《经济学人》|高等教育——而今学位值几何？
看到经济学人2月3日一篇关于大学学位价值的文章，颇有感触，特意翻译出来。我读大学时，扩招已经开始，读大学成了随大溜，考不上大学，对于大部分家庭和孩子来说，都是没有面子甚至天塌了的大事。至于自己喜欢什么，适合从事什么职业，要选择什么专业，我想很多人和我那时一样，懵懵懂懂没有想过。
大学真的适合所有人吗？
上大学对于年轻人来说越发重要，但经济回报在减少。
Going to university is more important than ever for young people. But the financial returns are falling.
首尔的一间教室，一群青少年正在伏案学习，四下寂静，他们翻阅着过去的试卷，一大摞五颜六色的教科书放在手边。学校学习时间从早上八点到下午四点半，但有些学生要学到晚上10点才回家。和成百上千的韩国人一样，他们正在准备高考，这项多选测验将在很大程度上决定他们是否能上好大学，甚至是否能上大学。
IN A classroom in Seoul a throng of teenagers sit hunched over their desks. In total silence, they flick through a past exam paper. Stacks of brightly coloured textbooks are close to hand. Study begins at 8am and ends at 4.30pm, but some will not go home until 10pm. Like hundreds of thousands of South Koreans, they are preparing for the suneung, the multiple-choice test that will largely determine whether they go to a good university or a bad one, or to university at all.
一代人之内，学历在韩国就变得无处不在，70%的中学毕业生直接升入大学，25-34岁之间有70%的人拥有学位，这一比例2000年时还是37%。为了考入名牌大学，学生们开始准备考试的年纪越来越小。首尔的热门私立幼儿园都排着长队。
Over the course of a single generation in South Korea, degrees have become close to ubiquitous. Seventy per cent of pupils who graduate from the country’s secondary schools now go straight to university, and a similar share of 25- to 34-year-olds hold degrees, up from 37% in 2000. Students scramble to gain admittance to the most prestigious institutions, with exam preparation starting ever younger. Soughtafter private nurseries in Seoul have long waiting lists.
韩国是个极端的例子。但在其他国家，有学位的年轻人比例同样大幅增长。经合组织35个成员国中，25-34岁人群43%拥有学位，美国则是48%。
South Korea is an extreme case. But other countries, too, have seen a big rise in the share of young people with degrees. In the OECD club of 35 countries, 43% of 25- to 34-year-olds now have degrees. In America the figure is 48%.
1995年至2014年间，经合组织成员国政府在高等教育上的投入从GDP的0.9%上升到1.1%，个人投入也从1.2%上升到1.5%。随着政府的学费补贴流入教育机构，教育成本随之增加。1990年以来，美国没有奖学金或助学金的学生，学费增长比总体通货膨胀增长快两倍。
Between 1995 and 2014 government spending on higher education in the OECD rose from 0.9% of GDP to 1.1%, while private spending rose from 1.2% to 1.5%. As government subsidies for tuition fees flow through to institutions they have helped inflate costs. Since 1990 fees for American students who do not get scholarships or bursaries have risen twice as fast as overall inflation.
政策制定者理所当然的认为，让更多的年轻人上大学能刺激经济增长，促进社会流动。这种观念直观上很吸引人。受过良好教育的人当然更有可能产出提高生产力的创新成果，科技进步也对工作提出了新要求，更多人需要更好的教育看起来是有说服力的，而获得学位，是贫困家庭出身的聪明孩子证明自己能力的一种明显途径。
Policymakers regard it as obvious that sending more young people to university will boost economic growth and social mobility. Both notions are intuitively appealing. Better-educated people should surely be more likely to come up with productivity-boosting innovations. As technological change makes new demands of workers, it seems plausible that more will need to be well-educated. And a degree is an obvious way for bright youngsters from poor families to prove their abilities.
但国家间的比较证明，这种关联关系还缺乏有效证据。富裕国家有更多大学毕业生，可能因为更有余裕，也更不着急挣钱。经济较好的地方发展更加缓慢，也可能因为在这样的地方，提高生产率的简便方法更少，而非教育抑制了经济增长。
But comparisons between countries provide little evidence of these links. Richer countries have more graduates, but that could be because there is more money to spare, and less urgency to start earning. Rich economies grow more slowly, but that is probably because they have fewer easy ways to raise productivity, not because education depresses their growth.
