評論
打印
If student loan programs are bad, what would be better?
如果學(xué)生貸款項目不好，那么什么才是更好的呢？
Whatever their complaints, most critics gravitate to the same solution:
不論批評的聲音如何，大部分批評家還是傾向于相同的解決方案：
Make tuition so cheap that students no longer need to borrow.
讓學(xué)費(fèi)便宜些，這樣學(xué)生就無需借錢上學(xué)。
As the Wharton School's Peter Cappelli writes in “Will College Pay Off?”,
正如（賓夕法尼亞大學(xué)）沃頓商學(xué)院的彼得·卡普利在《上大學(xué)會有回報嗎？》一文中寫道，
"Using loans to pay for college is an idea with great appeal to economists because the people getting the financial benefit—
“用貸款支付大學(xué)學(xué)費(fèi)對經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家很有吸引力，因為有既得的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益——
the graduates who get the good jobs—are the ones paying for it….
找到好工作的畢業(yè)生，會為此買單……
If there is not a good payoff from the degree, that argument falls apart."
如果貸款拿到的學(xué)位沒有得到好的回報，那么這個論據(jù)是站不住腳的。”
Suppose, however, that governments slashed college tuition.
然而，假設(shè)政府降低了大學(xué)學(xué)費(fèi)，
How would this encourage students to finish their studies or carefully choose a promising major?
又將如何鼓勵學(xué)生完成學(xué)業(yè)或是慎重選擇一個前景光明的專業(yè)呢？
What would this do about all the wasted time and money we already see from those who drop out or squeak through?
對于那些虛度光陰、浪費(fèi)金錢的學(xué)生，最后輟學(xué)或是勉強(qiáng)畢業(yè)，降低學(xué)費(fèi)又有什么用呢？
Free college would plainly encourage even weaker students to throw the dice.
免費(fèi)大學(xué)顯然會鼓勵更弱的學(xué)生擲骰子。
What's the harm of creating limitless educational opportunities?
創(chuàng)造無限的教育機(jī)會會有什么害處嗎？
The most obvious is the massive burden on taxpayers.
最明顯的是納稅人的負(fù)擔(dān)。
The deeper problem, though, is that the more college degrees multiply, the less they mean to employers.
然而，更深層次的意義是，大學(xué)學(xué)位越多，對雇主的意義就越小。
Researchers call this "credential inflation."
研究人員稱之為“學(xué)歷通貨膨脹”。
Most of what you learn in college never comes up after the final exam.
大部分在大學(xué)學(xué)到的東西從不會在期末考試后出現(xiàn)。
This is obvious for literature and history majors, but even engineers spend semesters on mathematical proofs that never come up on the job.
這對文史專業(yè)的學(xué)生尤為常見，但即使是工程專業(yè)也要花好幾個學(xué)期的時間做那些工作中從不會出現(xiàn)的數(shù)學(xué)證明。
Employers reward college degrees primarily because they certify graduates’ intelligence, work ethic and sheer conformity.
雇主對大學(xué)學(xué)歷青眼有加是因為學(xué)歷證明了畢業(yè)生的智慧、職業(yè)道德和誠信。
So when educational opportunities expand, employers don’t respond by handing every graduate a good job. Instead, they raise the bar.
因此，當(dāng)教育機(jī)會擴(kuò)大時，雇主不會給每個畢業(yè)生一份好工作。相反，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)會提高。
Credential inflation explains why so many of today's young people need a college degree to get the same job their parents got with a high school diploma.
“學(xué)歷通貨膨脹”解釋了為什么今天的許多年輕人需要大學(xué)文憑才能得到和他們的父母一樣的高中文憑工作。
True, cognitively demanding jobs are more common than they were in the 1970s, but they remain fairly rare.
誠然，與上世紀(jì)70年代相比，有知識要求的工作更多了，但它們?nèi)匀幌喈?dāng)罕見。
Secretaries, waiters and the other classic "noncollege" jobs shouldn't require an undergraduate pedigree.
秘書、服務(wù)員和其他典型的“非大學(xué)”工作不應(yīng)該要求有本科學(xué)歷。
As an internet meme quips, "When everyone has a bachelor's degree, no one does."
就像一個網(wǎng)絡(luò)梗調(diào)侃的那樣：“當(dāng)每個人都有學(xué)士學(xué)位時，就相當(dāng)于沒人有”。
譯文由可可原創(chuàng)，僅供學(xué)習(xí)交流使用，未經(jīng)許可請勿轉(zhuǎn)載。
