Problem:OPTIONS:
- Increasing managerialism
- implementation of processes of audit
- not enough information
- Creeping marketisation of the sector

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: It will come as no surprise to those working in the UK's higher education (HE) sector that universities are currently suffused with anxiety. The University and College Union (UCU) has recently been in dispute with employers over proposed changes to the USS pension scheme, and the most sustained period of industrial action in the sector's history has highlighted the fears staff have for the security of their futures post-retirement. Such unprecedented strike action needs to be situated within the wider context of a public sector undergoing transformation: while the concept remains contested, the influence of "neoliberal" ideas on universities can most clearly be seen in Success as a Knowledge Economy the government white paper that preceded the 2017 Higher Education and Research Act which states: "Competition between providers in any market incentivises them to raise their game, offering consumers a greater choice of more innovative and better quality products and services at lower cost. Higher education is no exception." Yet what might "raising our game" mean for academic staff? The university has been described as an "anxiety machine": the creeping marketisation of the sector along with pressure to recruit students (now "consumers"), increasing managerialism, and the implementation of processes of audit such as the REF and TEF to evaluate performance have arguably contributed to a progressively anxious landscape in which to labour. In 2016/17, 34% of academic staff were employed on fixed-term contracts a figure likely to be disputed by the UCU, since in 2016 it estimated the extent of casualisation in the sector to be closer to 54% once atypical contracts had been taken into consideration. In addition to pressures facing many staff in universities such as time-management, meeting growing employer expectations, and the evaluation of performance "casualised" contracts present particular challenges for those facing employment uncertainty: in a material sense, this can be a case of keeping up with... Question: What contributes most to the "anxiety machine"? Answer:
****
A: not enough information

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: I lost sight in one eye when in college, I had two preschool children at the time. I was walking through the house one morning and suddenly I could see NOTHING out of one eye. When I told my husband,who was right there when it happened, he assumed my eye was just blurry or something had gotten in the eye. He took me to the ophthalmologist who verified that I could not see out of the eye. Then we subsequently got the worse news that it was a neurological condition with a long name I do not remember that there was nothing he could do about. He said that I would either get my sight back or I you and all we could do was wait and see if it came back. This was right before finals that semester but he told me I absolutely could not be studying or using my good eye for reading or basically anything that would strain it or I could end up losing sight in that eye also. Needless to say, as a mom of two children ages 2 1/2 and 6 months,I could not afford to lose ALL of my sight! So, I had to wait. I could not drive like that either which made matters worse. Both my husband and I were in school fulltime (until then), fortunately it was the end of the semester, unfortunately it was BEFORE finals. My sight did come back but not for about 5 months. When it first started to come back I still couldn't drive because although I could see I did not have my peripheral vision, that did not fully come back for quite a while. I cannot imagine it a person who goes totally blind goes through, I just know for me it was not an easy to to go through. Question: Who told the author that she would just have to wait and see if her vision came back? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- The ophthalmologist after she still couldn't see for 5 months.
- The author's husband told her after he took her to the ophthalmologist.
- The ophthalmologist she saw after she lost he vision.
The ophthalmologist she saw after she lost he vision.

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: I end this small run of blog posts with the question posed by Professor Brian Boyd at the beginning of our evening: Do we want to close the achievement gap? We know we can close the gap. It's been done or almost been done before in Scottish education, but the answers have been ignored as they pass us by. The simple clue is this: poverty is single biggest predictor of achievement, and according to research (Hammonds sic, reference required), aged 10, a child living in poverty is 60% less likely to get to university. Boyd borrowed from his own mother's report card to ask us what kind of education we desire. Is it the academic success at all costs route, or is there another option we need to value as much, if not more? His mother's report card, one that prevented her from becoming a secondary school pupil in Glasgow, is filled with G and FG, until the last point: Character and conduct - excellent. What kind of pupils do we want to develop in Scotland? What do we value in our assessment system? Opening up opportunity for all is a tough game to play when the examination system rewards only certain types of behaviour, few of them related to what the Curriculum for Excellence says we stand for. In his own small community in East Kilbride, three secondary schools enter a period of meltdown as the local rag sets about creating its own local league table of performance, with those three 'teams' in competition for the top spot (or at least not the bottom one). Therefore, we must stop basing "the gap" largely on attainment. First of all, Boyd would like us to remove the traditional, and non-sensical academic/vocational divide. Is the law or medicine degree we value not vocational? (Are all General Practitioners not Plumbers, as Dr Murray on the panel suggests?) Question: The study by Boyd probably lasted Answer:
OPTIONS:
- A second
- not enough information
- A minute
- A year

Answer: A year

Problem: OPTIONS:
- A couple of hours
- 30 minutes
- not enough information
- The workday
Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: As it turned out, Greg would have had a hard time canceling the check, even if he'd changed his mind. Chloe's crew had already sprung into action as soon as they left the building. The company used a computer controlled switchboard to route phone calls and this immediately went down, same for their Internet access. Meanwhile, a crude but effective denial of service attack was launched against their company Web site. If Greg decided to use his cell phone there wasn't much they could do, but the hope was that he'd be so tied up with all this other crap that he wouldn't have time to think of that. Paul didn't think any of that was necessary. Greg had given in and he wasn't going to call and cancel the check now. He'd agreed for a reason, and once Greg had a reason for making a decision it was usually impossible to change his mind. And it didn't make sense anyway. All he would have done is buy himself a little more time. Chloe and Paul would just march right back in and start all over again - probably after sending out pics of Evan in drag to all the employees. From his point of view, there was no reason for Greg to do that. Of course, it was still a huge risk for Chloe and Paul. If Greg just wanted a delay to get the lawyers involved, then they were in trouble. Chloe and he had broken a fist full of laws in the past twelve hours. They needed to cash that check and disappear as soon as they could. The bank put up a bit of a fuss about the check, which was one more reason Paul hated Bank of Fucking America. They always had some rule to screw a customer. But Chloe made a bunch of noise and actually jumped up and down at one point and eventually they walked out of the bank with a cashier's check. Question: How long did it take to cash the check? Answer:
Answer:
30 minutes