In her new book, “The Smartest Kids in the World,” Amanda Ripley, an investigative journalist, tells the story of Tom, a high-school student from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, who decides to spend his senior year in Warsaw, Poland. Poland is a surprising educational success story: in the past decade, the country raised students' test scores from significantly below average to well above it. Polish kids have now outscored(超过……分数) American kids in math and science, even though Poland spends, on average, less than half as much per student as the United States does. One of the most striking differences between the high school Tom attended in Gettysburg and the one he ends up at in Warsaw is that the latter has no football team, or, for that matter, teams of any kind.

    That American high schools waste more time and money on sports than on math is an old complaint. This is not a matter of how any given student who plays sports does in school, but of the culture and its priorities. This December, when the latest Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) results are announced, it's safe to predict that American high-school students will once again display their limited skills in math and reading, outscored not just by students in Poland but also by students in places like South Korea, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland, Singapore, and Japan. Meanwhile, they will have played some very exciting football games, which will have been breathlessly written up in their hometown papers.

    Why does this situation continue? Well, for one thing, kids like it. And for another, according to Ripley, parents seem to like the arrangement, too. She describes a tour she took of a school in Washington D.C., which costs thirty thousand dollars a year. The tour leader—a mother with three children in the school—was asked about the school's flaws(瑕疵). When she said that the math program was weak, none of the parents taking the tour reacted. When she said that the football program was weak, the parents suddenly became concerned. “Really?” one of them asked worriedly, “What do you mean?”

    One of the ironies(讽刺) of the situation is that sports reveal what is possible. American kids' performance on the field shows just how well they can do when expectations are high. It's too bad that their test scores show the same thing.

    You have probably been told by your high school instructor that writing is an important and practical skill. However, you may not be convinced that the ability to write will be important in your own future. If so, you will be surprised at the results of a recent survey by the National Institute of Education. More than four thousand working men and women who had graduated fifteen years earlier were asked to name the courses they would have taken in college if they had known better. The designer of the survey expected people to name courses in computer science, mathematics, or business. But the course most often mentioned was writing.

    If you already have a job, you are probably not surprised at their answers. Many jobs require the ability to write. Despite the increasing use of the telephone and the computer, much information must be communicated in writing.Some ten million people—managers, engineers, sales representatives, and many others— write regularly as part of their jobs. Summaries, reports, reports, letters and speeches are required in today's work world. The ability to write, therefore, is an important skill. The successful individual is almost always the one who can communicate successfully in writing.

    Writing communicates your thoughts and feelings to others; it also tells you something about yourself. Maybe this is what Eldridge Cleaver had in mind in his autobiography, “I started to write... to save myself...I had to seek out the truth... I had to find out who I am and what I want to be ,what type of man I should be ,and what I could do to become the best of which I was capable.”

    Do you want to live another 100 years or more? Some experts say that scientific advances will one day enable humans to last tens of years beyond what is now seen as the natural limit of the human life span.

    “I think we are knocking at the door of immortality (永生),” said Michael Zey, a Montclair State University business professor and author of two books on the future. “I think by 2075 we will see it and that's a conservative estimate (保守的估计).”

    At the conference in San Francisco, Donald Louria, a professor at New Jersey Medical School in Newark said advances in using genes as well as nanotechnology (纳米技术) make it likely that humans will live in the future beyond what has been possible in the past. “There is a great effort so that people can live from 120 to 180 years,” he said. “Some have suggested that there is no limit and that people could live to 200 or 300 or 500 years.”

    However, many scientists who specialize in aging are doubtful about it and say the human body is just not designed to last past about 120 years. Even with healthier lifestyles and less disease, they say failure of the brain and organs will finally lead all humans to death.

    Scientists also differ on what kind of life the super aged might live. “It remains to be seen if you pass 120, you know; could you be healthy enough to have good quality of life?” said Leonard Poon, director of the University of Georgia Gerontology Centre. “At present people who could get to that point are not in good health at all.”

    Growing up in one of the poorest communities with most crimes in Los Angeles, US, being raised by a poorly-educated single mother and attending the worst-quality public school, not many people expected much of me, so I chose to expect something of myself.