大学公认的事实
A truth universities acknowledged
政策制定者们经常援引的证据是“大学生溢价”，即将学费和学习期间放弃的收入考虑在内，大学毕业生和只接受过中学及以下教育的人在平均收入上的差距。这种差距通常被描述为高等教育的“投资回报”，或是获得学位后终身收入的年增长率。纽约联邦储备银行研究显示，1980年至2000年间，美国高等教育的投资回报率大幅增长，之后稳定在每年15%左右。换句话说，如果算成投资，学费和学习期间放弃的收入要获得15%的年收益率，才能与获得学位后工作生涯中的平均收入相当。
The main piece of evidence cited by policymakers is the “graduate premium”—the difference between the average earnings of someone with a degree and someone with no more than a secondary-school education, after accounting for fees and the income forgone while studying. This gap is often expressed as the “return on investment”in higher education, or the annualised boost to lifetime earnings from gaining a degree. Research by the New York Federal Reserve shows that the return on investment in higher education soared between 1980 and 2000 in America, before levelling off at around 15% a year. In other words, an investment equal to the cost of tuition and earnings forgone while studying would have to earn 15% annual interest before it matched the average value over a working life of gaining a degree.
世界银行对139个经济体的回报率进行了估算，虽然每个地方各不相同，但数值都很可观。经济学家对数据分析发现，回报率与有学位的人占比以及收入范围有关。英国、德国和美国的回报率相近，在撒哈拉以南非洲地区回报率在21%左右，那里大学生紧缺，教育程度低的工人收入很少。在斯堪的纳维亚，收入相对平等，五分之二的成年人有学位，回报率在9%左右。
The World Bank has produced estimates of this return for 139 economies. It varies from place to place, but is substantial everywhere. The Economist’s analysis of the data finds that returns are linked to the share of people with degrees, and the range of earnings. Returns in Britain and Germany are similar to those in America.In sub-Saharan Africa, where degrees are scarce and the least-educated workers earn little, they are around 21% a year. In Scandinavia, where wages are less unequal and two-fifths of adults have degrees, they are around 9%.
但是，作为中学毕业生考虑继续上大学，以及政策制定者考虑扩大高等教育覆盖面的指南，“大学生溢价”存在缺陷。即使在一国之内，平均值也掩盖了巨大的差异。大多数学生都知道，数学或金融学位很可能比音乐或社会工作更有利可图。但较少人意识到，无论什么专业，对于成绩勉强达到录取线的学生来说，“大学生溢价”夸大了获得学位的经济回报。
But as a guide to school-leavers considering going to university—and to policymakers considering expanding access to higher education—the graduate premium is flawed. Even within countries the average conceals wide differences. Most students know that a degree in mathematics or finance is likely to be more lucrative than one in music or social work. What fewer realise is that the graduate premium overstates the financial benefit of embarking on a degree if their school grades barely qualify them for entry, no matter what they study.
比较有学位和没有学位人的收入情况，被大学录取但未能毕业的人，尽管也支付了学费，放弃了学习期间的工作收入，其收入和从未被大学录取的人差不多。这样的情况并不少见。美国40%的大学生在六年内未能获得四年制学位。发达国家的平均辍学率在30%左右，那些以最低成绩被录取的人最有可能无法毕业。
In a comparison of the earnings of people with degrees and people without them, those who start university but do not finish are lumped in with those who never started, even though they, too, will have paid fees and missed out on earnings. Their numbers are considerable. In America 40% of college students fail to graduate with four-year degrees within six years of enrolling. Drop-out rates across the developed world average around 30%. It is the students admitted with the lowest grades who are least likely to graduate.
计算上大学的回报率时，将辍学者考虑在内将带来较大影响。乔治梅森大学的Bryan Caplan在新书《反对教育的案例》中指出，基于边缘学生的低毕业率，以及同样条件下聪明人赚的更多这个事实，美国四年制学位的回报率在1%到6.5%之间，越优秀的学生回报率越高。
Including dropouts when calculating the returns to going to university makes a big difference. In a new book, “The Case Against Education”, Bryan Caplan of George Mason University argues that the low graduation rates of marginal students, and the fact that, for a given level of qualification, cleverer people tend to earn more, mean that the return on a four-year degree in America ranges from 6.5% for excellent students to just 1% for the weakest ones.
这种差别部分因为最差的学生上最差的大学，这样的大学辍学率也最高。如果能进入好的大学，回报率可能会提高。芝加哥大学的Seth Zimmerman2014年发表的一项研究中，比较了佛罗里达中学毕业生的收入，他们的成绩接近一所好的州立大学的最低录取线。那些刚好在录取线以上的学生，比差一点到录取线的学生更可能到一所好大学学习。他们的毕业率与更广泛的学生群体相似。毕业后他们的收入也大大超过那些刚好没有达到录取线的人，对于他们，大学的投资回报率非常可观。
Part of that difference is because the weakest students attend the worst universities, where drop-out rates are highest. When they make it into better institutions, the returns may be higher. In a study published in 2014 Seth Zimmerman of the University of Chicago compared the earnings of school-leavers in Florida whose grades were close to the minimum for admission to a good state university. Those just above the cut-off were much more likely than those just below to start courses in good institutions. They graduated at a rate similar to that of the broader student population. They went on to earn considerably more than those just below the cut-off, and their return on investment was substantial.
