大學(xué)排名是否違背常識？.

　　隨著留學(xué)越來越熱，越來越多學(xué)生選擇到國外讀研，學(xué)生在選擇留學(xué)院校的時候往往會參照大學(xué)排名，但這個排名是否合理呢？

　　Students, parents and educators increasinglyobsessed with college rankings have a new tool: the Obama administration’s CollegeScorecard. The new database focuses on a college’s graduation rate, graduates’ medianearnings 10 years after graduation and the percentage of students paying back their collegeloans.

　　如今的學(xué)生、家長和教育者越來越關(guān)注大學(xué)排名?，F(xiàn)在，他們有了一個新工具：奧巴馬政府的高校記分卡(College Scorecard)。這個新數(shù)據(jù)庫重點關(guān)注高校畢業(yè)率、學(xué)生畢業(yè)十年后的收入中值以及學(xué)生償還大學(xué)貸款的比例。

　　While Scorecard adds potentially valuable information to the dizzying array that is alreadyavailable, it suffers from many of the same flaws that afflict nearly every other college rankingsystem: There is no way to know what, if any, impact a particular college has on itsgraduates’ earnings, or life for that matter.

　　雖然高校記分卡在原本已經(jīng)令人眼花繚亂的參考系數(shù)中增加了一些可能很有價值的信息，但它也有幾乎所有其他大學(xué)排名系統(tǒng)都存在的缺陷：無法得知大學(xué)對畢業(yè)生收入(以及因此導(dǎo)致的生活質(zhì)量)的影響到底有多大。

　　“It’s a classic example of confusing causation and correlation,” said Frank Bruni, the authorof “Where You Go Is Not Who You’ll Be,” a book about the college admissions process, and anop-ed columnist for The New York Times. “Anyone who has taken statistics should know better,but when it comes to colleges, that’s what people do. They throw common sense out thewindow.”

　　“這是個典型的把因果關(guān)系和相互關(guān)系搞混的例子，”《Where You Go Is Not Who You’ll Be》的作者、《紐約時報》專欄作家弗蘭克·布魯尼(Frank Bruni)說，“學(xué)過統(tǒng)計學(xué)的人應(yīng)該更清楚這一點，但是一提到大學(xué)，人們就忘了常識?！?/p>

　　Of course graduates of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (average postgraduateearnings $91,600, according to the Scorecard) and Harvard ($87,200) do well. That’s becausethe students they admit have some of the highest test scores and high school grade pointaverages in the country, rlecting high intelligence and a strong work ethic — two factors thatcause high future earnings. That is generally true regardless of where such students attendcollege, as long as they go to a reputable four-year institution, various studies have shown.

　　當然，麻省理工學(xué)院(Massachusetts Institute of Technology，據(jù)高校記分卡的統(tǒng)計，該校畢業(yè)生的年平均收入為9.16萬美元)和哈佛大學(xué)(Harvard)的畢業(yè)生(8.72萬美元)收入較 高。那是因為這兩所大學(xué)招收的學(xué)生入學(xué)考試成績和高中平均成績最高，那反映了他們的高智商和強烈職業(yè)道德，這兩個因素會造就未來的高收入。很多研究表明， 這樣的學(xué)生只要上的是聲譽好的本科院校，不管上哪所，收入都會高。

　　“It’s absurd,” said Jerry Z. Muller, a professor of history at Catholic University of America andthe author of “The Costs of Accountability,” a study of misplaced and misunderstood metrics. “Their graduates have high earnings because they’re incredibly selective about who they let in.And many of them come from privileged backgrounds, which also correlates with high earnings.”

　　美國天主教大學(xué)(Catholic University of America)的史學(xué)教授杰里·Z·穆勒(Jerry Z. Muller)曾出版《TheCosts of Accountability》，該書研究的是誤置和誤解的衡量方法。他說，“這很荒謬。他們的畢業(yè)生收入高，是因為他們在招生的時候非常挑剔。很多學(xué)生 具有特權(quán)背景，這與高收入也有關(guān)系?！?/p>

　　The College Scorecard does not rank colleges, but anyone can use the data to do so. M.I.T. (No. 6 on Scorecard earnings) and Harvard (No. 8) are the only universities in the Scorecard’stop 10 that are also highly ranked by the influential U.S. News and World Report. The otherschools have a narrow focus on highly paid skills. The No. 1 school on Scorecard is MCPHSUniversity, whose graduates earn, on average, $116,400. (MCPHS stands for MassachusettsCollege of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, which is not even ranked by U.S. News.)

