名校的代價 The Price of Admission

Almost three decades ago, I applied to Cambridge University in England for an undergraduate degree. Just before my interview, a school teacher proffered some advice: “Don't mention that your father went to Cambridge - or not unless you are asked!”

大約三十年前，我試着申請了英國劍橋大學(Cambridge University)的一個本科生項目。在我面試之前，學校裏的一位老師提了一條建議：“不要主動提起你的父親曾在劍橋就讀——除非他們問起！”

The reason? Back then in 1980s Britain, there was an aversion to the idea that family connections could help students get an elite university place. Indeed, the only thing considered more taboo by admissions officers was the idea that somebody could “buy” their way into a university with charitable donations, coupled with family ties.

爲什麼會這樣呢？在二十世紀80年代的英國，人們不喜歡那種認爲家庭人脈可以幫助學生在精英大學獲得一席之地的想法。事實上，在招生官員眼中，唯一比這更加忌諱的想法是認爲既有家庭關係又有大把金錢的人可能通過慈善捐款“買”出一條通往大學的捷徑。

How times change. Or, more accurately, how perceptions vary according to geography and social customs. This autumn, the children of several American friends entered a clutch of elite US colleges, such as Brown, Harvard and Princeton. Most of these kids have “earned” their places, in the sense of having high-performing SAT tests and curriculum vitae packed with accolades. And yet these intelligent teenagers had another advantage: connections. More specifically, their parents and relatives are usually alumni of those elite universities, visibly involved in the alumni network and have often made philanthropic donations.

而現在情況已經大爲不同了，或者更確切地說是地理環境和社會風俗導致了人的觀念發生巨大變化。今年秋天，幾位美國朋友的孩子進入了布朗、哈佛以及普林斯頓這樣的美國名校。其中絕大多數孩子都是憑“硬實力”得到錄取的，因爲他們有着優異的SAT考試成績以及滿是各種榮譽的個人簡歷。除此之外這些聰慧的少年們還有一項優勢：人脈。他們的父母或親屬通常是這些精英大學的校友，不僅公開參與校友圈的活動，還常常爲母校慷慨捐款。

To be sure, those parents usually do not want to stress this aspect of their kids' lives: it would be rude to ever discuss the “price” of securing a spot (ie how much philanthropy or alumni involvement is required). But there is no shame incurred by the practice either. On the contrary, when I relate my Cambridge tale it provokes astonishment. This is little wonder, perhaps, when educational researchers estimate that at least 10 per cent of students (if not many more) at some top Ivy League universities are “legacy” kids - and having a family link increases a mid-level student's chance of entry by about 60 per cent.

這些家長通常不願強調孩子人生的這一側面：討論要花多大“價錢”（例如要捐出多少慈善款項或者要參與多少校友活動）才能確保獲得一個名校名額顯得非常粗魯。然而這些事情實際做起來卻也不會讓人感到羞恥。正相反，當我談到我的劍橋故事時聽者都會深感震驚。因此，下面這個調查結果也許就沒有什麼值得大驚小怪的了：教育研究人員估計在某些常青藤頂級名校裏至少有10%（或者更多）的學生具有“家族淵源”——擁有家庭人脈可以令一名中等學生獲得名校錄取的機率增加約60%。

“It is just how the system works,” says a friend in Washington, a prominent Harvard alumnus who proudly “helped” get his nephew to Harvard this year. “My nephew is incredibly bright - he deserves to be there. But the problem is that there are lots of other bright kids, so I did everything I could.” Or as Larry Summers, former Harvard University president, has observed, “Legacy admissions are integral to the kind of community that any private educational institution is” - or they are in the eyes of Ivy League leaders and some private liberal arts colleges.

一位在華盛頓的朋友表示：“招生體系就是這樣運作的”；這位頗有名望的哈佛校友今年自豪地“幫助”自己的侄子進入了哈佛大學。他說：“我的侄子非常聰明，他完全有資格進哈佛。問題是聰明的孩子太多了，所以我盡了自己的全力幫助他。”或許正如哈佛前任校長勞倫斯?H?薩默斯(Larry Summers)所說的：“錄取校友子女正是私立教育機構這樣的社團組織的一部分。”——其他常青藤學校以及部分私立人文學院的校長也持同樣看法。

Don't get me wrong: in telling this story I am emphatically not suggesting that Britain's educational system is a paragon of effectiveness or meritocracy. There is hypocrisy aplenty in those British norms. With or without legacies, most students at Oxford or Cambridge come from privileged backgrounds. And there is a practical problem too: precisely because institutions such as Cambridge will not sell places for philanthropy, they are cash-strapped compared with the likes of Harvard.

