layoffs and uncertainty. And while many of those initial cuts were restored by courts, federal agencies have slowed the awarding of new grants. The administration’s 2027 budget request would reduce spending on the NSF and National Institutes of Health by 55 percent and 13 percent, respectively, according to the nonpartisan law and policy organization the Brennan Center for Justice, and shift some of what money remains away from universities. “We have the success of the postwar period to show that the current model works pretty well,” said Steven Durlauf, an economist at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy, referring to the historic role of the federal government in supporting academic research. Today, with funding uncertainty at least and cuts at worst, said Durlauf, “we’re on a suicidal trajectory.” Related: More than a quarter of private colleges are at risk of closing, new projection shows Blaming the interruptions in funding that have already occurred, top research universities have admitted 15 percent fewer doctoral students for the coming fall, including in fields such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing, according to the Association of American Universities, or AAU. Many didn’t take any new doctoral students at all. Doctoral programs train scientists to teach and conduct research in fields including technology and treatments for medical problems. “America faces the alarming prospect of losing an entire generation of scientific talent,” the AAU says. Just after the start of the second Trump administration, about half of Ph.D. students and postdoctoral researchers in bioengineering said they were likely to leave academia, according to a survey by researchers at Harvard, MIT and elsewhere. The proportion who said they’d likely leave the United States was also up. Three in four U.S.-based researchers overall have considered leaving the country, according to another survey, by the journal Nature, conducted before some of the Trump administration’s harshest actions against universities and colleges. Forty-five percent of faculty in yet another survey, by researchers at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, said they had considered jobs outside of higher education in the last three years, and a third that they had considered opportunities outside of the United States. Most said changes in state or federal policy were instrumental in their job searches. At least 85 scholars have moved to China since the start of 2024, CNN reporting found, including several at the top of their fields — most recently, Nobel Prize-winning chemist Omar Yaghi, who is leaving the University of California, Berkeley, for Tsinghua University in China to help establish an institute that will use AI to speed up the development of new materials. American scientists collectively submitted 32 percent more applications for jobs abroad in the first quarter of last year than in the same period the year before, according to a separate analysis by Nature. U.S. universities “have been magnets for talent because they have provided an exchange: ‘Come build your research lab at our university — you’ll get all these talented students, we have labs, we have government funding,’ ” said Kumar Garg, a science and technology adviser in the Obama administration and now president of Renaissance Philanthropy, which helps channel private funds to research. “If that bundle starts unraveling, this no longer works.” Meanwhile, the flow of international students coming to the United States has slowed dramatically, with as much as a 22 percent decline in the number who arrived last summer compared with the summer before. Nearly six in 10 universities and colleges say the number of applications they received from international students fell again for the academic year about to start, a survey by the Institute of International Education found. More than 40 percent reported a “substantial” decline in applications for graduate study. NAFSA: Association of International Educators and the education technology company JB International project a drop of 111,000 international students this fall, costing the economy $3.4 billion. “The U.S. has thrived because the world’s smartest people flock to the United States, and that is definitely stalling,” said Baty, of the Times Higher. This slide follows federal delays in issuing new student visas, the detentions and deportations of international students for their political activism and screenings of international student applicants’ social media posts. Even before those steps, however — as the price of U.S. higher education continued to rise — “cost was a larger reason” for international students reconsidering coming to the United States, said Rona Aydin, who works with them as founder of the international college admissions counseling company Oriel Admissions. Now, said Aydin, prospective applicants who previously would have only considered American universities “are also thinking about backup countries. That’s a shift.” Yet another rule, restricting international students to four years in the United States, takes effect Sept. 15. Four years is less time than is needed to complete many Ph.D. and other academic programs, and the new limit is likely to further reduce the supply of international students coming to the country. Related: Facing political attack and falling enrollment, colleges take the fight to … each other Also, while it’s still too early to see their effects, new limits on federal loans for graduate study will leave about one-fourth of domestic graduate-school borrowers unable to continue to pay for their educations, projections suggest. In some states, faculty have faced constraints on what they can teach and threats to protections such as tenure. Institutional autonomy at U.S. universities has eroded by 50 percent in the decade ending in 2025, and especially since the first Trump administration, according to the Academic Freedom Index produced by researchers at Germany’s University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. “The decline in institutional autonomy in the United States stands out as a case of fast and steep deterioration,” the researchers wrote in March. Tenure can keep scientists from leaving academia for better-paying jobs in private industry, as more may now do, said Kenan Sahin, author of “American Educational Excellence,” a book about the strengths of the U.S. education system, and a life member of the governing board at MIT, which he attended as an international student before founding what would become a multibillion-dollar tech company. Those researchers without tenure who remain at universities may stick to “safe” ideas rather than seek out potential breakthroughs and risk failure, Sahin said. Seventy percent of Americans now say higher education in the United States is going in the wrong direction, up from 56 percent in 2020, according to Pew. Adults who went to college are more likely to say this than those who didn’t. That falloff in confidence began before the current political attacks and is largely because of people’s skepticism about what they’re getting for their money, Pew’s and other surveys show. The United States spends among the most in the world on higher education, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD. But it ranks 15th and 17th, respectively, in the proportion of 25- to 34-year-olds who have degrees, depending on whether their parents did or didn’t go to college. That’s down from second overall 20 years ago. Related: As college graduates fret over finding jobs, a record shortage of workers is projected The impact of these many intersecting trends is already underway. There have been more than 320 instances of college and university layoffs, program cuts, department eliminations and closings since January 2024, according to the database CollegeCuts, which tracks this. Even Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences is running a $350 million deficit, which it attributes partly to an increased federal tax on its endowment. “Universities went through a multidecade period where they existed in a bipartisan halo, where people might disagree about lots of things, but having cutting-edge universities was a thing everybody could agree on and was willing to invest in,” Garg said. U.S. higher education institutions “really are deep wells of talent. Their strengths are real,” he said. But “we should not sleep on the fact that if we don’t adapt and navigate this moment, we’re going to wake up and all of the premier universities won’t be in the United States, and we’ll wonder how that happened.” Contact writer Jon Marcus at 212-678-7556, jmarcus@hechingerreport.org or jpm.82 on Signal. This story about threats to U.S. higher education was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our higher education newsletter.

2026-09-21 邹茜芫 教育资讯 英-中
查看更多

400所高校都在用的翻译教学平台

试译宝所属母公司