大學不是一盤生意 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 its vastly 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QS世界大學排名榜(QS World University Rankings)的排名得出的。但其他排行榜的排名情況也差不多。儘管美國比英國大得多、也富裕得多，但全球排名前十的大學中僅有5所是美國的、前50中僅有18所。歐洲大陸沒有一所大學排進前十，排進前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. But one would be wrong. Radical new plans were introduced in a discussion document, “Fulfilling our Potential”, published by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills at the end of last 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 quite easy to become “universities” and award their own degrees. They will be able to enter the sector and also exit. The government has also lifted limits on the numbers eligible for student loans. But it imposes no minimum academic qualification on those taking out such loans.

人們會想當然地認爲，政府會謹慎地對待高等教育改革。但這麼想你就錯了。去年底，英國商務、創新與技能部(Department of Business, Innovation and Skills)公佈了一份名爲《發揮我們的潛能》(Fulfilling our Potential)的討論文件，其中提出了激進的新方案。核心主張在於，“放開這一行業，引入來自新的高質量教育提供商的更激烈競爭。”這些提供商（有些是私營企業）將發現，成爲“大學”、並頒發自己的學位，是相當容易的。它們將可以進入、也可以退出該行業。此外，政府已取消了學生貸款發放人數限制。但政府並未設定學生貸款獲得者所需滿足的最低學業標準。

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

問題部分在於，把高等教育視爲一門生意是否合理。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 and scholars. 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 all this, the discussion document shows little inkling. Abusing a label may not matter so much; not recognising the role of universities does.

從誕生之日起到現在，大學一直是一種特殊的機構：一個由老師和學者構成的團體。大學的宗旨是產生並傳播智慧，代代相傳下去。大學是人類文明的驕傲。大學既不是企業，也不是培訓學校。對於以上這些，該討論文件幾乎絲毫沒有提到。濫用一個標籤或許無關緊要；認不清大學的角色，關係就大了。

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. The value of what they obtain is likely to become evident over many years. They rely on reputation. They must believe, therefore, that the institution cares about its reputation. That is why the longevity of these institutions is so vital.

然而，眼下的擔憂是，構建競爭性市場的條件是否已經具備。高等教育長期以來一直是由特殊機構提供的，這有充分的理由。顯然，學生們並不理解他們購買的教育服務：購買教育服務之後，他們才成爲學生。他們所獲得服務的價值可能許多年後纔會顯現出來。他們看重學校的聲望。因此，他們一定認爲，大學也關心自己的聲望。這就是大學歷史悠久如此重要的原因。

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

此外，對於這類複雜活動的外部監管，始終很難抵消利益衝突。在大學的例子裏，政府通過向學生提供貸款負擔了學費，這些貸款是必須償還的，還多還少則基於學生的收入：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 an opportunity 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 minimum standards for entrants to courses or any limit on numbers, such providers would have a powerful 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 themselves with the knowledge that the cost to themselves is limited. The answer to all this in the discussion document is “risk-based” regulation. But it is doubtful whether these risks are adequately identifiable.

於是，對學生們而言，一段教育經歷不成功的風險被（恰當地）限制了。但這也爲那些唯利是圖的企業提供了可乘之機。政府無論如何都將負擔學費。如果學生未能成才，那麼納稅人將承受損失。尤其是在沒有設立嚴格的入學門檻、也沒有設定最大招生人數的情況下，這樣的教育服務提供商將有強大動力招收儘可能多的學生，不管他們的培養結果會如何。許多學生什麼也不懂。如果他們懂得多一點，他們會知道，自己承擔的成本很少，從而感到安慰。在討論文件中，所有這一切的應對方案就是“基於風險的”監管。但值得懷疑的是，這些風險能否被充分識別。

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

納稅人要承擔的風險肯定不小。要知道，來自歐盟(EU)的學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，正如英國大學與科學國務大臣喬約翰遜(Jo Johnson)所指出，“高校畢業生與非高校畢業生的收入差距在縮小，而且……不少高校畢業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，學生和課程的質量均已開始下降。得到納稅人資金支持和國家補貼的營利性無限擴招憑什麼能解決這一問題呢？似乎不太可能。

The government’s claim that it will be possible to arrange exit of providers relatively easily is also implausible. Such exit is bound to damage innocent holders of the qualifications the institution has provided in the past. Permanence is an essential characteristic of a successful 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。一家大學機構退出，必將傷害其過去授予了學位的無辜學生。一家成功的高等教育機構必須具備的一項特徵就是長久存續。

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

以上並非否認教育行業面臨諸多挑戰，特別是鑑於眼下人們對它寄予了厚望。不過，過去放鬆金融管制的經歷讓我們知道，用納稅人的錢補貼追逐風險的企業會對無知的顧客造成怎樣的風險——即便這些企業接受外部監管。由政府支持、但市場化的高等教育體系是容易產生弊端的。政府希望能夠通過監管管理好存在的風險。但經驗表明，它的希望可能會落空。