American Higher Education in Crisis

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 5 May 2010
by Xue Yong (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Michelle Deeter. Edited by Alex Brewer.
Ever since the 1990s, America’s economy has been developing quickly, its colleges have had plentiful financial resources and its power has been increasing. America’s higher level education practically became the model for the world. But within the United States, the gap between the rich and the poor has been becoming more and more serious, and tuition for college has been steadily increasing. It is becoming more and more difficult for the average family to afford the cost of college. Education is a means by which people can achieve social mobility. However, at the same time that America’s higher education pursues exceptional standards, it is in danger of losing this capability. Are American colleges, especially famous colleges, ultimately an institution for the privileged or an engine of opportunities? What kind of society will higher education create?

In the background of the huge educational crisis, a book called “Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education” was published in 2005, and won the Outstanding Book Award from the American Education Research Association in 2006. The main author, William G. Bowen, is the unquestionable leader in American higher education scholarship. In 1972, at age 39, he became the president of Princeton University. After leaving this position in 1988, he became the president of The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (until 2006). “Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education” and Bowen’s “Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America's Public Universities” both looked at American universities. The former emphasizes elite colleges, and the latter emphasizes public universities. Combined, these two books basically compose a comprehensive evaluation of the history of American higher education until today, the current situation in America, and the future of American higher education.

China’s higher education is also experiencing unprecedented transformations. Ever since the 1990s, China’s universities started to expand rapidly. At the beginning of this century, a campaign to build world-class universities began, and the taxpayers’ money all flowed into a few famous universities. However, the quality of education did not improve. On the contrary, it worsened and lead to a structural imbalance in the universities, causing many university students to lose their jobs. Moreover, many students were so far in debt that they almost went bankrupt. The costs of college became more and more difficult for average families to afford. Instead of promoting social equality, colleges intensified the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor. In short, China’s higher education sank into a huge crisis.

In the past 10 years, as China’s higher education has developed, many have cited the American model as the principle element of reform projects. Yet it was at this time that America’s goals, system and policies were misunderstood or distorted. In the book that Bowen principally authored, he gave us a more complete explanation of the American model.

Are Equality and Excellence in Conflict?

On the eve of the American War of Independence, the 13 colonies barely had 750 students studying at college. At that time, those studying at the university level were truly the cream of the crop. In 1940, America began to do research on university education and was in the process of overtaking European universities. For this reason, about 4 percent of Americans over 25 graduated from university. By 2002, this proportion surpassed 25 percent. Of the American population aged between 25 and 35, 39 percent had received a college education. The trend in history is clear: Colleges changed from being an elite institution to a popular institution.

After this elite institution has become an institution for the masses, can college education still guarantee a superior quality? The final evaluation of American higher education has concluded that equality and excellence do not oppose each other; in fact, they can complement each other.

The reasons for this conclusion are as follows:

First of all, universities must cultivate excellence; thus, they cannot reject talented students who are in financial need. Thomas Jefferson, one of America’s founding fathers, pointed out that the goal of American education is to nurture the “natural aristocracy of talent and virtue.”

This so-called “natural aristocracy of talent and virtue” deliberately differentiates itself from European tradition of hereditary aristocracy. Jefferson once said the kings of Europe were not fit to be town mayors in America. America values merit and not family names. Universities select those with the best talent, which should be purely based on ability, and not affected by economic factors.

If we make the university students who are competing to be accepted into university the denominator of a fraction and make the university students accepted into university the numerator, then one can discover that in American history, the denominator has always been increasing faster than the numerator, which is why American colleges are still elite. As proved by many tests, the IQ of American university students has been increasing ever since university was popularized. In its early years, Harvard and Yale only recruited students from aristocratic boarding schools in the New England area; in essence, it was just a local university. Almost all the children of wealthy families could study there. Today it has become a world class university with students around the world competing to be accepted. The IQ of today’s Ivy League students has reached a level unthinkable to those stupid rich children who studied there a couple of hundred years ago.

