You're probably aware of the basictrends. The financial rewards to education have increased over the past few decades, but men fail to benefit.

    In elementary and high school, male academic performance is lagging. Boys earn three-quarters of the D's and F's. By college, men are clearly behind. Only 40 percent of bachelor's degree go tomen, along with 40 percent of master's degree.

    Thanks to their lower skills, men are dropping out of the labor force. In 1954, 96 percent of the American men between the ages of 25 and 54 worked. Today, that number is down to 80 percent. In Friday's jobs report, male labor force participation reached an all-time low.

    Millions of men are collecting disability benefits. Even many of those who do have a job are doing poorly. According to Michael Greenstone of the Hamilton Project, annual earnings foraverage prime-age males have dropped by 28 percent over the past 40 years.

    Men still dominate (主宰) the top of the corporate ladder because many women take time off to raise children,but women lead or are gaining nearly everywhere else. Women in their 20 soutearn men in their 20s. Twelve out of the 15 fastest-growing professions are dominated by women.

    Over the years, many of us have employeda certain theory to explain men's economic decline. It is that the information-age economy rewards qualities that women are more likely topossess.

    To succeed today, you have to be able tosit still and focus attention in school at an early age. You have to beemotionally sensitive and aware of context. You have to communicate smoothly. For genetic and cultural reasons, many men are not good at these.

    But, in her fascinating new book, TheEnd of Men, Hanna Rosin suggests a different theory. It has to do with adaptability. Women, Rosin argues, are like immigrants (移民) who have moved to a new country. They see a new social context, and they flexibly adapt to new circumstances. Men are like immigrants who have physically moved to a new country but who have kept their minds in the old one. They speak the old language. They follow the old customs. Men are more likely to be rigid; women are more fluid.

    This theory has less to do with born qualities and more to do with social position. When there's big social change, the people who were on the top of the old order are bound to stick to the old ways. The people who were on the bottom are bound to experience a burst of energy. They are going to explore their new surroundings more enthusiastically.

    Rosin reports from working-class Alabama. The women she meets are flooding into new jobs and new opportunities —going back to college, pursuing new careers. The men are waiting around for the jobs left and are never coming back. They are strangely immune (免疫的）to new options. In the Auburn-Opelika region, the average female income is 140 percent of the average male income.

    Rosin is not saying that women are winners in a global gender (性别) war or that they are doing supersimply because men are doing worse. She's just saying women are adapting to today's economy more flexibly than men. There's a lot of evidence to supporther case.

A study by the National Federation of Independent Business found that small businesses owned by women outperformed male-owned small business during the last recession (衰退). Infinance, women who switch firms are more likely to see their performanceimprove, whereas men are likely to see theirs decline. There's even evidencethat women are better able to adjust to divorce. Today, more women than men seetheir incomes rise by 25 percent after a marital breakup.

    Forty years ago, men and women stuck tocertain theory, what it meant to be a man or a woman. Young women today, Rosinargues, have abandoned both feminist (女权主义者）and prefeminist preconceptions. Men still stick to the masculinity (大男子主义的）rules, which limit their visionand their movement.

   If she's right, then men will have toacknowledge that they are strangers in a strange land.

    Imagine that you're looking at your company-issued smartphone and you notice an e-mail from Linkedln:“These companies are looking for candidate like you!” You aren't necessarily searching for a job, but you're always open to opportunities, so out of curiosity, you click on the link. A few minutes later your boss appears at your desk. “We've noticed that you're spending more time on Linkedln lately, so I wanted to talk with you about your career and whether you're happy here,” she says Uh-oh.

    It's an awkward scene. Attrition(损耗) has always been expensive for companies, but in many industries the cost of losing good workers is rising, owing to tight labor markets. Thus companies are making greater efforts to predict which workers are at high risk of leaving so that managers can try to stop them. Methods range from electronic monitor to sophisticated analyses of employees' social media lives.

    Some of this work may be a reason to let employees to quit. In general, people leave their jobs because they don't like their boss, don't see opportunities for promotion or growth, or are offered a higher pay; these reasons have held steady for years.

    New research conducted by CEB, a Washington-based technology company, looks not just at why workers quit but also at when. “We've learned that what really affects people is their sense of how they're doing compared with other people in their peer group, or with where they thought they would be at a certain point in life, says Brian Kropp, who heads CEB's HR practice. “We've learned to focus on moments that allow people to make these comparisons.”

    Technology also provides clues about which star employees might be eyeing the exit. Companies can tell whether employees using work computers or phones are spending time on (or even just opening e-mails from) career websites, and research shows that more firms are paying attention to these things. Large companies have also begun tracking badge swipes(浏览痕迹)—employees' use of an ID to enter and exit the building or the parking garage—to identify patterns that suggest a worker may be interviewing for a job.

根据短文内容，选择最佳答案，并将选定答案的字母标号填在题前括号内。

    The search engine Google celebrated on Thursday the 110th birthday of the first Native American woman engineer. Google honored Mary Ross with a special Google Doodle on its homepage.

    Ross was born on August 9, 1908, in the state of Oklahoma. She was the great-granddaughter of John Ross, the longest—serving chief of the Cherokee Nation. Her work is considered important to the early stages of the age of space travel.

    Ross showed special abilities in math and science from an early age. As a student, she developed an interest in aviation, or the practice of flying aircraft. She went on to earn a master's degree in mathematics from Colorado State Teachers College, now called the University of Northern Colorado.

