大學(xué)不是一盤生意 Running a university is not like selling baked beans

　　Four of the 10 top-rated universities in the world,five of the top 20 and 10 of the top 50 are British.This is according to the QS world university rankings. But other rankings are similar. Despite itsvastly greater size and wealth, the US has only five of the top 10 and 18 of the top 50.Continental Europe has none of the top 10 and a mere four of the top 50. In higher education,the UK is a superpower.

　　全球排名前十的大學(xué)中有4所是英國的，前20中有5所、前50中則有10所。這是根據(jù)QS世界大學(xué)排名榜(QSWorld University Rankings)的排名得出的。但其他排行榜的排名情況也差不多。盡管美國比英國大得多、也富裕得多，但全球排名前十的大學(xué)中僅有5所是美國的、前50中僅有18所。歐洲大陸沒有一所大學(xué)排進(jìn)前十，排進(jìn)前50的也只有4所。就高等教育而言，英國是一個超級大國。

　　One would assume that the government would approach reform with circumspection. Butone would be wrong. Radical new plans were introduced in a discussion document, “Fulfillingour Potential”, published by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills at the end oflast year. The central idea is to “open up the sector to greater competition from new high-quality providers”. These providers, some of which are private businesses, will find it quiteeasy to become “universities” and award their own degrees. They will be able to enter thesector and also exit. The government has also lifted limits on the numbers eligible for studentloans. But it imposes no minimum academic qualification on those taking out such loans.

　　人們會想當(dāng)然地認(rèn)為，政府會謹(jǐn)慎地對待高等教育改革。但這么想你就錯了。去年底，英國商務(wù)、創(chuàng)新與技能部(Department of Business, Innovation and Skills)公布了一份名為《發(fā)揮我們的潛能》(Fulfilling ourPotential)的討論文件，其中提出了激進(jìn)的新方案。核心主張在于，“放開這一行業(yè)，引入來自新的高質(zhì)量教育提供商的更激烈競爭。”這些提供商(有些是私營企業(yè))將發(fā)現(xiàn)，成為“大學(xué)”、并頒發(fā)自己的學(xué)位，是相當(dāng)容易的。它們將可以進(jìn)入、也可以退出該行業(yè)。此外，政府已取消了學(xué)生貸款發(fā)放人數(shù)限制。但政府并未設(shè)定學(xué)生貸款獲得者所需滿足的最低學(xué)業(yè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。

　　The question is partly whether it makes sense to view higher education as a business. Thegovernment recognises problems. But it underestimates them.

　　問題部分在于，把高等教育視為一門生意是否合理。政府看到了問題，但低估了問題。

　　In its origins and still today, a university is a special institution: a community of teachers andscholars. Its purpose is to generate and impart understanding, from generation to generation.The university is a glory of our civilisation. It is neither a business nor a training school. Of allthis, the discussion document shows little inkling. Abusing a label may not matter so much;not recognising the role of universities does.

　　從誕生之日起到現(xiàn)在，大學(xué)一直是一種特殊的機構(gòu)：一個由老師和學(xué)者構(gòu)成的團體。大學(xué)的宗旨是產(chǎn)生并傳播智慧，代代相傳下去。大學(xué)是人類文明的驕傲。大學(xué)既不是企業(yè)，也不是培訓(xùn)學(xué)校。對于以上這些，該討論文件幾乎絲毫沒有提到。濫用一個標(biāo)簽或許無關(guān)緊要;認(rèn)不清大學(xué)的角色，關(guān)系就大了。

　　An immediate concern, however, is whether the conditions for a competitive market exist.Special institutions have long provided higher education, for good reasons. By definition,students cannot understand what they are buying: that is what makes them students. Thevalue of what they obtain is likely to become evident over many years. They rely onreputation. They must believe, therefore, that the institution cares about its reputation.That is why the longevity of these institutions is so vital.

　　然而，眼下的擔(dān)憂是，構(gòu)建競爭性市場的條件是否已經(jīng)具備。高等教育長期以來一直是由特殊機構(gòu)提供的，這有充分的理由。顯然，學(xué)生們并不理解他們購買的教育服務(wù)：購買教育服務(wù)之后，他們才成為學(xué)生。他們所獲得服務(wù)的價值可能許多年后才會顯現(xiàn)出來。他們看重學(xué)校的聲望。因此，他們一定認(rèn)為，大學(xué)也關(guān)心自己的聲望。這就是大學(xué)歷史悠久如此重要的原因。

　　Moreover, external regulation of complex activities such as this always struggles to offsetconflicts of interest. In this case, the government funds the fees through loans repayable on anincome-contingent basis: the less students earn, the less they repay.

