考研之前就决定写一篇经验贴回馈给学弟学妹以及帮助过我的学长学姐以及北鼎教育。本科是普通二本院校，但是因为一直以来对于英语的热爱。促使自己决定跨专业考研。

那么就按照每一个考试科目来说。

政治：

反正北外进复试也不看政治，只要能过线就好。我自己是先把教材都细看了一遍，然后在考研前几个月开始用肖秀荣1000题按小节一边写一边记，最后在红宝书上勾画出了历年的重点进行背诵，没怎么做往年真题或者模拟题，就这么去考试了。考试的时候自己觉得选择题怎么那么不确定啊，后面两个答题完全没时间慢慢写，所以花了15分钟随便写了写就该交卷了。本来还在担心会不会不到55分，结果证明是自己杞人忧天，最后还考了65……因此个人感觉还是不要花费太多的时间在政治上。

二外（日语）：

日语其实我也没怎么花时间复习，考前听学姐说N2水平就足够了，于是我也只去学到N2的级别然后考了个证。考前复习的时候就只是把历年真题都做了一遍，归纳常考的要点背一背，再翻一翻红宝书蓝宝书看看。北外的日语考题其实比N2还简单，没有听力，只有词汇、语法和阅读，这三块都是选择题，最后再加个日译中，只要能过N2的水平就完全不需要担心了。我最后考了89分，倒是远超预期，毕竟我之前是觉得上70分就好了……

基础英语：

这个的复习就真的是做题做题再做题了。考前我是做了历年的专八阅读和改错真题，看完了星火那一整本考研英语五大题源（这本书不推荐写上面的题目，题出的很不好，提供的译文也比较差，所以看看文章就好），星火的那本英语专业考研名校真题我是挑了一些题型跟北外相近的来写，其他的就没什么了。至于大家都推荐的经济学人，我觉得的确非常好，只是我太懒了所以基本没怎么看而已。北外的基英题目总的来说还是很基础的，题目完全都看得懂，只是不一定选得对答案……我自己考完出来就觉得很不靠谱，感觉所有的选项在我看来都不太对可是还是得硬着头皮去选。不过分数意外的还可以，有121，这个大概跟人品也有很大关系吧。

写作：

写作一直是我最薄弱的一环，之前考六级的时候写作整整拉了我三十分我都不好意思说。所以考前写作这块我是复习得最用心的。听从学姐的建议，我也用GRE的题目进行练习，虽然GRE参考书很多，但其实都大同小异，我个人觉得随便用哪本都无所谓，毕竟写作只能靠练，参考书写得天花乱坠也没用。不过对于之前没有接受过系统的写作训练的跨专业考研的同学来说，参考书还是有些价值的，最重要的是要学会怎么写辩证的议论文，也就是一篇议论文的基本格式，introduction,body,conclusion，开头怎么写，中间要分成几个方面，结尾怎么写，都是需要参考一下的。不过中文的GRE参考书也就看看写作基本框架，具体的遣词造句就千万不要相信这些书，它们都写得不太专业。我的老师给我推荐了一本作文书，我觉得挺适合考研水平的，叫做Steps to Writing Well，里面详细教了这三大块要怎么写，什么样的开头给人耳目一新的感觉，什么样的结尾可以画龙点睛，还举出了比较烂俗的反例供参考，读着其实还挺有乐趣的。我的写作练习过程大概就是先把GRE参考书有关写作框架的部分看了下，接着在考前一两个月开始每一两天一篇800字作文（一开始速度慢可以不计时，等写了几篇有

了速度上来了一定要记得计时写），题目就用的GRE给出的官方例题。用官方例题的好处在于，官方同时也给出了参考例文，1～6分都有，所以写完以后可以自己对着例文看看自己不足之处在哪里，别人的闪光点在哪，有什么思路可以借鉴。不过能找到人帮忙批改作文是最好了，我是找了一个同学给我看每篇练习，跟她讨论哪里不足怎么改进，所以进展很快。如果速度快把例题的topic都写完了，可以写一下参考书中给出的其他topic，不过书里的那些编者自己写的参考范文大家借鉴下思路就好，语言方面还是let it go吧，我都不忍心看。