Second, the development of American society made high demands on the scope and scale of higher level education. American industry continually rose higher and higher, the service industry and high technology industry also flourished and even the manufacturing industry became a white collar industry. For this reason, universities had to make a majority of the population become people who worked with their brains. However, America faced many difficult challenges making this happen. If one compares the proportion of the population between the ages of 25 and 34 that received a college education, in 1991, 30 percent of Americans received a college education. Only Finland (33 percent) and Canada (32 percent) had similar proportions. But by 2002, 51 percent of Canadians, 50 percent of Japanese, 41 percent of Koreans, 40 percent of New Zealanders and 40 percent of Norwegians between the ages of 25 and 34 had college education. All these countries surpassed America (39 percent) and many European countries were close behind. The reason that America lost its leading position after popularizing higher education is not because it was unable to meet the higher quality and number demands, but instead because compulsory education is rather backward. Since the education was unequal, colleges could not provide enough students and compulsory schools were relatively backward.

Third, an excellent university has to maintain its diversity both within and without the classroom. The future leaders of society, which are educated by the elite universities, must understand the classes of society and every corner of their country. For this reason, American universities’ basic mission should be to integrate many races, cultures, and classes. Universities should recruit from every level of society to better reflect society.

Fourth, a participatory democracy requires that the majority of its citizens have a good education so that they can understand an abundance of information and make careful decisions on the basis of that information. If America’s educational resources are used up by a small number of people, then the democratic system will have a crisis due to a lack of participation, which will threaten the democracy itself.

Why American Universities are Exceptional

After establishing the four above objectives, how did American higher education perform? In terms of outstanding ability, the evaluation gives American colleges an A or even A+. None of the universities in other countries can compare with American universities. The book provided a lot of data for evidence, and the facts were all clear.

What caused American schools to become exceptional? There are three main reasons: first, sufficient funds. America spends approximately 2.7 percent of its GDP on higher education. In comparison, most developed Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries spend 1.3 percent of their GDP on higher education, on average. America spends $22,234 on every college student, which at least double the average OECD country’s expenditure of $10,052 per student.

Second, the reason why America has adequate funds is because of the advantages of its system. America’s higher education is more diverse than Europe’s. In Europe, universities are principally state run and are directly subsidized by taxpayer money. Whereas in America, the elite national schools such as the Ivy League universities are basically all private. This system causes a large amount of non-government funds to flow into higher education. The tuition fees of America’s private universities are not restricted by the government. The price is very high, and the rich families will pay it; at the same time, the college will give money to poor students to give them large scholarships. This open and flexible system allowed American higher education to receive funding from society.

Third, besides funding and system design, the most important reason for American higher education’s success is a sufficient number of students applying to study at university. Just before World War II, America’s compulsory education surpassed Europe’s. This was the solid foundation on which America became a world leader in higher education after the war.

In short, superior financial strength made it possible for America to construct a top quality higher education infrastructure, attract top quality professors and maintain a large scale. Students are a core element of higher education because they guarantee a sufficient number of applicants. Thanks to the popularization and equality of education, more and more people have the opportunity to get an education.

The Weak Points of American Higher Education

As far as equality goes, American universities’ performances are much lower. Their score is barely a B. In the last century, American higher education was improving by leaps and bounds, but by the mid-seventies the progress slowed down considerably. This made it difficult for America to create the “human capital” that the new era needed. This is the failure of American higher education.

Why Would This World-Class Higher Education System Fail?

Looking back at recent history, American universities only established principles of equality in the modern sense in the past thirty or forty years. Traditionally, university education was an institution for the elites, strictly monopolized by the elite social classes. This was the case around the world. America established its country on a grassroots democratic governing system, so it was not the same as old Europe. For example, the goals of university were to promote Jefferson’s idea to train the “natural aristocracy” and not the hereditary aristocracy. Before America became a country, Harvard University had the noble tradition of providing financial aid to the poor. However, this tradition and today’s concept of equality are very different. The current concept of equality has replaced the theory of genius of the past and its goal is to overcome the fixed nature of the social classes and increase social mobility. For this reason, universities continually give low income students extra attention to encourage them to rise above their socio-economic status. The establishment of these value-based goals basically stem from the civil rights movement and the women’s rights movement of the 1960s and early 1970s. People of color were accepted into famous universities and many main universities let men and women study at the same university.

Even though one of America’s founding principles included “all men are created equal,” it took nearly 200 years to make the traditional elite institution called university to adopt the modern conception of equality. Furthermore, putting this value into practice is a difficult and unprecedented process.