　　此外，對于這類復(fù)雜活動的外部監(jiān)管，始終很難抵消利益沖突。在大學(xué)的例子里，政府通過向?qū)W生提供貸款負(fù)擔(dān)了學(xué)費，這些貸款是必須償還的，還多還少則基于學(xué)生的收入：收入越低，償還的貸款就越少。

　　For students, then, the risks of a failed period of study are (rightly) capped. But this creates anopportunity for unscrupulous profit-seeking businesses. The government will fund the fees,regardless. If students fail, tax bear the losses. Particularly in the absence of tough minimumstandards for entrants to courses or any limit on numbers, such providers would have apowerful incentive to maximise numbers of students, regardless of the outcomes for them.Many students will be ill informed. If they are better informed, they can comfort themselveswith the knowledge that the cost to themselves is limited. The answer to all this in thediscussion document is “risk-based” regulation. But it is doubtful whether these risks areadequately identifiable.

　　于是，對學(xué)生們而言，一段教育經(jīng)歷不成功的風(fēng)險被(恰當(dāng)?shù)?限制了。但這也為那些唯利是圖的企業(yè)提供了可乘之機。政府無論如何都將負(fù)擔(dān)學(xué)費。如果學(xué)生未能成才，那么納稅人將承受損失。尤其是在沒有設(shè)立嚴(yán)格的入學(xué)門檻、也沒有設(shè)定最大招生人數(shù)的情況下，這樣的教育服務(wù)提供商將有強大動力招收盡可能多的學(xué)生，不管他們的培養(yǎng)結(jié)果會如何。許多學(xué)生什么也不懂。如果他們懂得多一點，他們會知道，自己承擔(dān)的成本很少，從而感到安慰。在討論文件中，所有這一切的應(yīng)對方案就是“基于風(fēng)險的”監(jiān)管。但值得懷疑的是，這些風(fēng)險能否被充分識別。

　　The risks for taxpayers must be substantial. Remember that students from the EU are eligiblefor loans on the same terms. But it is hard to make them repay. That must make them ahoneypot for unscrupulous providers. Remember, too, that, as Jo Johnson, minister for highereducation, notes, “the graduate earnings gap is in decline, and... numbers of graduates aregoing into non-graduate jobs.” This surely reflects the fact that, at the margin, quality of bothstudents and courses is already declining. Why would unlimited taxpayer-funded andsubsidised expansion of profit-seeking provision remedy this? It seems unlikely.

　　納稅人要承擔(dān)的風(fēng)險肯定不小。要知道，來自歐盟(EU)的學(xué)生也有資格獲得同等條件的貸款。但讓他們償還貸款又很難。那些唯利是圖的教育服務(wù)提供商肯定會對他們趨之若鶩。另外還要知道的是，正如英國大學(xué)與科學(xué)國務(wù)大臣喬約翰遜(Jo Johnson)所指出，“高校畢業(yè)生與非高校畢業(yè)生的收入差距在縮小，而且……不少高校畢業(yè)生走上了不要求高等教育文憑的工作崗位。”這無疑反映出一條事實：從邊際角度而言，學(xué)生和課程的質(zhì)量均已開始下降。得到納稅人資金支持和國家補貼的營利性無限擴招憑什么能解決這一問題呢?似乎不太可能。

　　The government’s claim that it will be possible to arrange exit of providers relatively easily isalso implausible. Such exit is bound to damage innocent holders of the qualifications theinstitution has provided in the past. Permanence is an essential characteristic of asuccessful institution of higher education.

　　政府聲稱，教育提供商可相對容易地被安排退出，這也是不合理的。一家大學(xué)機構(gòu)退出，必將傷害其過去授予了學(xué)位的無辜學(xué)生。一家成功的高等教育機構(gòu)必須具備的一項特征就是長久存續(xù)。

　　This is not to deny that the sector faces many challenges, particularly as a result of theexpectations now piled upon it. Yet experience with financial deregulation has demonstrated therisks to ignorant customers of taxpayer subsidies to risk-taking businesses, even if they aresubject to external regulation. A government-supported, but market-oriented, highereducation system is open to abuse. The government hopes regulation will manage the risks.Experience suggests it is likely to be disappointed.

　　以上并非否認(rèn)教育行業(yè)面臨諸多挑戰(zhàn)，特別是鑒于眼下人們對它寄予了厚望。不過，過去放松金融管制的經(jīng)歷讓我們知道，用納稅人的錢補貼追逐風(fēng)險的企業(yè)會對無知的顧客造成怎樣的風(fēng)險——即便這些企業(yè)接受外部監(jiān)管。由政府支持、但市場化的高等教育體系是容易產(chǎn)生弊端的。政府希望能夠通過監(jiān)管管理好存在的風(fēng)險。但經(jīng)驗表明，它的希望可能會落空。