世界需要更多大學(xué)嗎？

Last week the British university system offered a record number of places. That sounds like good news — but do we really need more people to go to university? For that matter, does the world need more universities?

最近，英國大學(xué)體系提供了創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄的錄取名額。這聽起來是個好消息——但我們真的需要更多人上大學(xué)嗎?而且，世界真的需要更多的大學(xué)嗎?

The answer feels like it should be yes. Education is good, is it not? But everything has a cost. Education takes time. We could insist that everyone study full-time until the age of 45 but that would surely be too much. And if that’s too much, perhaps half the population studying until they’re 21 is also too much. As for universities, they consume financial and intellectual resources — perhaps those resources might be better spent elsewhere.

答案感覺應(yīng)該是肯定的。教育是好事，不是嗎?但凡事都是有成本的。教育需要時間。我們可以堅持讓每個人全日制學(xué)習(xí)到45歲，但那肯定過頭了。如果那樣過頭了，或許一半的人口全日制學(xué)習(xí)到21歲也過頭了。至于大學(xué)，大學(xué)消耗了金錢和智力資源——把這些資源用到別的地方或許更好。

My own personal bias is strongly in favour both of going to university, and of simply having universities around. Since the main skill I learnt at university was to write about economics, and I use that skill every day of my professional life, even an abstract education seems practical to me.

我個人偏向于強烈支持人們上大學(xué)，以及在各處建立大學(xué)。因為我在大學(xué)里學(xué)到的主要技能是撰寫有關(guān)經(jīng)濟學(xué)的文章，而且在職業(yè)生涯的每一天我都在使用這個技能，所以即使是抽象的教育對我來說似乎都很實用。

And I now live in Oxford, one of the world’s most celebrated university cities. Oxford’s experience certainly suggests that universities have much to offer. The city’s architecture and green spaces have been shaped — greatly for the better, on balance — by the 900-year-old institution at its heart. The beauty attracts tourists and appeals to locals too. The music, theatres and museums are great; the bookshops are to die for. Yes, Oxford is the least affordable place to buy a house in the country, which causes no end of headaches for residents — but even that problem is a symptom of success.

而且，現(xiàn)在我居住在牛津。這是世界上最負(fù)盛名的大學(xué)城之一。牛津的經(jīng)驗顯然表明，大學(xué)能夠提供很多東西。這座城市的建筑和綠地格局都深受市中心擁有900年歷史的牛津大學(xué)的影響——總的來說是極大的積極影響。這里的美不僅吸引游客，也讓當(dāng)?shù)厝颂兆怼＿@里的音樂、劇院和博物館很棒;書店更是讓人神往。的確，牛津是英國房價最高昂、最讓人難以承受的地方，給居住者們帶來了無休止的難題——但即使這個難題也是成功的一種表現(xiàn)。

But these are samples of one. Many people do not find themselves using the skills and knowledge they accumulated at university. And Oxford’s dreaming spires aren’t terribly representative of global universities as a whole. New York University is a fine institution but, according to TripAdvisor, it’s the 263rd most interesting attraction in New York City. (Nine of Oxford’s top 10 attractions are university-related.) If the London School of Economics were to be bulldozed and replaced by a hotel and apartments, social science would feel a grievous loss but I am not sure that many Londoners would notice the difference. Warwick University is a superb seat of learning but it attracts no visitors to Warwick, since it is neither attractive nor in Warwick.

但這些只是一方面的例子。很多人并沒有用到他們在大學(xué)里積累的技能和知識。牛津大學(xué)夢幻的教堂尖頂在全球各地的大學(xué)中也并不多見。紐約大學(xué)(New York University)是一所優(yōu)秀的大學(xué)，但據(jù)TripAdvisor的數(shù)據(jù)，紐約大學(xué)在紐約市內(nèi)景點吸引力排行榜上排在第263位。(而牛津市內(nèi)的十大景點中有9個都和牛津大學(xué)有關(guān)。)如果人們鏟平倫敦政治經(jīng)濟學(xué)院(LSE)，換成一家酒店和公寓樓，社會科學(xué)界會痛心疾首，但我不太確定會有多少倫敦人注意到其中的差別。華威大學(xué)(Warwick University)是一所一流學(xué)府，但并沒有給同名城市華威帶來多少游客，因為這所大學(xué)既沒有作為景點的吸引力，也根本就不在華威。

So the case for building more universities needs to rest on more prosaic grounds. A recent research paper by Anna Valero and John Van Reenen of the LSE takes a statistical look at universities around the world, asking whether they seem to boost their regional economies. (Examples of a “region” include Quebec, Illinois, Wales, and New Zealand’s North Island.)

因此建立更多大學(xué)的主張需要建立在一些平實的理由上。倫敦政治經(jīng)濟學(xué)院的安娜•巴萊羅(Anna Valero)和約翰•范里寧(John van Reenen)最近的一份研究報告從統(tǒng)計學(xué)角度縱覽了世界各地的大學(xué)，他們提出的問題是：這些大學(xué)是否看起來提振了本地區(qū)的經(jīng)濟。(這些“地區(qū)”的例子包括魁北克、伊利諾伊州、威爾士和新西蘭的北島。)

There are several reasons that they might. Universities produce well-qualified young people, many of whom stay in the area when they have finished their studies. Universities often produce useful inventions. Some innovations are borderless — penicillin was discovered in London, developed in Oxford and is available anywhere — but many research ideas stay local, at least for a time. Silicon Valley grew up around Stanford, and it hasn’t moved. And there’s the simple fact that universities funnel central government money through staff salaries, student loans and other sources of local spending.