　　高校記分卡不給大學(xué)排名，但是任何人都能用那個數(shù)據(jù)來排名。在高校記分卡的前十名中，只有麻省理工學(xué)院(在高校記分卡的收入榜上排名第六)和哈 佛大學(xué)(排名第八)擠入了具有影響力的《美國新聞和世界報道》(U.S. News and World Report)的排行榜的前列。前十名的其他院校都只關(guān)注能獲得高收入的技能。高校記分卡上的第一名是麻省醫(yī)藥與健康科學(xué)學(xué)院 (Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and HealthSciences，《美國新聞》甚至沒有收錄這所大學(xué))，該校畢業(yè)生的年平均收入是11.64萬美元。

　　But pay, of course, says nothing about the relative quality of different colleges. “If you go toM.I.T. and earn a degree in engineering, you’re going to make more than if you go to Oberlinand major in music performance,” Professor Muller said. “But you already know this. To rankthe value of colleges based on the ultimate earnings of their graduates radically narrows theconcept of what college is supposed to be for.”

　　不過，當然，收入與不同院校的相對質(zhì)量沒有關(guān)系?！耙话銇碚f，考上麻省理工學(xué)院，獲得工程學(xué)學(xué)位，比考上奧伯林學(xué)院(Oberlin)，學(xué)音樂 表演， 更能賺錢，”穆勒教授說，“不過這一點你本來就知道。根據(jù)畢業(yè)生的最終收入評判大學(xué)的價值會從根本上把大學(xué)的目標變得狹隘?！?/p>

　　Andrew Delbanco, a professor at Columbia University and author of the book “College: What ItWas, Is, and Should Be,” agreed. “Holding colleges accountable for how well they preparestudents for postcollege life is a good thing in principle,” he said. “But measuring thatpreparation in purely monetary terms raises many dangers. Should colleges be encouragedfirst and foremost to maximize the net worth of their graduates? I don’t think so.”

　　哥倫比亞大學(xué)(Columbia University)教授、《大學(xué)：過去、現(xiàn)在和未來》(College: What It Was, Is, andShould Be)的作者安德魯·德爾班科(Andrew Delbanco)贊同這一觀點。他說，“從原則上講，認為大學(xué)有責任為學(xué)生畢業(yè)后的生活做好準備是件好事。但是，純粹從金錢角度衡量準備得是否夠好，會 衍生出很多問題。應(yīng)該鼓勵大學(xué)把增加畢業(yè)生凈資產(chǎn)作為首要目標嗎?我覺得不應(yīng)該?！?/p>

　　And that is assuming the earnings data is reliable. Scorecard draws from a substantialdatabase of tax returns, but measures the postgraduate incomes only of students whoreceived federal loans or grants, which excludes most students from high-income families. Andhigh family income is a factor that correlates strongly with postgraduate earnings.

　　所有這些都是假定收入數(shù)據(jù)可信。高校記分卡依據(jù)的是龐大的納稅申報數(shù)據(jù)庫，但是它只衡量接受聯(lián)邦貸款或助學(xué)金的學(xué)生的收入，排除了大多數(shù)來自高收入家庭的學(xué)生的收入。家庭高收入與畢業(yè)生的收入有很大關(guān)系。

　　PayScale, which ranks colleges based on postgraduate earnings reported by users of its webservices, produces numbers that in many cases are substantially different from Scorecard’s.PayScale’s “midcareer” earnings for graduates of Harvard (ranked third at $126,000) and M.I.T., (No. 6, at $124,000) are much higher than Scorecard’s figures.

　　PayScale根據(jù)其網(wǎng)站用戶報告的畢業(yè)收入給大學(xué)排名，它得出的數(shù)據(jù)在很多方面與高校記分卡大不相同。PayScale算出的哈佛大學(xué) (12.6 萬美元，排名第三)和麻省理工學(xué)院(12.4萬美元，排名第六)畢業(yè)生在“事業(yè)中期”的平均收入比高校記分卡的高很多。

　　As with Scorecard, PayScale’s top-ranked institutions, SUNY-Maritime College in the Bronx($134,000) and Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, Calif. ($133,000), train students forspecialized, high-paying fields.

　　和高校記分卡一樣，PayScale上排名最高的院校——布朗克斯的紐約州立大學(xué)海事學(xué)院(13.4萬美元)和加利福尼亞州克萊爾蒙特的哈維馬德學(xué)院(Harvey Mudd College，13.3萬美元)——都是培養(yǎng)學(xué)生進入專業(yè)化的高收入行業(yè)。

　　U.S. News does not even include earnings data in its ranking formula, although it said it mightdo so. “The federal data is a large and new data set, and we’re studying it,” said Brian Kelly,editor and chi content officer for U.S. News. “It represents a subset of students, and we’relooking closely to determine if it in fact tells us what it claims to.”

　　《美國新聞》甚至沒有把收入數(shù)據(jù)納入自己的排名系統(tǒng)，不過它說將來可能會納入?！奥?lián)邦政府的數(shù)據(jù)庫又大又新，我們正在研究它，”《美國新聞》的 主編、首席內(nèi)容官布賴恩·凱利(Brian Kelly)說，“它僅代表一部分學(xué)生，我們在仔細斟酌它是否真能告訴我們它聲稱能告知的東西?！?/p>

　　Some schools highly ranked by U.S. News — Grinnell, Smith and Wellesley, for example — havelow rankings on PayScale and low earnings results on Scorecard. Mr. Kelly said U.S. News wasexamining these “anomalies.”