請不要誤會：我講這個故事的目的不是爲了可以強調英國的教育體系是效率或英才教育的典範。英國的教育制度中有着足夠多的僞善。不管有沒有“家族淵源”，絕大多數牛津(Oxford)或劍橋的學生通常都擁有優越的家庭背景。而且英國還存在一個非常現實的問題：正因爲像劍橋這樣的學校不願用招生名額換取慈善捐助，它們相對於哈佛等學校在資金方面面臨制肘。

But while the American cultural standards are arguably more honest - and commercial - they carry potentially debilitating consequences. And what I find truly striking is just how little this system is openly discussed, particularly compared to the whole issue of “positive discrimination” (or the idea of awarding places proactively on the basis of race, say, which has sparked a storm of discussion in America in recent days). One problem of the legacy system is that it entrenches privilege. It also gives the student body of the Ivy League a bifurcated, if not “caste” feel. For while a commendably large chunk of students at Ivy League schools study on scholarships, there are relatively few children from “middle” families - those too wealthy to qualify for aid but not wealthy and elite enough to pull strings.

不過雖然美國的文化標準被認爲是更加誠實，也更加商業化，它們卻可能造成使自身日漸衰弱的後果。真正令我感到驚訝的是，美國人很少就這種招生體制展開公開討論，特別是相對於近期在美國激起了一輪討論浪潮的“正面歧視”（positive discrimination，基於種族背景主動分配招生名額的做法）問題而言。家族淵源式招生體制的一大問題在於強化了社會特權。它還賦予了常青藤學校的學生羣體一種二元分化感，雖然這還算不上是“種姓制度”。因爲雖然很大一部分常青藤學校的學生擁有獎學金，來自“中產”家庭的孩子仍然相對較少——他們的家庭過於富有以至於不滿足申請助學補助的條件，但又沒富貴到可以調動人脈走後門的地步。

More damaging still, the legacy system contributes to bifurcation in the education world. These days, many private Ivy League institutions are drowning in funds because of those alumni donations. Indeed, fundraising is usually cited as a key benefit of that legacy system. But while Harvard, say, has plenty of largesse, much of America's publicly funded higher education system is being crushed. Over in California, for example, the public universities that cluster around Berkeley are currently facing “draconian” cuts, as Nathan Brostrom, executive vice president, says. Indeed, they have already lost a third of their state aid in the past five years.

更具破壞力的是，這種淵源式招生體制也導致了教育界的二元分化。現如今，許多常青藤私立院校擁有數量龐大的來自校友的捐助資金。而資金募集通常被認爲是這種招生體制的關鍵優勢之一。不過雖然哈佛獲得了足夠多的慷慨捐助，美國依賴公共財政撥款的高等教育體系卻在很大程度上面臨資金壓力。伯克利大學(Berkeley)執行副校長內森?布羅斯特洛姆(Nathan Brostrom)表示，在加州，以伯克利爲首的公立大學體系正面臨“嚴峻”的資金縮水。過去五年中，州政府對這些學校的補助減少了三分之一。

But it is tough for Berkeley to replace that state money since the colleges do not practise a legacy policy at all: instead, Brostrom says that 40percent of students come from low-income families (compared with 10 per cent at Ivy League institutions.)

但對於伯克利大學來說，填補政府資金缺口的難度很大，因爲該校從未施行過校友子女優先錄取政策。正相反，布羅斯特洛姆表示有40%的學生來自低收入家庭（在常青藤院校這一比例通常僅爲10%）。

So too at the State University of New York, which runs a vast network of public community colleges and universities. This has lost $1.5bn of its state funding, or some 30 per cent, in the past four years, says Nancy Zimpher, head of SUNY. She is trying to replace this with private money. But the battle “is tough”, since SUNY has no legacy policy and no real tradition of raising private funds. After all, hedge fund managers are unlikely to give millions to a community college to secure a place for their children. Their largesse typically either goes to their alma mater or to fund a school for poor, photogenic, little kids.

紐約州立大學(State University of New York, SUNY)也面臨同樣困境，該校運營着一個由公共社區學院以及大學組成的龐大網絡。SUNY校長南希?金弗爾(Nancy Zimpher)表示，過去四年州政府對該校的撥款減少了15億美元，降幅高達30%。目前她正試圖用來自私人部門的資金填補這一缺口。但這是一場“艱難”的鬥爭，因爲SUNY既沒有施行校友子女優先錄取政策，也沒有募集私人捐助的傳統。畢竟對衝基金經理們不太可能爲一所社區學院捐助數百萬美元，以保證自己的孩子以後能到那裏就讀。通常來說，他們要麼會爲自己的母校慷慨解囊，要麼會把錢捐給那種招收貧困、低齡而又上鏡的孩子的學校。

This is a tragedy. After all, what happens (or does not happen) at a place such as SUNY is crucial for future American growth. Or to put it another way, if America is going to stay competitive and cohesive, it desperately needs to create decent higher education for a wide swathe of its population - and not just for an elite that is becoming adept at reproducing privilege across generations, under the banner of donations.

這是一個悲劇。歸根結底，在像SUNY這樣的地方發生或沒有發生的事情對於美國未來的發展來說至關重要。如果美國要想繼續保持競爭力和凝聚力，就迫切需要爲本國民衆中範圍更廣的羣體創造優質的高等教育環境——而不是僅僅爲了精英階層服務，這一階層打着捐助的旗號正變得越來越善於將特權代代相傳。