Let’s review the efforts and accomplishments of American universities to pursue equality in education during the past 30 or 40 years. In terms of effort, American universities adopted a number of powerful measures which provided financial assistance and support to the weaker classes. The most popular of these measures is to separate the household financial situation from the application process. The university admissions offices do not see the students’ household financial situation; they make a decision purely by looking at the students’ merits. After the admissions process, the universities will think of a way to provide financial aid to help students pay for tuition. In this way, the children of rich families do not have an unfair advantage over the poor students. Of course, in order to implement this policy, universities have to establish their financial strength.

However, the famous Ivy League schools do not make up mainstream American higher education. In order to fully benefit the lower classes, the government must have a complementary policy. Starting in 1965, the federal government gradually improved the student loan system, putting a limit on the interest rates of educational loans, and even creating a period where students did not have to pay back interest on their loans. Furthermore, all kinds of private institutions and individual state governments increased financial aid for low income students who wanted to receive a higher education.

In these past 30 to 40 years, scholarships also experienced revolutionary changes. The top universities not only provided free education for low income students, but also for some students in middle class families. In other words, if a student's annual household income was below $60,000 to $70,000 (every school has its own policy), then the school would pay for the students tuition, room and board, and other incidental costs. Of course, only a few of the best universities are able to do this. Some other top universities have come close to this goal of a free education, or at least guaranteeing free education for the poorest students. However, most public universities can also give significant financial aid to low income students with help from the government. For example, based on the data on students who applied to get into major state universities in 1999, students from families of the lowest 25th percentile income bracket on average received free tuition as well as $3000 to help pay for living expenses. Even though the annual living expenses and incidental expenses of a college student totals far more than $3000, students can also use loans and income from a part-time job to help pay for these expenses.

One look at these scholarships and it is easy to see why American universities would be considered a paradise for the poor. But a different set of statistics shows that the opposite is true.

Using statistics up to 2000, students from families of the lowest 25th percentile income bracket were first generation college students. Only 9 percent of these students graduated by age 26. On the other hand, students from families of the highest 25th percentile income bracket had at least one parent that had received a college education. When these students reached age 26, 68 percent of them earned a diploma.

Why is it that things are still unequal even though universities and the government are implementing these goals to increase social equality? Why can’t even generous scholarships change this inequality? In this aspect, the ultimate evaluation was extremely complicated.

Education cannot exist in isolation from society. The ills of education are often an extension of society’s ills. America has one of the biggest gaps between the rich and the poor in the Western world. Regarding educational fairness, it does not perform as well as other developed nations, which makes sense. The inequality in American higher education stems from the realities of compulsory education and socioeconomics. The American government has a high degree of separation of powers with the local government. Compulsory education has been in the jurisdiction of local government since the beginning, which means that the funding mostly comes from property taxes from the school district (usually at the town level). This kind of decentralized financial system is more effective than Europe’s centralized government most of the time. Especially when America was first founded, the society had a more equal distribution of wealth, local financial resources were more plentiful, and even citizen’s consideration for the public good was much more than it is today. It was enough to make Tocqueville swoon. Building schools, libraries and other public institutions using local funding was always popular with local society. Everyone competed with each other to build the best institutions. It’s no small wonder that America’s compulsory education quickly surpassed Europe in the second half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. However, the gap between the rich and poor is becoming more serious every day, and the rich and the poor live in separate communities. Since the real estate in rich communities is very expensive, these communities have ample tax revenue and have ample resources for education. Meanwhile the housing in poor communities is cheaper, causing the tax revenue to dry up quickly, which makes it difficult for the schools to survive. Moreover, the legacy of slavery and segregation still exists in today’s society, causing the education levels of African Americans and Latin Americans to be extremely low. This has dragged down the average level of education of America’s youth.

The only way to solve this problem would be for universities to adopt a series of measures that are out of their reach. These measures would not just include reforming compulsory education, but also involve serious social problems like racism and poverty. Otherwise, no matter how much the universities stressed equality, many children of disadvantaged groups would still have a hard time getting to college. This, however, does not mean that universities are completely helpless. Of those students that did manage to reach the university level, who should get priority? Is the university recruitment process really doing everything in its power to promote social equality? This is a main issue on which universities should focus their attention.

Based on these findings, this evaluation has put forward the following policy suggestions for American higher education. First, universities must keep policies such as Affirmative Action that give preference to African Americans and other minorities. Second, universities should make policies to give preferential treatment to low income students. Third, the government should increase its investment in scholarships and give more financial aid to low income students.