　　《美國新聞》排名最高的一些院校——比如格林內(nèi)爾學(xué)院(Grinnell)、史密斯學(xué)院(Smith)和韋爾斯利學(xué)院(Wellesley)——在PayScale上的排名較低，在高校記分卡上的收入水平也較低。凱利說，《美國新聞》正在研究這些“反?，F(xiàn)象”。

　　This year, the Brookings Institution published its own ambitious college rankings that try toimprove upon what it sees as flaws in the other lists. It calculates the “value added” of eachcollege by comparing what graduates would be expected to earn given their enteringcharacteristics to what they do earn after graduating.

　　今年，布魯金斯學(xué)會(Brookings Institution)發(fā)布了自己雄心勃勃的大學(xué)排行榜，努力彌補它所認為的其他排行榜的缺陷。它通過比較預(yù)估收入(根據(jù)學(xué)生入學(xué)時的品質(zhì))與畢業(yè)后實際收入之間的差距，計算每所院校的“增加值”。

　　Because of their high test scores and other factors, students entering Harvard would beexpected to do well in postgraduate earnings (a projected $85,950, according to Brookings).That they actually earned $118,200 is a measure of what a Harvard education added to theirpotential earnings.

　　考上哈佛的學(xué)生學(xué)習(xí)成績好，再加上其他因素，他們的預(yù)估收入比較高(布魯金斯學(xué)會估計是8.595萬美元)，而他們的實際年平均收入為11.82萬美元，這樣就能衡量接受哈佛的教育后，學(xué)生們的賺錢能力增強了多少。

　　The Brookings rankings factor in the nature of a college’s curriculum, the career choices of itsgraduates and the percentage of graduates prepared for so-called STEM occupations (science,technology, engineering and math), so like Scorecard and PayScale results, its rankings aredominated by schools with narrow focuses on those high-paying areas.

　　布魯金斯學(xué)會的排名把大學(xué)課程、畢業(yè)生的職業(yè)選擇和準備進入所謂的STEM行業(yè)(科學(xué)、技術(shù)、工程和數(shù)學(xué))的學(xué)生比例納入考慮因素，所以與高校記分卡和PayScale一樣，它的榜單主要由只關(guān)注這些高收入行業(yè)的學(xué)校占據(jù)。

　　Of the eight schools earning perfect scores of 100 in its rankings, five have technology-focusedcurriculums: California Institute of Technology; M.I.T.; Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology inTerre Haute, Ind.; SUNY-Maritime; and Clarkson University in Potsdam, N.Y. (Brookings drawsits data from PayScale, LinkedIn and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

　　布魯金斯學(xué)會排行榜上獲得滿分的八所學(xué)校里有五所提供以技術(shù)為主的課程：加州理工學(xué)院(CaliforniaInstitute of Technology);麻省理工學(xué)院;印第安納州特雷霍特的羅斯-哈爾曼理工學(xué)院(Rose-HulmanInstitute of Technology);紐約州立大學(xué)海事學(xué)院;紐約州波茨坦的克拉克森大學(xué)(Clarkson University)。布魯金斯學(xué)會參考的是PayScale、LinkedIn和勞工統(tǒng)計局(Bureau of Labor Statistics)的數(shù)據(jù)。

　　Jonathan Rothwell, a fellow at Brookings and an author of the study, said that many educatorsapplauded this approach but it had drawn criticism from the liberal arts community, whichsays it unduly weights a narrow focus on high-paying STEM fields. Mr. Rothwell dended thatapproach, noting that a college’s curriculum and what field a student studies were “hugelyrelevant to graduate success.”

　　布魯金斯學(xué)會成員、這項研究的作者喬納森·羅思韋爾(Jonathan Rothwell)說，很多教育者贊賞這種方法，但它也遭到文科院校的批評，后者認為這種方法過于倚重高收入的STEM專業(yè)。羅思韋爾為這種方法辯護，指 出大學(xué)課程和專業(yè)“與畢業(yè)后的成功有很大關(guān)系”。

　　But he acknowledged that liberal arts programs and programs that train students for lower-paying fields were valuable to both individuals and society. “If your only goal is to make asmuch money as possible, you should study engineering, computer science, biology orbusiness,” he said. “But most people are interested in more than just making money.”

　　不過，他承認，文科和低收入專業(yè)對個人和社會都很重要。“如果你的目標只是盡可能地多掙錢，那么你應(yīng)該學(xué)工程學(xué)、計算機科學(xué)、生物或商科，”他說，“但是大部分人感興趣的不只是掙錢?！?/p>