政策制定者之所以夸大了扩大大学入学率的好处，高估“大学生溢价”并非唯一原因。计算高等教育社会回报的常用方式是，所有毕业生的收益总和，减去公共补贴。但是学位某种程度上是一种“分配性商品”，它使一个人受益的同时也牺牲了另一个人的利益。部分溢价来自于找工作时相对别人的竞争优势，而不是获得了提高生产力的技能和知识。完整计算除了大学毕业生的收益外，还应该包括非大学毕业生的损失。
注：根据维基百科，“positional good”are goods valued only by how they are distributed among the population, not by how many goods there are in total.“分配性商品”是指，商品的价值仅取决于它们的分配方式而非商品总量。
Overstating the graduate premium is not the only reason policymakers overestimate the wider benefits of increasing the share of young people who go to university. The usual way to calculate the social returns of higher education is to sum up all the graduate premiums and subtract any public subsidies. But degrees are in part a way to access a “positional good” that benefits one person at the expense of another. Part of the premium comes from gaining an advantage over others in the competition for a good job, rather than the acquisition of productivity-boosting skills and knowledge. A complete calculation would include not just gains to graduates, but losses to non-graduates.
学位本身也是一种信号，溢价包括由个人特征带来的收入增长效应，这种特征更可能为拥有学位者所有。这并不是因为他们在大学获得了这些特征，而是因为他们拥有这些特征，所以能被大学录取。
Degrees are also signalling devices. The premium includes the income-boosting effects of personal characteristics that are more likely to be held by those with degrees, not because they acquired them at university, but because they possessed them on admission.
随着学位日益普及，它作为一种信号的重要性也越加凸显。招聘者并不关心求职者在高等教育上的投入，而是越来越倾向于将学位作为条件，以便筛掉那些最不积极或最不称职的人。哈佛商学院的Joseph Fuller和Manjari Raman最近的一项研究表明，公司按惯例要求求职者具有学位，即便那些已在这个岗位工作的人只有少部分拥有学位。这增加了大学毕业生的溢价效应——不过是以惩罚非大学毕业生的方式，而不是提高学位的绝对收益。
As degrees have become more common,their importance as signalling devices is rising. Recruiters, who pay none of the cost of jobseekers’ higher education, are increasingly able to demand degrees in order to screen out the least motivated or competent. A recent study by Joseph Fuller and Manjari Raman of Harvard Business School found that companies routinely require applicants to have degrees, even though only a minority of those already working in the role have them. This increases the graduate premium—but by punishing non-graduates rather than boosting the absolute returns to degrees.
经济学家对美国人口普查数据分析发现，1970年至2015年间，25至64岁有学士及以上学位的工作者占比在265个职业中的256个都增加了。其中部分职业是在其间变化很大的知识性工作，比如航空航天工程师或统计学家，其他工作则并不需要大学毕业生，比如服务员。目前大约16%的服务员拥有学位，大多数情况下是因为他们无法找到要求大学毕业生的工作。但其他一些诸如记者、护士、小学教师等过去只要求在工作中短期培训就能从事的工作，现在也多是大学毕业生。今天，拥有大学学位常常是基本条件。
Analysis by The Economist of American census data finds that between 1970 and 2015 the share of workers aged 25-64 with at least a bachelor’s degree increased in 256 out of 265 occupations. Some of these are intellectually demanding jobs that changed a lot over that period, such as aerospace engineer or statistician. Others are non-graduate jobs such as waiting tables. Sixteen percent of waiters now have degrees—presumably, in most cases, because they could not find a graduate job. But other jobs that are mostly done by graduates, such as journalism, nursing and teaching in primary schools, used to require only shorter training, often received while working. Today, having a degree is usually an entry requirement.
经济学家给出了一个衡量过度教育的标准，它定义了在1970年就主要由大学毕业生从事的职业。我们发现只有35%的大学毕业生今天仍然从事这样的职业，45年前这个比例是51%。通过职业名称来判断，2650万美国工作者——其中2/3具有大学学位——从事着半个世纪前多由非大学毕业生从事的工作。
The Economist has produced a measureof over-education by defining a graduate job as one which was staffed mostly by degree-holders in 1970. We find that just 35% of graduates work in such occupations today, down from 51% 45 years ago. Judging by job titles alone, 26.5m workers in America—two-thirds of those with degrees—are doing work that was mostly done by nongraduates a half-century ago.