大學(xué)或許能夠提振本地區(qū)經(jīng)濟，有幾個原因。大學(xué)能夠產(chǎn)出優(yōu)秀的年輕人，其中許多人在完成學(xué)業(yè)后會繼續(xù)留在大學(xué)所在地。大學(xué)還經(jīng)常產(chǎn)生有用的發(fā)明。一些創(chuàng)新是無國界的——青霉素最早在倫敦被發(fā)現(xiàn)，在牛津提煉出來，現(xiàn)在在任何地方都可以買到——但很多研究想法會留在當(dāng)?shù)?，至少在一段時間內(nèi)是這樣。硅谷是圍繞著斯坦福大學(xué)(Stanford University)發(fā)展起來的，而硅谷現(xiàn)在也沒有搬走。此外，大學(xué)還會通過教職工工資、學(xué)生貸款和其他本地支出源將中央政府的資金傳導(dǎo)到本地區(qū)。

Valero and Van Reenen find that universities do indeed seem to boost the income of their region. Double a region’s count of universities — say from five to 10 — and GDP per person can be expected to rise by 4 per cent. Double the university count again, from 10 to 20, and that’s another 4 per cent on GDP per person. Neighbouring regions also benefit. This is not a trivial effect.

巴萊羅和范里寧發(fā)現(xiàn)，大學(xué)似乎的確能夠提高本地區(qū)的收入。如果一個地區(qū)的大學(xué)數(shù)量翻倍——比如從5所提高到10所——該地區(qū)的人均國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值(GDP)預(yù)期會上升4%。如果這個地區(qū)的大學(xué)數(shù)量再翻一倍，從10所提高到20所，那么該地區(qū)的人均GDP將再上升4%。鄰近地區(qū)也會受益。這個影響并非微不足道。

Valero and Van Reenen are fairly confident that causation doesn’t run the other way — it’s not simply that regions build universities because they expect future growth. But they can’t be sure that there isn’t some third factor at play: perhaps, for example, strong and capable regional governments produce both prosperity and universities.

巴萊羅和范里寧很確信因果關(guān)系并不是反過來的——這些地區(qū)并非預(yù)期到未來增長才建立大學(xué)。但他們不能確定是否有某種第三方因素起作用：比如，繁榮和大學(xué)或許都是強大能干的地方政府促成的。

A more sceptical view comes from Bryan Caplan, an economics professor who, ironically, is the author of a forthcoming book The Case Against Education. Caplan points out — not unreasonably — that many students seem to learn nothing of any obvious relevance to the workplace but, on graduation, they’re rewarded with much better career prospects than non-graduates. Why?

經(jīng)濟學(xué)教授布賴恩•卡普蘭(Bryan Caplan)對大學(xué)持更懷疑的態(tài)度。諷刺的是，他還即將出版一部名叫《反對教育的理由》(The Case Against Education)的新書?？ㄆ仗m不無道理地指出，很多大學(xué)生似乎沒有學(xué)到任何與職場有明顯關(guān)聯(lián)的東西，但在畢業(yè)后，他們比非大學(xué)畢業(yè)生獲得了好得多的職業(yè)前景。為什么?

Caplan’s answer is that education is a signal. If employers have no way to tell who is smart and diligent, a student can prove that she fits into that category by excelling in, say, Latin. The Latin is like a peacock’s tail: costly and useless in its own right but a necessary investment.

卡普蘭的答案是，教育是一個標(biāo)志。如果雇主無法判斷誰聰明勤奮，一個學(xué)生可以通過擅長某項技能，比如拉丁文，來證明她是這種類型的人。拉丁文就像孔雀的尾巴：很貴，本身毫無用處，但卻是一種必要的投資。

To the extent that Caplan is right, undergraduate degrees have no value to society: they enable employers to pay higher wages to smarter workers, but lower wages to everyone else — and in order to enjoy these higher wages, smart people must waste time and money going to the trouble of acquiring a degree. Everyone might be better off if the whole business was abandoned.

在這個層面上，卡普蘭是對的，本科學(xué)位對社會并沒有價值：它們讓雇主為更聰明的員工支付更高的薪資，卻給其他所有人支付更低的薪資——而為了享受這種更高的工資，聰明人必須浪費時間和金錢費事取得一個學(xué)位。如果放棄這種做法，每個人可能都會過得更好。

Who is right? My heart is with Valero and Van Reenen. But Caplan strikes an important note of discord. Collectively, we have allowed university admissions and examiners to become gatekeepers for a successful career. Is that really wise?

誰是對的?我的內(nèi)心是向著巴萊羅和范里寧的。但卡普蘭提出了一個重要的反面意見。我們共同讓大學(xué)入學(xué)考試和考官成為成功職業(yè)生涯的守門人。這樣做真的明智嗎?