说下考试时候的情况。今年作文要求的字数又少了，summary和作文好像都降到了600字左右，难度算是降低了些，不过其实还是感觉时间不够用（我作文总是刚刚好写完）。summary好像是关于歧视的话题，说是一些为了反对性别和种族歧视的政策最后又变成了另一种歧视。我基本没练过summary，所以就临场发挥，先总结作者主要观点再讲自己的想法。大作文是关于环境，这个我考前正好写过类似主题，所以看到这个题目就非常开心，结果乐极生悲写偏了题。考完以后我心里各种忐忑，害怕老师一个手抖就给我打个80分。纠结了两天我也看开了，自暴自弃准备等死，结果作文倒考了123，比基英还高，不得不说是改卷老师对我太好。

等待初试分数出来的那段时间是非常痛苦的，北外的效率是令人发指的低，所以为了排解痛苦同时也是做好两手准备我就去面试了下工作。身边考研的同学已经纷纷知道了初试成绩甚至有些都快复试了但是北外连什么时候出成绩都还杳无消息，这样的日子过了好多天，终于到了出成绩的下午，在忐忑不安地点开了查询页面后，竟然发现自己考得比预想中高很多，心中的惊喜简直无法言说。但是成绩公布到复试之间只有很短的复习时间，只能急急忙忙随便看了些东西。 北鼎老师建议大家，应该沉着准备复试。赢取更多复习时间。

北鼎教育是全国唯一专门致力于北京外国语大学考研全科辅导、名校翻译硕士考研全科辅导的高端教育品牌，20xx年由外语教育专家创办，拥有北外考研所有专业的辅导师资，翻译硕士考研全科师资和翻译资格证考官专家师资！

北外考研各科状元每年有80%是北鼎学员，报考北外研究生的考生每年有90%的同学在购买北鼎教育的资料，北鼎教育北外考研专业课辅导初试通过率 86%，复试录取率近100%！见证专业品牌的绝对实力！

中国考研十大品牌-北鼎教育-北外考研一次成功！

北鼎地址：北京市海淀区中关村南大街铸诚大厦1116（地铁人民大学站C口，距北外一站车程）

咨询电话：400-001-5230； 010-56209730；010-56203009

工作时间：9：00-17:30（周六日正常上班）

北鼎官网：www.beiding.org

北外考研与外语专业考研论坛：www.beiwaibbs.com

 

第二篇：20xx北外国际新闻复习经验

北外放榜已经有一段时间了，大家都很积极的分享自己的经验，国传的帖子已经铺天盖地了，而国新的却很少有人着笔一二。本来是轮不到我来写这个经验帖的，因为十分肯定自己绝对是最后一名进的，怎么好意思写呢。但是群里面催得紧，小生又是国新唯一的一个男生，只好斗胆胡诌上几句了。

听说明年的国新考试方法会大变，具体怎么变乔老爷也没说，所以仅按照今年的情况来写，写的不好诸位手下留情。

小生的初试分数如下：

英语 80 政治69 国际新闻事务115 写作131

复试分数线为：

{英语(>=48)+政治(>=52)+[国际新闻事务+写作](>=245)}>=345，公式中的四个分数要求都应达到。虽然是只有345分的总分要求，但是专业分很高，估计进如复试的同学没有低于390分的。

国新考试的四门科目是：统考英语、政治、国际新闻事务和写作。一下就按照这个顺序来写准备的方法。

1.统考英语。考国际新闻专业的大半都是英语专业出身，自然不怕区区的统考。况且英语的分数是在低的可怜。小生的复习方法其实就是做真题，截止到考研当天，共做了5套真题。当然除此之外也作了很多基础工作，基本每天都要泛读三篇经济学人，精读两篇。泛读主要是练习自己阅读的专注度和速度，精读是为了理解句子的含义和增加词汇量。当时并没想着押题，所以经济学人也是很久前在淘宝上买的，都是xx年的老杂志，满篇经济危机的文章，每天读完心情必定抑郁不已。

2.政治。政治9月份才开始复习。只买了一套红宝书，一本肖秀荣的1000题。不过在考研前才将将看完红宝，1000题也只做了不到20道。所以大家不要学我。正确的做法应该是九月十月看完红宝书，十一月做强化练习，十二月背诵重要知识点，我一个政治考了近80分的哥们就是这么做的。