The above evaluation of America’s higher education gives a serious warning to Chinese higher education. The inequality caused by the gap between the rich and the poor was unavoidably reflected in education, which ultimately hindered the formation and speed of accumulation of human capital. This greatly weakened America’s competitiveness. Even though American universities have made this one of their main objectives and have even been using enormous financial resources to battle this problem for several decades, they are no match for the powerful forces of society. The gap between the rich and the poor is even more apparent in China, which will also manifest itself in unequal education. But China’s higher education never set the goals of equality like American higher education did 30 to 40 years ago. China’s universities have always favored the rich. Considering recent trends in population structure and reproductive behaviors, the high income urban dwellers who have been enjoying the best education are having fewer children. Meanwhile, the birth rate of farmers and rural workers, who have been neglected as far as education goes, has always been higher. In the next few decades, this might cause the educational level of the entire population to decrease. At the same time, the population is aging and the size of the labor force is also decreasing. In the future, it will require the Chinese economy to progress from its labor-oriented economy to an added value, creative industry economy, which will increase demands on the quality of labor and education. The current inequality in education hinders the ability of the whole society to improve. In China, both decision makers and public opinion have grossly underestimated the difficulty and the importance of establishing educational equality in a society with such a serious gap between the rich and the poor. America’s experience tells us that even though China will soon establish the goal of equality in education and the policy will be implemented very swiftly, the results in the next few decades are difficult to guarantee. Therefore, the experience of American higher education has undoubtedly made it clear that Chinese universities are in a serious crisis.



自上世纪90年代以来,美国经济高速发展,大学财源茂盛,实力大增。美国的高等教育几乎成为全世界的榜样。但在美国国内,贫富分化日益严重,高等教育费用不断上升,越来越难以为普通百姓承受。教育本是创造社会流动的最有效手段,可美国的高等教育在不断追求优异的同时,则有丧失这一功能的危险。美国的大学,特别是名牌大学,究竟"是特权的堡垒,还是机会的引擎"?高等教育将塑造一个什么样的社会?


  在深刻的教育危机背景下,《美国高等教育中的平等与优异》一书于2005年出版,次年即获美国教育研究协会的优秀图书奖。领衔作者 WilliamG.Bowen是美国高等教育界当之无愧的领袖,1972年年仅39岁就任普林斯顿大学校长,1988年卸任后出任梅隆基金会主席(至 2006年)。此书及同由Bowen领衔撰写的《跨过终点线:在美国公立大学中完成学业》一书,前者重点考察精英大学,后者把重点放在公立大学,两者相加,大概构成了迄今为止对美国高等教育的历史、现状与未来最全面的评估。


  中国的高等教育也经历着史无前例的转型。上世纪90年代末以来,中国的大学开始了急剧扩张。本世纪初又掀起了"建设世界一流大学"的风潮,纳税人的钱滚滚流入几所名校。但是,高等教育质量不但没有提高,反而下降,再加上大学结构失调,导致大量大学生失业。另外,许多大学已负债累累、濒临破产。大学的教育费用越来越难以为普通家庭所承担。大学不但没有推动社会公平,反而加剧了贫富分化。一句话,中国的高等教育陷入了深重的危机。


  在最近十几年中国高等教育的发展中,"美国范本"频频被引用作为各种改革、"工程"的依据。然而在这样的"学美热"中,美国高等教育的目标、制度、政策经常被误解或曲解。Bowen主持撰写的两本书,则给我们提供了一个比较完整的"美国范本"。


  平等与优异冲突吗


  在美国独立战争前夜,作为美国前身的13个殖民地仅有750位在校大学生,那时读大学的都是精英中的精英。到1940年,美国的研究性大学崛起,正处于赶超欧洲一流大学的过程中,即使如此,25岁以上的美国人中也仅有4%左右完成了大学学业。到2002年,这个比例则超过了25%,其中在25~35岁的人口中,有39%接受了大学教育。历史的曲线非常清晰:大学正从精英走向大众。


  当精英的机构大众化后,大学教育还能保证其优异的质量吗?这次对美国高等教育全面评估得出的结论是:平等和优异并不冲突,而且能够相辅相成。理由有如下几点:


  第一,大学要培养精英,就不能让那些有精英素质的人因经济条件的限制而进不来。美国建国之父杰佛逊就一针见血地指出:美国教育的目标是培养"自然贵族"。所谓"自然贵族",是相对于当时欧洲的"世袭贵族"而言。杰佛逊曾说,欧洲的那些国王,其素质到了美国连当个小镇长也不够格。在美国,一切靠能力而不是家门。大学选拔人才,应该纯粹根据能力、超越学生经济条件的限制。


  如果我们把竞争上大学的生源作为分母、把大学生人数作为分子的话,就会发现:在整个美国历史中分母比分子增长得快得多,大学的选才因此更精。通过各种测试证明,美国大学生的智商,随着大学的普及呈上升趋势。早年的哈佛和耶鲁,主要在新英格兰的几个贵族寄宿学校中招生,不过是地方大学而已,富家子弟想上的几乎都可以上;如今则成了世界名校,录取成了全球的竞争。现在常青藤学生的智商,是一二百年前那些"富裕而愚蠢"的学生所难以想象的。


  第二,美国社会的发展水平对其高等教育规模提出了相当高的要求。美国的产业不断向高端升级,服务业和高技术产业蓬勃兴起,甚至制造业也有白领化趋势,这样,大学必须使人口的大多数成为"劳心者"。但在这个问题上,美国面临着严峻的挑战。以25~34岁人口中的大学生比例来比较,1991年美国为 30%,仅居芬兰(33%)和加拿大(32%)之后,但到了2002年,加拿大(51%)、日本(50%)、韩国(41%)、新西兰(40%)、挪威 (40%)的大学生比例都超过美国(39%),其他欧洲国家与美国的差距也在迅速缩小。美国在高等教育普及方面失去领先地位,并不是大学的质量和数量跟不上需求,而是因为义务教育相对落后,供应不了足够的生源,而义务教育落后的一大原因,则是教育的不平等。


  第三,一个优异的大学,必须在其教室内外都保持多元性。精英大学培养的未来社会领袖,当然要了解社会各个阶层、各个角落,因此,多种族、多文化、多阶层的融合,应该是美国大学的基本使命。大学就应在多种阶层招募人才,以更好地反映社会。


  第四,一个参与型的民主社会,要求大多数公民具有良好的教育、把握丰富的信息,并在此基础上进行审慎的决策。如果教育资源仅被少数人占据,民主制度就会发生"参与危机",进而威胁到民主本身。


  美国大学为什么优异


  在确立了以上四个目标后,美国高等教育的表现究竟如何呢?在优异这方面,作者给美国大学打的分是A甚至A+。没有任何国家的大学在质量上可与美国的大学相比。对此,书中提出了许多数据进行论证,事实非常清楚。


  那么,是什么促成了美国高等教育的优异?作者给出了三个主要原因:第一,资金充足。美国高等教育开支相当于GDP的2.7%。与此相对,主要由发达国家组成的OECD(经济合作与发展组织)成员国的高等教育开支,平均占GDP的1.3%。美国在每个大学生身上的花费为22234美元,比OECD平均 10052美元的花费要高一倍还多。


  第二,经费充足的一个原因,是美国体制的优势。美国的高等教育比欧洲国家更多元化。在欧洲,主要的大学实际上都是国立,靠纳税人的钱直接资助。但在美国,全国性的精英大学,如常青藤等,基本为私立。这种体制使民间资金大量涌入高等教育。美国的私立大学在学费标准上不受政府的限制,标价很高,使富裕的家庭多多支付,同时拿出钱来给贫困学生提供大量的奖学金。这种开放灵活的体系,使美国的高等教育能充分吸收社会资金。


  第三,除资金和制度外,美国高教成功最大的原因,还在于有充足的生源--美国在二战前夜的义务教育已大大超过欧洲。这就为美国战后成为世界高等教育的领袖打下了坚实基础。


  总而言之,优越的财政实力可使美国建设一流的高等教育设施,吸引一流的教授,维持巨大的规模。学生是高等教育的核心,保证充足的生源,有赖于教育的普及和平等,使越来越多的人有接受教育的机会。


  美国高等教育的弱点在哪里


  当评价标准从优异转移到平等时,美国大学的得分就低了,仅仅得了B。这次评估认为,美国高等教育在上世纪的发展可谓突飞猛进,但到了70年代中期,发展突然放缓,这就使美国难以创造新时代所必须的"人力资本"。这是美国高等教育的失败。


  为什么这一领先于世的高等教育体系会出现如此的失败?


