How to make college cheaper

　　怎樣才能讓大學更便宜一些

　　DEREK BOK, a former president of Harvard, once observed that universities share onecharacteristic with compulsive gamblers and exiled royalty: there is never enough money tosatisfy their desires. This is a bit hard on compulsive gamblers and exiled royals. Americasuniversities have raised their fees five times as fast as inflation over the past 30 years.Student debt in America exceeds credit-card debt. Yet still the universities keep sendingbegging letters to alumni and philanthropists.

　　哈佛前校長德里克博克曾經注意到，大學與病態性賭徒和流亡皇族們有一個共同特征：永遠沒有足夠的錢來滿足他們的欲望。這對于病態性賭徒和流亡皇族們未免有些刻薄。在過去30年中，美國大學提高費用的速度是通貨膨脹速度的5倍。在美國的學生債務超過信用卡債務。然而，大學依然向校友們和慈善家們發募捐信。

　　This insatiable appetite for money was bad enough during the boom years. It is trulyirritating now that middle-class incomes are stagnant and students are struggling to findgood jobs. Hence a flurry of new thinking about higher education. Are universities inevitablyexpensive? Vance Fried, of Oklahoma State University, recently conducted a fascinatingthought experiment, backed up by detailed calculations. Is it possible to provide a first-classundergraduate education for $6,700 a year rather than the $25,900 charged by public researchuniversities or the $51,500 charged by their private peers? He concluded that it is.

　　在經濟景氣的年份，這種對金錢貪得無厭的胃口讓人厭煩。而在目前中產階級收入縮水、學生為找一份好工作絞盡腦汁之際，這種胃口簡直是讓人憤怒。因此也就有了一陣對高等教育的重新思考。大學是不是非要如此昂貴呢?最近，俄克拉荷馬州立大學的 Vance Fried完成了一個迷人的思維實驗。提供第一流的本科教育僅花費6700美元，而非公立研究型大學收取的25900美元或私立研究型大學收取的 51500美元，這是否可能?Vance Fried認為答案是肯定的。

　　Mr Fried shunned easy solutions. He insisted thatstudents should live in residential colleges, just asthey do at Harvard and Yale. He did not suggestgetting rid of football stadiums or scrimping on bed-and-board.

　　Vance Fried回避了簡單的解決方案。他認為學生應當在寄宿制大學學習生活正如哈佛和耶魯現在那樣。他并沒有建議去掉足球場或者節省膳宿費用。

　　His cost-cutting strategies were as follows. First,separate the funding of teaching and research.Research is a public good, he reasoned, but there isno reason why undergraduates should pay for it. Second, increase the student-teacher ratio.Business and law schools achieve good results with big classes. Why not other colleges? MrFried thinks that universities will be able to mix some small classes with big ones even if theyhave fewer teachers. Third, eliminate or consolidate programmes that attract few students.Fourth, puncture administrative bloat. The cost of administration per student soared by 61%in real terms between 1993 and 2007. Private research universities spend $7,000 a year perstudent on administrative support: not only deans and department heads but alsopsychologists, counsellors, human-resources implementation managers and so on. That ismore than the entire cost of educating a student under Mr Frieds scheme.

　　他削減開支的策略如下。第一，將教學和學術研究的資金分離開來。他認為，學術研究是一種公益，不過大學生就應當為此買單毫無道理可言。第二，增加學生與老師人數的比率。商學院和法學院上的是大課，但是收效更佳。其他學院為什么就不能呢?Vance Fried認為，即便學校的老師再少一些，大學也能夠將許多小班跟大班混在一起。第三，剔除或者加強那些不能很好吸引學生的課程。第四，削弱行政膨脹。實際上，行政管理的費用在1993年至2007年之間上漲了61%。私立研究型大學一年在每位學生行政支持上要花掉7000美元。所謂行政支持，對象不僅有院長、系主任，還有心理學家、輔導員、人事科的執行人員等等。這比VanceFried方案下培養一位學生的全部費用都要多。

　　Veteran university-watchers may dismiss Mr Frieds ideas as pie in the sky. Yet some universities are beginning to squeeze costs. The University ofMinnesotas new campus in Rochester has defined teaching as job one. The HarrisburgUniversity of Science and Technology has abolished tenure and merged academic departments.Regents at the University of Texas are talking about a $10,000 undergraduate degree.