3.国际新闻实务。说实话，这门考试也是最不知道如何准备的，新人在问的最多的问题也是 如何练习新闻编译。

其实这门专业一考的不仅是编译：

首先是对新闻写作的基本知识的理解，详见黎信老师的蓝皮书 英语对外新闻报到指南 的前两章内容；

第二是新闻写作的一些手法和技巧的了解，题型可能会是对一篇报道的分析，因为我全是自学，这方面没有接触过所以答得时候只好自由发挥了；

最后就是汉英新闻编译。在练习之前需要学习刘其中老师的 汉英新闻编译 一书。而我当时的练习方法很简单，首先我做了从08到xx年的真题，因为xx年不考这个所以没有那年的真题。通过做真题我把自己的练习方法确定为以练习导语编译和500字内的领导人的讲话稿编译为主。因为观察到这几年的材料都是温家宝总理的讲话，所以我从新华网上把温总理从20xx年x月开始的讲话稿全部打印了出来（结果今年考的是胡锦涛主席的...），长的就用来做编译，短的就用来写导语。就这样，我上午学习经济学人，背单词（这个是为了下一门写作），下午就写三个导语，一篇500字内的汉英编译。本来开始还想练习英汉编译，但是时

间实在不够就放弃了。练习的时候一定要注意提高自己的速度，之后注意总结新闻的写作范式和用词。其实新闻英语的语言真的是很简单的，需要的不是高深的词汇，只不过是选择恰当的信息，进行合适的翻译。自己练完之后还要比对新华网上对应讲稿的英文新闻是怎么写的。本来是想模仿Chinadaily的，但是它的文章实在信息量太大，难度较高，所以选取的都是新华网上的新闻。后来在复试之后有好心的研友告诉我新华网上的英文新闻都是汉语新闻直接翻译过去的，顿时晕倒。这个尴尬的经历告诉我可能重要的不是你到底选了什么材料，而是你有没有去大量的练习，去认真的总结。我不是北外的，也没有老师帮忙看过我的编译到底怎么样，但是在自己的练习中确实会感到自己在慢慢的提高。

4.写作。写作考试又为：summary+commentary+issue。当时我也不知道该怎么写，后来看了一篇师姐的经验帖顿时茅塞顿开。十分感谢这位师姐。全文如下

--------------------------------------------

[转]来自一位北外国际新闻的师姐

很多准备考北外的同学心中对作文很疑惑：到底什么样的作文是符合要求的，应该是什么样子的作文呢？其实我到现在还不知道这个答案。当时我是写了一下让老师看了看。在考试的时候我也是按照这种思路写的，得了136分，让我喜出望外，因为当时有些紧张，写得有些乱了，质量还不及练笔的作文，因为练笔的作文我用了很长时间写的，而考试时就是在3小时 之内写完的。大家可以参考一下（难免会有错误，只是给大家看个可行的形式而已，不要太关注内容了，相信大家会写得更好的）。不要给自己太大的压力了，想不通的时候就想想类似这样的文章都可以，还有什么不行啊。加油吧！

Summary of the two views

The author holds the view that the model minority thesis, claiming Asian Americans to be successful judging from their high educational attainment levels, high median incomes and so forth, doesn’t make sense. The figures the thesis based on are misleading and he enumerates and analyzes 6 points to support his view. First, most Asian Americans live in states with higher incomes as well as higher costs of living and their high incomes are attributed to more workers per family. Second, Asian Americans are unevenly distributed in the economy and are concentrated in occupations that don’t pay as well as other jobs in the same industry. Third, Asian Americans have a camouflaged high underemployment. Forth, the high participation rate in works of Asian American women is in fact due to the fact that their husbands’ low wages and their earnings don’t go with their full-time work and education. Fifth, Asian Americans’ educational attainments stress educational level rather than returns to education. Sixth, the “model minority” image homogenizes Asian Americans and hides their difference and obscures the poverty within their ranks. The author also believes that the model minority thesis is a kind of political rhetoric which perpetuates Asian Americans’ inequality and exacerbates relations between them and other minorities.

And the view the author criticizes is that Asian Americans are viewed as model minority and other minorities should learn from Asian Americans. They should work hard to pull themselves up by the bootstraps instead of using militant protests to obtain their rights.