    On my 12th birthday, I bought a poster of Harvard University to hang in my room. Being at Harvard became my dream: I saw myself attending class in Sanders Theater, studying in Widener Library and eating in Annenberg Hall. Driven by this dream, I kept studying hard. I'd begin my day by asking myself these two questions: “What do I want in my life?” and “Are the things I am doing today going to get me closer to that life?”

    Asking myself the questions gave me the courage to ask over 50 Harvard, students for advice on my application essays; it gave me the energy to study just one more hour on my SATs when others were asleep; and it gave me the determination to apply for just one more scholarship when already refused many times. Moreover, reminding myself of my goal each day made it easy to say no to the same choices my friends made, because they would never get me closer to my goal. I found that even being poor could not take away my power to decide what I choose to do with my life.

    Every day I could feel myself getting closer and closer to my goal as my writing got better, my SAT score increased, and my scholarship offers started coming in. On March 31st, 2011, an email arrived from Harvard. The first word was “Congratulations!”. Tears of joy filled my eyes.

    Who you are today is the result of the decisions you made yesterday, and who you will be tomorrow will be the result of the choices you make today. Who do you want to be tomorrow?

    People from East Asia tend to have more difficulty than those from Europe in distinguishing facial expressions — and a new report published online in Current Biology explains why.

    Rachael Jack from University of Glasgow, said that rather than scanning evenly across a face as Westerners do, Easterners fix their attention on the eyes.

    "We show that Easterners and Westerners look at different face features to read facial expressions," Jack said. "Westerners look at the eyes and the mouth in equal measure, while Easterners favor the eyes and ignore the mouth."

    According to Jack and his colleagues, the discovery shows that communication of human emotions is more complex than previously believed. As a result, facial expressions that had been considered universally recognizable cannot be used reliably to convey emotions in cross­cultural situations.

    The researchers studied cultural differences in the recognition of facial expressions by recording the facial movements of 13 Western people and 13 Eastern people while they observed pictures of expressive faces and put them into categories: happy, sad, surprised, fearful, disgusted, or angry. They compared how accurately participants read those facial expressions using their particular eye movement strategies.

    It turned out that Easterners focused much greater attention on the eyes and made significantly more errors than Westerners did. "The cultural difference in eye movements that they show is probably a reflection of cultural difference in facial expressions," Jack said. "Our data suggests that while Westerners use the whole face to convey emotions, Easterners use the eyes more and the mouth less."

    In short, the data shows that facial expressions are not universal signals of human emotions. From here on, examining how cultural factors have diversified these basic social skills will help our understanding of human emotions. Otherwise, when it comes to communicating emotions across cultures, Easterners and Westerners will find themselves lost in translation.

    Science has a lot of uses. It can uncover laws of nature, cure diseases, make bombs, and help bridges to stand up. Indeed science is so good at what it does that there's always a temptation(诱惑) to drag it into problems where it may not be helpful. David Brooks, author of The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement, appears to be the latest in a long line of writers who have failed to resist the temptation.

    Brooks gained fame for several books. His latest book The Social Animal, however, is more ambitious and serious than his earlier books. It is an attempt to deal with a set of weighty topics. The book focuses on big questions: What has science revealed about human nature? What are the sources of character? And why are some people happy and successful while others aren't?

    To answer these questions, Brooks surveys a wide range of disciplines(学科). Considering this, you might expect the book to be a dry recitation of facts. But Brooks has structured his book in an unorthodox(非常规的), and perhaps unfortunate, way. Instead of introducing scientific theories, he tells a story, within which he tries to make his points, perhaps in order to keep the reader's attention. So as Harold and Erica, the hero and heroine in his story, live through childhood, we hear about the science of child development and as they begin to date we hear about the theory of sexual attraction. Brooks carries this through to the death of one of his characters.

    On the whole, Brooks' story is acceptable if uninspired. As one would expect, his writing is mostly clear and, to be fair, some chapters stand out above the rest. I enjoyed, for instance, the chapter in which Harold discovers how to think on his own. While Harold and Erica are certainly not strong or memorable characters, the more serious problems with The Social Animal lie elsewhere. These problems partly involve Brooks' attempt to translate his tale into science.