这样的计算夸大了这种趋势。科技的发展无疑使部分职业要求更高了。但不是所有工作都是如此，至少从收入来看是这样。我们发现一个职业中更高的大学毕业生占比和更高的工资之间只有微弱的关联。相比半个世纪前，一半左右的职业雇佣了更高比例的大学毕业生，所以工资水平实际下降了。
That calculation exaggerates the trend. Advances in technology have doubtless made some of these jobs more demanding. But not all of them, at least judging by pay. We find only a weak link between higher shares of graduates in an occupation and higher salaries. For around half of the occupations that employ higher shares of graduates now than a half-century ago, real wages have fallen.
经合组织教育研究中心主管Andreas Schleicher认为，“国家缺乏的是技能，而不是学位”。他说，大学垄断高等教育市场是一个问题，部分原因是大学并不适用于所有的求学者，并且大学辍学者从已经完成的课程中并没有得到多少经济收益。
Andreas Schleicher, the head of education research at the OECD, reckons that “countries have skills shortages, not degree shortages”. The way universities have come to monopolise higher education, he says, is a problem in part because universities do not suit all kinds of learners. And university dropouts tend to see little in the way of financial benefit from the part of their course that they have finished.
一种有希望的进步是“微证书”或“微学位”，即短期职业培训，常用于计算机和IT领域。线上学习公司优达学城（Udacity）提供了很多这样的培训，包括优步（Uber）和奔驰认可的自动驾驶汽车，还有脸书和谷歌认可的数字营销。EdX，麻省理工、哈佛大学和其他名牌大学合作创建的开放在线课堂平台也免费提供类似课程。交上几百美元，学生就可以参加考试证明他们掌握了该领域的知识。
One promising development is that of“micro-credentials” or “nano-degrees”—short vocational courses, often in computing and IT. Udacity, an online education company, offers a variety, including one in self-driving cars approved by Uber and Mercedes-Benz, and another on digital marketing approved by Facebook and Google. EdX, a collaboration between MIT, Harvard and other leading universities, offers similar courses free. Students can take exams to prove their mastery of the material for a few hundred dollars.
作为“新兵训练营”的大学
Boot campus
目前这样的课程主要作为学位的附属品存在，并不能替代学位。3/4的edX学员已经有一个学士学位在读。但与热门公司合作能极大证明求职者的价值。
For now, such courses are mostly add-onsto degrees, rather than replacements. Three-quarters of edX’s students already had a bachelor’s degree upon enrolling.But the collaboration with sought-after employers makes it more plausible that they could eventually become establishedas a stand-alone testament to a job applicant’s worth.
同时，虽然很多大学毕业生最终从事的都是过去由非大学毕业生完成的工作，甚至根本就找不到工作，不去读大学的决定仍然有很大风险。现在韩国一半左右的失业者都有学位。对他们来说，“大学生溢价”这个概念本身就像一个笑话。韩国一名招聘人员Kim Hyang Suk说，公司客户服务职位一半的应征者都是大学生，即使这个岗位只要求中学毕业生。
In the meantime the decision not to goto university remains risky, even though many graduates will end up doing work that used to be done by non-graduates—or struggle to find a job at all. Around half of unemployed South Koreans now have degrees. For them, the very concept of a “graduate premium” may seem a mockery. Kim Hyang Suk, a recruiter in South Korea, says that half the applicants for customer service jobs at her firm are graduates, even though only a secondary-school education is specified.
Kim Hyang Suk说，比起需要培训的应届大学毕业生，她更希望招聘有工作经验的中学毕业生，她并不需要勤奋苦读的人，她需要“热情，擅长打电话”的人。但是很少有这样开明的雇主，大多数年轻人还是希望拿到学位。学位对收入的增长作用可能不如预期，但没有学位，他们的遭遇很可能会更加糟糕。
She would prefer school-leavers with experience, says Ms Kim, to inexperienced graduates whom she will have to train. She is not looking for swots, but people who are “engaging, good on the phone”. But when few employers are this open-minded, most young people will want a degree. It may not boost their earnings as much as they had hoped, but without one, they will probably fare even worse.
译者注：本文选自《经济学人》（2018年2月3日），翻译水平有限，如有不当，欢迎指正。
“本译文仅供个人研习、欣赏语言之用，谢绝任何转载及用于任何商业用途。本译文所涉法律后果均由本人承担。本人同意简书平台在接获有关著作权人的通知后，删除文章。”