Commentary

It’s undeniable that the status quo of Asian Americans has been enhanced. The model minority thesis mentioned in this article to some extent exaggerates the success, so I’m in part approval of the author’s analysis on that stereotype. Asian Americans are not as successful as claimed, they are still interior in some respects by comparison, uneven occupation distribution, camouflaged high underemployment, to name but a few. There is still much to do to be the real model minority.

However, the model minority thesis is not built in one day. It must have been shaped and colored through a long run and there must be reasons for its coming into existence. For my part, one of the main reasons lies in the predominant character of Asian Americans, decedent from their Asian ancestors, that is, industriousness. It’s wildly acknowledged that Asians are more diligent and hard-working than their counterparts. People better their lives and earn their fortunes by working hard. Diligence by nature is a good thing, but it may work the other way when impose diligence on people who nudge diligence into the last word to talk about. What’s worse is that people of this kind don’t work hard and they are envious of those who make a fortune by working hard. Keeping pets with good stuffs has always been disputable in the present stage. In my view, that discussion initially results from some people’s instinct that we intelligent human beings, as primate, are superior to any other animals and this superiority should be distinguished by means of material stuffs. For instance, we human are expected to have premium food, wear beautiful clothes, live in decent houses while animals deserve treating with leftovers, rags and derelict cartons, as their endearing houses. People are born this way. They make comparisons all the time, even between human and animals, let alone between one and another. And this is the case in the U.S.A. Because of some historical reasons, Asian Americans and other minorities were once in a lower position than that of the Americans, which gives rise to the superiority of the Americans. And nowadays, the once interior nations are emerging as stronger and stronger powers. The Americans are losing their superiority and they cannot take this reality. As a result, they sometimes make biased and distorted comments on the rising power. Some radicals even rob and destroy Asian Americans’ businesses. And a smart group of people just try to take advantage of Asian Americans’ merit, industriousness and the success they have achieved. On one hand, they dodge the responsibility of trouble other minorities are involved in and say to them, “Your bad conditions are none of our business. Learn from Asian Americans to work hard instead of complaining.” And on the other hand, this will result in the conflict between Asian Americans and other minorities so as to hinder each other. You know, people hate to be compared, especially when they don’t have the advantage.

History has taught us a lesson that to be left behind is to be bullied by others. It’s in particular conspicuous when it comes to living in another country. As far as I’m concerned, Asian Americans ought to continue their way of life to improve their livelihoods through hard-working. In addition, make model minority real model minority. Once they are strong enough, it will spare much trouble.

--------------------------------------------------------------

因为没有合适的材料，我曾经拿经济学人做过练习，还在网上找了许多资料，切身的感受是练习的材料真的不重要，重要的是去练。summary 要以第三方的角度去写，要逐条分析作者的论点；commentary不要脱离材料的话题，但是可以扩展。至于issue则完全走的是gre的路子，找了一本新东方的书，基本按照：开头（说明现象或错误观点+反驳提出自己的观点)，中间（举出两到三点，要有事实论据），让步（举出一个相反的例子来补充），结尾（总结升华）。

下面是一个自己觉得不错的summary写作范例

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Children Must be Taught to Tell Right from Wrong

William Kilpatrick

Many of today’s young people have a difficult time seeing any moral dimension (道德层面) to their actions. There are a number of reasons why that’s true, but none more prominent than a failed system of education that eschews (回避) teaching children the traditional moral values that bind Americans together as a society and a culture. That failed approach, called “decision-making,” was introduced in schools 25 years ago. It tells children to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. It replaced “character education. (品格教育)” Character education didn’t ask children to reinvent the moral wheel (浪费时间重新发明早已存在的道德标准); instead, it encouraged them to practice habits of courage, justice and self-control.

In the 1940s, when a character education approach prevailed, teachers worried about students chewing gum; today they worry about robbery and rape.

Decision-making curriculums pose thorny (棘手的) ethical dilemmas to students, leaving them with the impression that all morality is problematic and that all questions of right and wrong are in dispute. Youngsters are forced to question values and virtues they’ve never acquired in the first place or upon which they have only a tenuous (薄弱的) hold. The assumption behind this method is that students will arrive at good moral conclusions if only they are given the chance. But the actual result is moral confusion.