    During World War II, Ross began working for the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation as a mathematician. She earned a special certification in the field from the University of California in1949.Ross was later chosen to join Lockheed's top—secret Skunk Works team that worked on aircraft designs. The name refers to a group that is permitted to work independently on advanced projects. She was the only female engineer among the team's 40 members.

    Early on, she researched defense systems. By the late 1950s, her work centered on satellites and a series of space rockets called Agenda. The rockets were extremely important in the 1960s during the Apollo moon program.

    Ross also helped develop early design ideas for space travel between planets, including flyby space flights to study Venus and Mars. Ross retired from Lockheed in 1973.But she continued to give talks at high schools and colleges to encourage more women and Native Americans to study engineering. She died in 2008, a few months before her 100th birthday.

    Many celebrated Ross' life on social media. Twitter user Aaron Perez, for example, wrote: “Mary Ross was an engineer who pioneered in the field of satellites. I never would have known if it wasn't for the doodle. Women engineers deserve more recognition.”

    I was desperately nervous about becoming car-free. But eight months ago our car was hit by a passing vehicle and it was destroyed. No problem, I thought: we'll buy another. But the insurance payout didn't even begin to cover the costs of buying a new car－I worked out that, with the loan, we'd need plus petrol, insurance, parking permits and tax, we would make a payment as much as £600 a month.

    And that's when I had my fancy idea. Why not just give up having a car at all? I live in London. We have a railway station behind our house, a tube station 10 minutes' walk away, and a bus stop at the end of the street. A new car club had just opened in our area, and one of its shiny little red Peugeots was parked nearby. If any family in Britain could live without a car, I reasoned, then surely we were that family.

    But my new car-free idea, sadly, wasn't shared by my family. My teenage daughters were horrified. What would their friends think about our family being "too poor to afford a car"? (I wasn't that bothered what they thought, and I suggested the girls should take the same approach.)

    My friends, too, were astonished at our plan. What would happen if someone got seriously ill overnight and needed to go to hospital? (an ambulance) How would the children get to and from their many events? (buses and trains) People smiled as though this was another of my mad ideas, before saying they were sure I'd soon realize that a car was a necessity.

    Eight months on, I wonder whether we'll ever own a car again. The idea that you "have to" own a car, especially if you live in a city, is all in the mind. I live—and many other citizens do too—in a place that has never been better served by public transport, and yet car ownership has never been higher. We worry about rising car costs, but we'd be better off asking something much more basic: do I really need a car? Certainly the answer is no, and I'm a lot richer because I dared to ask the question.

    It's nothing unusual for people to multitask nowadays. But the ability to do a number of things at the same time could be different between the two sexes.

    A team of UK researchers recently compared the performances of 120 women and 120 men in a computer test about switching(转换) between tasks of counting and shape recognition.

    Men equalled women when tasks were done one at a time. But when the tasks were mixed up, there was a clear difference. According to the paper published in the journal BMC Psychology, both women and men slowed down and made more mistakes as the switching became more rapid. But men were slower, taking 77 percent longer to answer, while women took 69 percent longer.

    To make the experiment more connected to day-to-day life, researchers tried a second test. A group of women and men were given eight minutes to complete a series of everyday tasks, such as finding restaurants on a map, doing simple math problems, answering a phone call, or deciding how they would search for a lost key in a field.

    Once again, women performed better than men in the test, especially in the key-searching task.

    Where do women get the ability to keep organized under pressure better than men? Researchers believe that it has its origins in evolution(进化). In ancient times, women had to keep an eye on children while cooking meals. Meanwhile, men only needed to focus on hunting.

    However, as with all studies, the results don't necessarily apply to every single person in the world. "We don't mean that men can't multitask, or that only women can," researcher Keith Laws of the University of Hertfordshire, UK, told BBC News. "We are saying that the average woman is better able to organize her time and switch between tasks than the average man."

    When he was 22, Rob Stewart traveled the world for four years. He wanted to call attention to the mistreatment of sharks. His 2007 film, Sharkwater, documents the cruel practice of removing sharks' fins (鳍) for money and leaving the animals to die. In his latest documentary, Revolution, Stewart takes on an even bigger challenge: climate change.

    The Canadian filmmaker says that climate change has harmed people and places everywhere: "It is stronger than any government or organization. If we educate people, they will make better decisions about protecting natural resources. "

    According to a recent report on climate change, "The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have reduced, and sea levels have risen." These developments are endangering crops, wildlife, fish, and even people.

    Stewart says that the consequences of climate change will be irreversible unless people take action, especially young people."It's up to kids to be the moral compass (道德指南) of society," he believes, "and say, 'Guys, this is not right.'"

    Many kids took action after seeing Sharkwater. Elementary school students in the Northern Mariana Islands, for example, got their local government to ban the sale of shark fins.

    Felix Finkbeiner, 17, of Germany is also part of the "revolution" to save the planet. In 2007, Felix started a youth group called Plant-for-the-Planet, whose motto is "Stop Talking. Start Planting." The group raises money to plant trees. So far, Plant-for-the-Planet has planted nearly 200 trees around the world. "Future generations are the ones who will be suffering the most from inaction (无作 )," Felix says. His goal is to plant millions of additional trees.

    "When we started four years ago," Felix tells Stewart in Revolution, "we thought we had to save the polar bear. We thought we had to save the environment. But soon after, we found out that it's about our future, that we have to save our own future."