评论
打印
Last week the British university system offered a record number of places.
最近，英国大学体系提供了创纪录的录取名额。
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?
这听起来是个好消息——但我们真的需要更多人上大学吗？而且，世界真的需要更多的大学吗？
The answer feels like it should be yes.
答案感觉应该是肯定的。
Education is good, is it not? But everything has a cost.
教育是好事，不是吗？但凡事都是有成本的。
Education takes time.
教育需要时间。
We could insist that everyone study full-time until the age of 45 but that would surely be too much.
我们可以坚持让每个人全日制学习到45岁，但那肯定过头了。
And if that’s too much, perhaps half the population studying until they’re 21 is also too much.
如果那样过头了，或许一半的人口全日制学习到21岁也过头了。
As for universities, they consume financial and intellectual resources — perhaps those resources might be better spent elsewhere.
至于大学，大学消耗了金钱和智力资源——把这些资源用到别的地方或许更好。
My own personal bias is strongly in favour both of going to university, and of simply having universities around.
我个人偏向于强烈支持人们上大学，以及在各处建立大学。
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.
因为我在大学里学到的主要技能是撰写有关经济学的文章，而且在职业生涯的每一天我都在使用这个技能，所以即使是抽象的教育对我来说似乎都很实用。
And I now live in Oxford, one of the world’s most celebrated university cities.
而且，现在我居住在牛津。
Oxford’s experience certainly suggests that universities have much to offer.
这是世界上最负盛名的大学城之一。
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.
牛津的经验显然表明，大学能够提供很多东西。
The beauty attracts tourists and appeals to locals too.
这座城市的建筑和绿地格局都深受市中心拥有900年历史的牛津大学的影响——总的来说是极大的积极影响。
The music, theatres and museums are great; the bookshops are to die for.
这里的美不仅吸引游客，也让当地人陶醉。
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.
这里的音乐、剧院和博物馆很棒；书店更是让人神往。的确，牛津是英国房价最高昂、最让人难以承受的地方，给居住者们带来了无休止的难题——但即使这个难题也是成功的一种表现。
But these are samples of one.
但这些只是一方面的例子。
Many people do not find themselves using the skills and knowledge they accumulated at university.
很多人并没有用到他们在大学里积累的技能和知识。
And Oxford’s dreaming spires aren’t terribly representative of global universities as a whole.
牛津大学梦幻的教堂尖顶在全球各地的大学中也并不多见。
New York University is a fine institution but, according to TripAdvisor, it’s the 263rd most interesting attraction in New York City.
纽约大学(New York University)是一所优秀的大学，但据TripAdvisor的数据，纽约大学在纽约市内景点吸引力排行榜上排在第263位。
(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.
（而牛津市内的十大景点中有9个都和牛津大学有关。）如果人们铲平伦敦政治经济学院(LSE)，换成一家酒店和公寓楼，社会科学界会痛心疾首，但我不太确定会有多少伦敦人注意到其中的差别。
Warwick University is a superb seat of learning but it attracts no visitors to Warwick, since it is neither attractive nor in Warwick.
华威大学(Warwick University)是一所一流学府，但并没有给同名城市华威带来多少游客，因为这所大学既没有作为景点的吸引力，也根本就不在华威。
So the case for building more universities needs to rest on more prosaic grounds.
因此建立更多大学的主张需要建立在一些平实的理由上。
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.
伦敦政治经济学院的安娜•巴莱罗(Anna Valero)和约翰•范里宁(John van Reenen)最近的一份研究报告从统计学角度纵览了世界各地的大学，他们提出的问题是：这些大学是否看起来提振了本地区的经济。
(Examples of a region include Quebec, Illinois, Wales, and New Zealand’s North Island.)
（这些地区的例子包括魁北克、伊利诺伊州、威尔士和新西兰的北岛。）
There are several reasons that they might.
大学或许能够提振本地区经济，有几个原因。
Universities produce well-qualified young people, many of whom stay in the area when they have finished their studies.
大学能够产出优秀的年轻人，其中许多人在完成学业后会继续留在大学所在地。
Universities often produce useful inventions.
大学还经常产生有用的发明。
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.
一些创新是无国界的——青霉素最早在伦敦被发现，在牛津提炼出来，现在在任何地方都可以买到——但很多研究想法会留在当地，至少在一段时间内是这样。
Silicon Valley grew up around Stanford, and it hasn’t moved.
硅谷是围绕着斯坦福大学(Stanford University)发展起来的，而硅谷现在也没有搬走。
And there’s the simple fact that universities funnel central government money through staff salaries, student loans and other sources of local spending.
此外，大学还会通过教职工工资、学生贷款和其他本地支出源将中央政府的资金传导到本地区。
Valero and Van Reenen find that universities do indeed seem to boost the income of their region.
巴莱罗和范里宁发现，大学似乎的确能够提高本地区的收入。
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.
如果一个地区的大学数量翻倍——比如从5所提高到10所——该地区的人均国内生产总值(GDP)预期会上升4%。
Double the university count again, from 10 to 20, and that’s another 4 per cent on GDP per person.
如果这个地区的大学数量再翻一倍，从10所提高到20所，那么该地区的人均GDP将再上升4%。
Neighbouring regions also benefit.
邻近地区也会受益。
This is not a trivial effect.
这个影响并非微不足道。
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.
巴莱罗和范里宁很确信因果关系并不是反过来的——这些地区并非预期到未来增长才建立大学。
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.
但他们不能确定是否有某种第三方因素起作用：比如，繁荣和大学或许都是强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.
经济学教授布赖恩•卡普兰(Bryan Caplan)对大学持更怀疑的态度。
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.
讽刺的是，他还即将出版一部名叫《反对教育的理由》(The Case Against Education)的新书。卡普兰不无道理地指出，很多大学生似乎没有学到任何与职场有明显关联的东西，但在毕业后，他们比非大学毕业生获得了好得多的职业前景。
Why?
为什么？
Caplan’s answer is that education is a signal.
卡普兰的答案是，教育是一个标志。
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.
如果雇主无法判断谁聪明勤奋，一个学生可以通过擅长某项技能，比如拉丁文，来证明她是这种类型的人。
The Latin is like a peacock’s tail: costly and useless in its own right but a necessary investment.
拉丁文就像孔雀的尾巴：很贵，本身毫无用处，但却是一种必要的投资。
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.
在这个层面上，卡普兰是对的，本科学位对社会并没有价值：它们让雇主为更聪明的员工支付更高的薪资，却给其他所有人支付更低的薪资——而为了享受这种更高的工资，聪明人必须浪费时间和金钱费事取得一个学位。
Everyone might be better off if the whole business was abandoned.
如果放弃这种做法，每个人可能都会过得更好。
Who is right? My heart is with Valero and Van Reenen.
谁是对的？我的内心是向着巴莱罗和范里宁的。
But Caplan strikes an important note of discord.
但卡普兰提出了一个重要的反面意见。
Collectively, we have allowed university admissions and examiners to become gatekeepers for a successful career.
我们共同让大学入学考试和考官成为成功职业生涯的守门人。
Is that really wise?
这样做真的明智吗？