For example, a recent national study of 1,700 sixth- to ninth-graders revealed that a majority of boys considered rape to be acceptable under certain conditions. Astoundingly, many of the girls agreed.

This kind of moral illiteracy is further encouraged by values-education (价值观教育) programs that are little more than courses in self-esteem (自尊). These programs are based on the questionable assumption that a child who feels good about himself or herself won’t want to do anything wrong. But it is just as reasonable to make an opposite assumption: namely, that a child who has uncritical self-regard will conclude that he or she can’t do anything bad.

Such naive self-acceptance results in large part from the non-directive (无指导性的), non-judgmental (无是非观的), as-long-as-you-feel-comfortable-with-your-choices mentality (思想) that has pervaded (渗透) public education for the last two and one-half decades. Many of today’s drug education, sex education and values-education courses are based on the same 1960s philosophy that helped fuel the explosion in teen drug use and sexual activity in the first place. Meanwhile, while educators are still fiddling with (胡乱摆弄) outdated “feel-good” approaches,

New York, Washington, and Los Angeles are burning. Youngsters are leaving school believing that matters of right and wrong are always merely subjective. If you pass a stranger on the street and decide to murder him because you need money—if it feels right—you go with that feeling. Clearly, murder is not taught in our schools, but such a conclusion—just about any conclusion—can be reached and justified using the decision-making method.

It is time to consign (寄出) the fads (风尚) of “decision-making” and “non-judgmentalism” to the ash heap of failed policies, and return to a proved method. Character education provides a much more realistic approach to moral formation. It is built on an understanding that we learn morality not by debating it but by practicing it.

Sample

Summary of “Children Must be Taught to Tell Right from Wrong”

In his essay “Children Must be Taught to Tell Right from Wrong,” William Kilpatrick argues fervently that the “decision-making” approach to the moral education of American youth, which replaced “character education” 25 years ago, has prevented juveniles from behaving and thinking in accordance with the traditional moral principles that are fundamental to American society.

According to Kilpatrick, decision-making methods instill in students a wrong belief that all norms of morality are subjective constructs with only relative truth in them and therefore can be interpreted flexibly and evenquestioned. This belief deprives them of the chance to secure solid moral standards and induces misconceptions about what should be clearly right or wrong.

In parallel with this inadequacy of the “decision-making” approach are the unexpected outcomes of those values-education programs focusing on students’ self-esteem that subscribe to the “non-judgmental” mindset dominating “decision-making” curriculums. Their mistaken assumption that feeling good warrants morality excuses students from criticizing and disciplining their own behaviors.

Basing his conclusion on his analysis of the fundamental flaws of the decision-making approach, Kilpatrick finally proposes an immediate shift back to character education which he believes teaches morality more effectively by emphasizing practice instead of discussion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

当时我的每天复习安排基本就是：

早上起床听5分钟cnn新闻，然后复述加自己做评论（十分钟左右），然后精听，不用对照文本

吃早饭

去图书馆，看红宝书。看经济学人，三篇泛读，两篇精读。背单词（为了写issue）。 吃中午饭

去图书馆，写三个导语，一篇500字新闻，尽量控制在一个半小时之内。然后上网看新华网的对应稿件，总结学习。然后写summary+commentary+issue（控制在三个小时）。或者是做一套统考英语真题，然后总结错误。

吃晚饭（一般食堂已经没什么菜了....）

晚上，计划学习黎信老实的书+看gre工具箱（不过因为下午太累了，往往看着看着就困了）

可能是因为自己太懒了，计划往往完不成，不过庆幸的是下午安排的写作还是咬咬牙坚持了下来。

总之准备的过程很难，很孤独，很无助，周围很少有人可以交流，常常感觉没有希望。这里要特别感谢小南，虽然跟我考的不是同一个方向，不过知道有人也在和自己一起努力，感觉真的很好，她也顺利的被国传录取，祝福她。

洋洋洒洒写到这里已经离题万里了，希望大家能有所收获。并向我引用的两篇文章的原创者表示最崇高的敬意。最后，祝福每个国新国传的追梦人能够坚持下来，梦想成真。