  从历史的角度考查就会发现,美国大学确立现代意义上的平等原则,不过是最近三四十年的事情。大学在传统上就是精英教育机构,一直为精英阶层所垄断,这一现象举世皆然。美国是以草根民主的政治体制立国,自然与旧欧洲有所不同。比如,大学的目标是杰佛逊所谓的培养"自然贵族"而非世袭贵族。早在美国建国前,哈佛等学府就有资助贫穷的英才之传统。不过,这种传统和现代的平等精神还是非常不同的。现代的平等精神早已突破了以往"天才论"的观念,其目标就是超越固定的社会层级,活化社会流动。为此,大学纷纷给弱势阶层一些特别的照顾,鼓励他们摆脱固有的社会经济地位。这套价值目标的确立,基本上是上世纪60年代末70年代初民权运动、女权运动的结果:有色种族纷纷进入名校,主要的大学也开始男女合校。


  可见,即使在以"人生而平等"精神立国的美国,大学这种传统的精英教育机构消化现代的平等价值也用了将近200年的时间。而把这种价值在实际的教育中落实,自然也是一个无先例可循的复杂过程。


  我们不妨从努力和成就两方面检讨最近三四十年美国大学对教育平等的追求。从努力方面看,美国的大学采取了一系列有力措施,资助和支持弱势阶层。其中最为流行的一个方式,就是把家庭财政状况和录取脱钩。大学录取办公室完全不看学生的家庭经济状况,只根据学生本人的素质来决定取舍。等录取后,对于无力支付教育费用的学生想办法给予资助。这样,富家子弟在大学录取过程中,就不可能仅靠家里的钱而把穷学生挤掉。当然,这一政策的实施,主要还是建立在大学的财政实力上。


  但是,常青藤等私立名校毕竟不是美国高等教育的主流。要使低收入阶层全面获益,政府必须有配套的政策。自1965年以来,联邦政府逐步推广完善学生贷款制度,对教育贷款的利息进行封顶,并使许多学生在学期间免付利息。除此之外,各种民间机构、州政府等,也都加大了对低收入阶层接受高等教育的资助。


  经过这样三四十年的努力,美国高等教育的奖学金结构有了革命性的变化。一流名校不仅对低收入阶层,甚至对中产阶级也开始实施免费教育。也就是说,如果你家庭年收入达不到六七万美元这道线(各校标准略有区别),上这些学校不仅不用缴纳学费,而且连生活费和各种杂费都由学校支付。当然,能做到这一点的,目前还仅限于几个顶尖的学校,另外有一批一流大学接近了这种"免费"的目标(至少基本保证了贫困生的免费教育)。不过,一般的公立大学通过政府的支持也能对低收入阶层提供相当的财政资助。比如,根据对1999年重要的州立大学系统新生的数据分析,来自年收入最低的25%家庭的学生,平均所接受的奖学金不仅足以支付学费,而且还有将近3000美元的剩余来支付生活费。当然,一个大学生一年的生活费和各种杂费并非3000美元可以支付,但除了贷款外,学生还有各种打工机会。


  看一看这样的奖学金结构,很容易把美国的大学看成穷人的天堂。但是,另一面的数据则揭示了几乎相反的现实。以截至2000年的数据统计,那些来自人口中收入最低的25%的阶层、父母都没有受过高等教育的家庭的孩子,到26岁时拿到学士学位的比例仅为9%,而来自收入最高的25%的阶层、至少有一位父母受过高等教育的家庭的孩子,到同样年龄时则有68%拿到大学文凭。


