世界真的需要更多的大學嗎
Last week the British university system offered a record number of places.
最近，英國大學體系提供了創紀錄的錄取名額。
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?
這聽起來是個好消息——但我們真的需要更多人上大學嗎？而且，世界真的需要更多的大學嗎？
The answer feels like it should be yes.
答案感覺應該是肯定的。
Education is good, is it not? But everything has a cost.
教育是好事，不是嗎？但凡事都是有成本的。
Education takes time.
教育需要時間。
We could insist that everyone study full-time until the age of 45 but that would surely be too much.
我們可以堅持讓每個人全日制學習到45歲，但那肯定過頭了。
And if that’s too much, perhaps half the population studying until they’re 21 is also too much.
如果那樣過頭了，或許一半的人口全日制學習到21歲也過頭了。
As for universities, they consume financial and intellectual resources — perhaps those resources might be better spent elsewhere.
至於大學，大學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.
我個人偏向於強烈支持人們上大學，以及在各處建立大學。
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.
因爲我在大學裏學到的主要技能是撰寫有關經濟學的文章，而且在職業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.
而且，現在我居住在牛津。
Oxford’s experience certainly suggests that universities have much to offer.
這是世界上最負盛名的大學城之一。
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.
牛津的經驗顯然表明，大學能夠提供很多東西。
The beauty attracts tourists and appeals to locals too.
這座城市的建築和綠地格局都深受市中心擁有900年曆史的牛津大學的影響——總的來說是極大的積極影響。
The music, theatres and museums are great; the bookshops are to die for.
這裏的美不僅吸引遊客，也讓當地人陶醉。
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.
這裏的音樂、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。
But these are samples of one.
但這些只是一方面的例子。
Many people do not find themselves using the skills and knowledge they accumulated at university.
很多人並沒有用到他們在大學裏積累的技能和知識。
And Oxford’s dreaming spires aren’t terribly representative of global universities as a whole.
牛津大學夢幻的教堂尖頂在全球各地的大學中也並不多見。
New York University is a fine institution but, according to TripAdvisor, it’s the 263rd most interesting attraction in New York City.
紐約大學(New York University)是一所優秀的大學，但據TripAdvisor的數據，紐約大學在紐約市內景點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.
（而牛津市內的十大景點中有9個都和牛津大學有關。）如果人們剷平倫敦政治經濟學院(LSE)，換成一家酒店和公寓樓，社會科學界會痛心疾首，但我不太確定會有多少倫敦人注意到其中的差別。
Warwick University is a superb seat of learning but it attracts no visitors to Warwick, since it is neither attractive nor in Warwick.
華威大學(Warwick University)是一所一流學府，但並沒有給同名城市華威帶來多少遊客，因爲這所大學既沒有作爲景點的吸引力，也根本就不在華威。
So the case for building more universities needs to rest on more prosaic grounds.
因此建立更多大學的主張需要建立在一些平實的理由上。
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.
倫敦政治經濟學院的安娜•巴萊羅(Anna Valero)和約翰•範裏寧(John van Reenen)最近的一份研究報告從統計學角度縱覽了世界各地的大學，他們提出的問題是：這些大學是否看起來提振了本地區的經濟。
(Examples of a region include Quebec, Illinois, Wales, and New Zealand’s North Island.)
（這些地區的例子包括魁北克、伊利諾伊州、威爾士和新西蘭的北島。）
There are several reasons that they might.
大學或許能夠提振本地區經濟，有幾個原因。
Universities produce well-qualified young people, many of whom stay in the area when they have finished their studies.
大學能夠產出優秀的年輕人，其中許多人在完成學業後會繼續留在大學所在地。
Universities often produce useful inventions.
大學還經常產生有用的發明。
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.
一些創新是無國界的——青黴素最早在倫敦被發現，在牛津提煉出來，現在在任何地方都可以買到——但很多研究想法會留在當地，至少在一段時間內是這樣。
Silicon Valley grew up around Stanford, and it hasn’t moved.
硅谷是圍繞着斯坦福大學(Stanford University)發展起來的，而硅谷現在也沒有搬走。
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，大學還會通過教職工工資、學生貸款和其他本地支出源將中央政府的資金傳導到本地區。
Valero and Van Reenen find that universities do indeed seem to boost the income of their region.
巴萊羅和範裏寧發現，大學似乎的確能夠提高本地區的收入。
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.
如果一個地區的大學數量翻倍——比如從5所提高到10所——該地區的人均國內生產總值(GDP)預期會上升4%。
Double the university count again, from 10 to 20, and that’s another 4 per cent on GDP per person.
如果這個地區的大學數量再翻一倍，從10所提高到20所，那麼該地區的人均GDP將再上升4%。
Neighbouring regions also benefit.
鄰近地區也會受益。
This is not a trivial effect.
這個影響並非微不足道。
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.
巴萊羅和範裏寧很確信因果關係並不是反過來的——這些地區並非預期到未來增長才建立大學。
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，繁榮和大學或許都是強大能幹的地方政府促成的。
A more sceptical view comes from Bryan Caplan, an economics professor who, ironically, is the author of a forthcoming book The Case Against Education.
經濟學教授布賴恩•卡普蘭(Bryan Caplan)對大學持更懷疑的態度。
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.
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。卡普蘭不無道理地指出，很多大學生似乎沒有學到任何與職場有明顯關聯的東西，但在畢業後，他們比非大學畢業生獲得了好得多的職業前景。
Why?
爲什麼？
Caplan’s answer is that education is a signal.
卡普蘭的答案是，教育是一個標誌。
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.
如果僱主無法判斷誰聰明勤奮，一個學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。
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.
在這個層面上，卡普蘭是對的，本科學位對社會並沒有價值：它們讓僱主爲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——而爲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位。
Everyone might be better off if the whole business was abandoned.
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.
誰是對的？我的內心是向着巴萊羅和範裏寧的。
But Caplan strikes an important note of discord.
但卡普蘭提出了一個重要的反面意見。
Collectively, we have allowed university admissions and examiners to become gatekeepers for a successful career.
我們共同讓大學入學考試和考官成爲成功職業生涯的守門人。
Is that really wise?
這樣做真的明智嗎？