　　資深大學觀察家或許會對Vance Fried的主意不屑一顧，認為那是天方夜譚。。不過，一些大學正在開始擠壓成本。 明尼蘇達州大學在羅切斯特市的新校區已經將教學定義為第一工作。 哈里斯堡科技大學已經廢除了終身職位并合并了學術部門。德克薩斯大學的校董們開始談論10000美元的本科學位。

　　Mr Fried fails to mention an obvious source of savings. Americans could complete theirundergraduate degrees in three years , instead of four. In practice,most American students take even longer than four years, not least because so many work topay their tuition. Surprisingly, Americas future chainsaw-wielding corporate titans take aleisurely two years to complete their MBAs; most Europeans need only one.

　　Vance Fried忘了提及一種顯而易見的節省開支的渠道。美國人可以用3年取得本科學位，而不是4年。。實際上，許多美國人取得學位的時間都要超過4年尤其是因為要做許多工作來支付學費。奇怪的是，美國未來的企業巨頭需兩年，方可從容完成MBA學位，大多數歐洲人只需要1年。

　　Shai Reshef, an educational entrepreneur-turned-philanthropist, is pioneering an even moreradical idea. His University of the People offers free higher education , pitching itself to poor peoplein America and the rest of the world. The university does this by exploiting three resources: thegoodwill of academic volunteers who want to help the poor, the availability of freecourseware on the internet and the power of social networking. Some 2,000 academicvolunteers have designed the courses and given the university some credibility. Tutors directthe students, who so far number 1,000 or so and hail from around the world, to the onlinecourses. They also help to organise them into study groups, and then supervise from afar,dropping in on discussions and marking tests. Mr Reshef pays for incidental expenses with$2m of his own money and donations.

　　一位受過教育的企業家出身的慈善家Shai Reshef提出了更為激進的觀點。他的人民大學提供免費高等教育，向美國和世界其他地方的窮人推銷自己的學校。這所大學利用三種資源來運轉：想要幫助窮人的學術志愿者的善意、互聯網上可獲得的免費課件和社交網絡。約2000個學術志愿者設計了課程，使大學有了一些信譽。指導老師們將那些迄今已有 1000左右來自世界各地的學生帶到網絡課程。老師們同樣幫助學生組織學習小組，在遠方監督他們，不時加入探討、進行考試。Shai Reshef額外支付200萬的花費，這些錢來自自己的腰包或者募捐。

　　There are plenty of questions about Mr Reshefsproject. Can you really build a university onvolunteerism and goodwill? Can students really berelied upon to do most of the teaching themselves?Will free courseware remain free?

　　關于Shai Reshef的項目有諸多疑問。大學能真正地建立在志愿者服務和善意上嗎?學生們是否真正能夠自己完成那些教學?免費的課件會一直免費嗎?

　　Mr Reshefs university has yet to win accreditation, which could take years. But he can takecomfort from Clayton Christensens classic book The Innovators Dilemma. Mr Christensenpoints out that innovators often start by offering products that are cheaper, but markedlyinferior. Quickly, however, they learn how to improve their offerings. Even if Mr Reshef fails,there are plenty of other disruptive innovators around. In America, one tertiary student in tenalready studies exclusively online. One in four does so at least some of the time, and agrowing number of bodies, including elite universities, think-tanks, governments andinternational organisations, are putting first-rate material online.

　　Shai Reshef的大學目前還在資格鑒定中，這可能會耗時數年。不過，他能夠從克萊頓克里斯坦森的經典大作《創新者的窘境》中獲取慰藉。克里斯坦森指出，創新者經常從提供價廉物不美的產品起步。不過，很快他們就學會改進他們的產品。即便Shai Reshef失敗了，依然存在許多有破壞性的創新者。在美國，十分之一的受高等教育學生已經完全通過網絡學習。四分之一的學生至少在某段時間通過網絡學習。不斷增加的實體，如精英大學、智囊、政府和國際組織將一流的資料放到網上。

　　How to make college cheaper

　　怎樣才能讓大學更便宜一些

　　DEREK BOK, a former president of Harvard, once observed that universities share onecharacteristic with compulsive gamblers and exiled royalty: there is never enough money tosatisfy their desires. This is a bit hard on compulsive gamblers and exiled royals. Americasuniversities have raised their fees five times as fast as inflation over the past 30 years.Student debt in America exceeds credit-card debt. Yet still the universities keep sendingbegging letters to alumni and philanthropists.