  为什么在以实现社会公平为目标的制度下,竟出现了如此不平等的现实?连如此慷慨的奖学金都改变不了这种不平等?在这方面,这次总评估给出了非常复杂的结论。


  教育不能脱离社会而孤立存在。教育的病症,往往是社会病症的延伸。美国是西方世界中贫富分化最大的国家之一,在教育公平上表现不如其他发达国家,也在情理之中。美国高等教育的不平等,主要根植于其义务教育和社会经济的现实。美国以地方自治立国,高度分权。义务教育从一开始就属于地方自治的范围,资金多来自当地学区(一般以镇为单位)的房地产税。这种分散的财政体制,在大部分时间表现得比欧洲那种由中央官僚体系操控的集权制度要有效率得多。特别是美国早期社会非常均富,地方财政资源丰富,且居民的公共精神高扬,曾让托克维尔感叹不已。倾地方财力建设学校、图书馆等公共设施,一直是地方社会的时尚,甚至大家以此互相攀比。这也难怪美国的义务教育在19世纪后半期和20世纪初迅速超过了欧洲。但是,如今美国贫富分化日趋严重,贫富分居,富裕社区房地产价值非常高,税源充足,教育经费非常多;贫困地区房价低,税源枯竭,学校难以为继。更何况奴隶制度和种族隔离的遗产仍渗透在当今社会中,使黑人和拉美裔教育程度甚低。这就把美国青少年教育的平均水平拉了下来。


  解决这一问题,需要一系列为大学所鞭长莫及的政策措施。这不仅包括改革义务教育,甚至涉及种族、贫困等深刻的社会问题。否则,无论大学如何强调教育平等,许多弱势阶层的子弟也很难达到大学的门槛。不过,大学并非完全无事可作。对于到达了大学门槛的学生,应该把谁优先请进来?大学的录取是否在力所能及的范围内促进了社会的平等?这是大学应关注的核心问题。


  基于上述结论,这次评估对美国高等教育的未来提出了几项政策性建议。首先,根据种族平权"积极行动"的精神而针对黑人等少数族裔的优惠倾斜政策必须坚持。第二,对低收入阶层的学生,在录取上也应实行优惠的倾斜政策。第三,加大政府奖学金的投入,对低收入阶层进行更充分的资助。


  以上对美国高等教育的评估,对中国的高等教育有深刻的警示作用。贫富过度悬殊所导致的不平等,不可避免地要反映到教育上来,最终抑制了"人力资本"的形成和积累速度,大大削弱了美国的竞争力。美国的大学虽以矫正这种不平等为核心目标,且倾其巨大财力奋斗了几十年,但还是有些"胳膊拧不过大腿"。中国的贫富分化比美国还严重,这同样表现在教育不平等上。但是,中国的高等教育,还远没有确立美国高等教育三四十年前所确立的平等目标。中国的大学一直在向富裕阶层倾斜。再从人口结构和生育行为上看,中国享受教育特权的城市中高收入人群的生育率不断下降,在教育上受到种种歧视的农村和农民工人口,生育率则一直比较高。未来几十年,这将可能导致总人口教育程度的降低。同时,人口老化、劳动力供应降低,将要求中国经济从目前这种劳动密集型的低端制造业向高附加值的创新产业迈进,大大提高了对劳动力素质和教育水平的要求。当前教育的不平等,妨碍了全民素质的提高。在中国,无论是决策者还是社会舆论,对在一个贫富分化严重的社会中实现教育平等的难度和重要性都远远低估了。美国的经验告诉我们,即使我们的高等教育马上确立平等的目标,并且雷厉风行地行动起来,几十年下来成果如何也很难有保证。所以,美国高等教育最近三四十年这本账,无疑更加凸显了中国大学的深刻危机。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Russia: Political Analyst Reveals the Real Reason behind US Tariffs*

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: Absolute Arbitrariness

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Topics

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Germany: Absolute Arbitrariness

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Russia: Political Analyst Reveals the Real Reason behind US Tariffs*

Related Articles

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Hong Kong: Can US Tariffs Targeting Hong Kong’s ‘Very Survival’ Really Choke the Life out of It?

2 COMMENTS

  1. U.S. Higher Education institutions will not admit that the true inequality is based in the wealth and net income of students or their families. Instead, they approach equality through the concepts of “race and ethnicity”.

    Far from solving the inequities in access to education, the “affirmative action” approach worsens the situation, though no one has the will to attack affirmative action.

    The result: those designated as racially “white”, still the majority of the poor in the U.S., have less assistance and fewer opportunities to gain desirable slots in the higher education system.

    The better solution would be to admit that the system is “economically” biased, rather than racially or ethnically biased, and provide subsidies to all U.S. citizens, regardless of race or ethnicity, who fall below realistic, pre-established income levels.

  2. Excellent article, but I must correct you on one point…with the exception of only a couple of institutions (Hillsdale College comes to mind) ALL colleges in the U.S. receive government funding in one form or another.

    The cost of tuition is truly becoming a problem here, as you state, with many students finding themselves coming out of college and just starting into the workforce, with debts equivalent to buying a house.