　　哈佛前校長德里克博克曾經注意到，大學與病態性賭徒和流亡皇族們有一個共同特征：永遠沒有足夠的錢來滿足他們的欲望。這對于病態性賭徒和流亡皇族們未免有些刻薄。在過去30年中，美國大學提高費用的速度是通貨膨脹速度的5倍。在美國的學生債務超過信用卡債務。然而，大學依然向校友們和慈善家們發募捐信。

　　This insatiable appetite for money was bad enough during the boom years. It is trulyirritating now that middle-class incomes are stagnant and students are struggling to findgood jobs. Hence a flurry of new thinking about higher education. Are universities inevitablyexpensive? Vance Fried, of Oklahoma State University, recently conducted a fascinatingthought experiment, backed up by detailed calculations. Is it possible to provide a first-classundergraduate education for $6,700 a year rather than the $25,900 charged by public researchuniversities or the $51,500 charged by their private peers? He concluded that it is.

　　在經濟景氣的年份，這種對金錢貪得無厭的胃口讓人厭煩。而在目前中產階級收入縮水、學生為找一份好工作絞盡腦汁之際，這種胃口簡直是讓人憤怒。因此也就有了一陣對高等教育的重新思考。大學是不是非要如此昂貴呢?最近，俄克拉荷馬州立大學的 Vance Fried完成了一個迷人的思維實驗。提供第一流的本科教育僅花費6700美元，而非公立研究型大學收取的25900美元或私立研究型大學收取的 51500美元，這是否可能?Vance Fried認為答案是肯定的。

　　Mr Fried shunned easy solutions. He insisted thatstudents should live in residential colleges, just asthey do at Harvard and Yale. He did not suggestgetting rid of football stadiums or scrimping on bed-and-board.

　　Vance Fried回避了簡單的解決方案。他認為學生應當在寄宿制大學學習生活正如哈佛和耶魯現在那樣。他并沒有建議去掉足球場或者節省膳宿費用。

　　His cost-cutting strategies were as follows. First,separate the funding of teaching and research.Research is a public good, he reasoned, but there isno reason why undergraduates should pay for it. Second, increase the student-teacher ratio.Business and law schools achieve good results with big classes. Why not other colleges? MrFried thinks that universities will be able to mix some small classes with big ones even if theyhave fewer teachers. Third, eliminate or consolidate programmes that attract few students.Fourth, puncture administrative bloat. The cost of administration per student soared by 61%in real terms between 1993 and 2007. Private research universities spend $7,000 a year perstudent on administrative support: not only deans and department heads but alsopsychologists, counsellors, human-resources implementation managers and so on. That ismore than the entire cost of educating a student under Mr Frieds scheme.

　　他削減開支的策略如下。第一，將教學和學術研究的資金分離開來。他認為，學術研究是一種公益，不過大學生就應當為此買單毫無道理可言。第二，增加學生與老師人數的比率。商學院和法學院上的是大課，但是收效更佳。其他學院為什么就不能呢?Vance Fried認為，即便學校的老師再少一些，大學也能夠將許多小班跟大班混在一起。第三，剔除或者加強那些不能很好吸引學生的課程。第四，削弱行政膨脹。實際上，行政管理的費用在1993年至2007年之間上漲了61%。私立研究型大學一年在每位學生行政支持上要花掉7000美元。所謂行政支持，對象不僅有院長、系主任，還有心理學家、輔導員、人事科的執行人員等等。這比VanceFried方案下培養一位學生的全部費用都要多。

　　Veteran university-watchers may dismiss Mr Frieds ideas as pie in the sky. Yet some universities are beginning to squeeze costs. The University ofMinnesotas new campus in Rochester has defined teaching as job one. The HarrisburgUniversity of Science and Technology has abolished tenure and merged academic departments.Regents at the University of Texas are talking about a $10,000 undergraduate degree.

　　資深大學觀察家或許會對Vance Fried的主意不屑一顧，認為那是天方夜譚。。不過，一些大學正在開始擠壓成本。 明尼蘇達州大學在羅切斯特市的新校區已經將教學定義為第一工作。 哈里斯堡科技大學已經廢除了終身職位并合并了學術部門。德克薩斯大學的校董們開始談論10000美元的本科學位。

　　Mr Fried fails to mention an obvious source of savings. Americans could complete theirundergraduate degrees in three years , instead of four. In practice,most American students take even longer than four years, not least because so many work topay their tuition. Surprisingly, Americas future chainsaw-wielding corporate titans take aleisurely two years to complete their MBAs; most Europeans need only one.

　　Vance Fried忘了提及一種顯而易見的節省開支的渠道。美國人可以用3年取得本科學位，而不是4年。。實際上，許多美國人取得學位的時間都要超過4年尤其是因為要做許多工作來支付學費。奇怪的是，美國未來的企業巨頭需兩年，方可從容完成MBA學位，大多數歐洲人只需要1年。

　　Shai Reshef, an educational entrepreneur-turned-philanthropist, is pioneering an even moreradical idea. His University of the People offers free higher education , pitching itself to poor peoplein America and the rest of the world. The university does this by exploiting three resources: thegoodwill of academic volunteers who want to help the poor, the availability of freecourseware on the internet and the power of social networking. Some 2,000 academicvolunteers have designed the courses and given the university some credibility. Tutors directthe students, who so far number 1,000 or so and hail from around the world, to the onlinecourses. They also help to organise them into study groups, and then supervise from afar,dropping in on discussions and marking tests. Mr Reshef pays for incidental expenses with$2m of his own money and donations.

　　一位受過教育的企業家出身的慈善家Shai Reshef提出了更為激進的觀點。他的人民大學提供免費高等教育，向美國和世界其他地方的窮人推銷自己的學校。這所大學利用三種資源來運轉：想要幫助窮人的學術志愿者的善意、互聯網上可獲得的免費課件和社交網絡。約2000個學術志愿者設計了課程，使大學有了一些信譽。指導老師們將那些迄今已有 1000左右來自世界各地的學生帶到網絡課程。老師們同樣幫助學生組織學習小組，在遠方監督他們，不時加入探討、進行考試。Shai Reshef額外支付200萬的花費，這些錢來自自己的腰包或者募捐。

　　There are plenty of questions about Mr Reshefsproject. Can you really build a university onvolunteerism and goodwill? Can students really berelied upon to do most of the teaching themselves?Will free courseware remain free?

　　關于Shai Reshef的項目有諸多疑問。大學能真正地建立在志愿者服務和善意上嗎?學生們是否真正能夠自己完成那些教學?免費的課件會一直免費嗎?

　　Mr Reshefs university has yet to win accreditation, which could take years. But he can takecomfort from Clayton Christensens classic book The Innovators Dilemma. Mr Christensenpoints out that innovators often start by offering products that are cheaper, but markedlyinferior. Quickly, however, they learn how to improve their offerings. Even if Mr Reshef fails,there are plenty of other disruptive innovators around. In America, one tertiary student in tenalready studies exclusively online. One in four does so at least some of the time, and agrowing number of bodies, including elite universities, think-tanks, governments andinternational organisations, are putting first-rate material online.

　　Shai Reshef的大學目前還在資格鑒定中，這可能會耗時數年。不過，他能夠從克萊頓克里斯坦森的經典大作《創新者的窘境》中獲取慰藉。克里斯坦森指出，創新者經常從提供價廉物不美的產品起步。不過，很快他們就學會改進他們的產品。即便Shai Reshef失敗了，依然存在許多有破壞性的創新者。在美國，十分之一的受高等教育學生已經完全通過網絡學習。四分之一的學生至少在某段時間通過網絡學習。不斷增加的實體，如精英大學、智囊、政府和國際組織將一流的資料放到網上。