高等教育的成本控制外文翻譯

1、<p><b>　　中文3310字</b></p><p><b>　　原文</b></p><p>　　Rigging the Price for Higher Education</p><p>　　John S. Barry</p><p>　　There is no questio

2、n that the cost of a college degree is increasing rapidly. An oft-cited 1996 study by the General Accounting Office found that tuition and fees at public institutions have increased some 234 percent since 1980 while fami

3、ly income and the general inflation rate have increased only about 80 percent over the same period. Costs at private college and universities have fared little better, increasing more than 220 percent. </p><p&

4、gt;　　Many reasons have been given for the increasing costs of higher edition. Some of the most persuasive include the increased demand for colleges degrees, higher overhead costs associated with increased faculty researc

5、h, rcent reductions in state support of public institutions and federal student aid programs that indirectly subsidize schools. These all are important factors that increase costs; however, there is another reason not. o

6、ften mentioned. Colleges and universities, particularly elite pri</p><p>　　This article addresses each of the reasons for increased costs. However, the emphasis is placed on the last one, the monopolistic po

7、wer of schools. </p><p>　　The Reasons for Increasing Costs</p><p>　　Increased value of a college degree. The most important reason college costs have escalated is that the value of a college edu

8、cation has increased. In fact, according to the General Accounting Office the average college graduate earned about 43 percent more than the average high school graduate did in1980. Today, the difference in earnings betw

9、een these same two groups is more than 70 percent. Therefore, more and more families are finding it necessary to succeed in the,job market. At the same ti</p><p>　　Increased research at universities.</p&g

10、t;<p>　　Another factor affecting tuition costs at many colleges and universities is an increased emphasis on research. The prestige of a college or university today is largely a function of the publishing prowess

11、of the institution's professors. Publishing requires research, which requires time. This means that professors are doing less teaching and more research. Fewer hours at the lectern for each professor means either tha

12、t course and class selection are reduced, which forces students to take longer </p><p>　　Reduced state funding for public institutions. </p><p>　　In addition, the current era of fiscal austerity

13、 in government has meant slower growth in state budgets, which often has meant slower growth in financial support of public universities. According to Department of Education statistics,state government funds accounted f

14、or 46.3 percent of public institution revenues in 1980. By 1993 that figure had dropped to 36.8 percent. Increased tuition has been the only recourse for public institutions simultaneously faced with increased demand and

15、 shrinking s</p><p>　　Federal programs that facilitate family debt. </p><p>　　Federal programs meant to assist students facing steep college costs have themselves added to the rise in tuition. S

16、tarting with passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965, the federal government has guaranteed student loans extended by private banks.The Student Loan Marketing Association (Sallie Mae) was established in 1972 as a gov

17、ernment-sponsored enterprise to establish a secondary market in stu dent loans. In addition, a limited direct government loan program was estab lished in 1993. Thes</p><p>　　Schools as monopolists. </p>

18、;<p>　　Increased demand, increased research, and reduced state funding all affect the "sticker" price of a college degree-the advertised tuition that a school charges. However, federal programs (and to a

19、 lesser extent private scholarships and institutional aid) that subsidize students directly affect not only the sticker price of college but also the actual price paid by a student and his family. Most students and their

20、 families do not pay the full sticker price just as few people pay the full sticker </p><p>　　The ability to charge different students different prices is known in economic terms as price discrimination. Onl

21、y firms with monopolistic power are able to engage in price discrimination. The result of price discrimination is that colleges are able to charge each student exactly as much as he or she is willing to pay. While this m

22、ay seem fair and financial aid is often touted as "leveling the playing field," the fact is that price discrimination rarely ben efits any consumers, even those with l</p><p>　　Everyone who takes p

23、art in any economic transaction does so because he believes he will be better off after the deal than he before. Why otherwise should engage in the trade? For example, if you, the student, decide a semester of classes at

24、 a particular school for$10,000 then decision that at present that semester of classes is worth more to you than holding on to the$10,000. If this were not the case then you would be better off holding on to the cash or

25、making another purchase. The extra value</p><p>　　The university is making exactly the same calculation on the other side of the deal.If the transaction transpires then the school has obviously decided that

26、the$10,000 in cash is more valuable than not spending the time and resources to offer the classes. The excess value on this side of the ledger is known in economic terms as producer surplus. This example helps illustrate

27、 that a transaction will transpire only when both the purchaser and the seller receive some surplus value from the deal and</p><p>　　Of course, the actual amount of surplus enjoyed by the consumer or produce

28、r is difficult if not impossible to measure in most individual market transactions. However, it generally is true that a consumer will receive a greater surplus in a competitive market (one served by many producers) ,tha

29、n in a monopolistic market (one serverd by a small number of producers) and a prducer will enjoy a larger surplus in a monopolistic market. This is because in a competitive market the consumer can switch fr</p>&l

30、t;p>　　What, then, is the lesson for higher education? Colleges and universities have greater monopolistic power today than ever before. This fact came to the forefront in 1991 when a group of Ivy League schools were i

31、nvestigated by the Department of justice for collusion in setting their tuition prices. In short, these schools agreed that they would no longer offer merit-based scholarships and would offer financial aid on the basis o

32、f need only. Thus, the schools involved agreed to end economic compet</p><p>　　In fact, the power of the monopoly has spread beyond a small number of elite institutions and has been widely adopted by more or

33、dinary colleges and universities. In part, this expansion is attributable to a failure to meet the increased demand for higher education with a commensurate increase in supply. It is difficult to build a new college or u

34、niversity. And so the same number of schools is serving an increasing number of students. This will eventually even out as new colleges are created and </p><p>　　More directly and concern is that federal stu

35、dent aid has enabled monopolistic by schools. Colleges and universities are able to increase the sticker price beyond the reach of most students and then reduce the actual price charged individual students by offering th

36、em various bundles of financial aid. Thus, each student is offered a different price that matches almost exactly what he or she is willing to pay. The result is that the student's (consumer) surplus is decreased and

37、the school's (produ</p><p>　　Additional producer surplus means that schools may engage in activities that would not be possible in a competitive market. For example, schools may be able to operate academ

38、ic programs that advance a certain political agenda favored by the school's administrators even if that agenda has been discredited in the real world. The existence of an educational monopoly may thus help explain wh

39、y so many schools continue to preach the benefits of communism despite that political and economic system's co</p><p>　　Despite the obvious fact that more students will be worseof given the monopolistic

40、power of universities, some believe that a system of tiign sticker price and redistributive financial aid is socially beneficial because it helps those students from low income families. However appealing this may sound,

41、 it is simply untrue. Remember that the nature of any monopoly (in this case colleges and universities) is to reduce the consumer surplus of all customers not just the wealthy. </p><p>　　This hypothesis has

42、been borne out by the data. David C. Rose and Robert L. Sorensen in a 1992 article in the Southern Economic Journal found “that while institutions that appear to inf late their tuition do make larger aid awards, their aw

43、ards are not large enough to reduce the average net price paid by needy students.” What is more, the University of St. Louis economists found that revenues from high tuition rates are actually expended on increased admin

44、istrative overhead, faculty salaries, an</p><p>　　Implications and Conclusions</p><p>　　Most of the factors driving up college costs are natural market forces and, left to themselves, they will

45、produce the most efficient and socially beneficial outcome. The value of a college degree that has led to increased demand for higher education eventually will be met by increased supply. When that happens we can expect

46、to see tuition prices fall naturally. Similarly, an overemphasis by universities on research will be corrected as students seek out schools focused on teaching. Those univers</p><p>　　What's left then is

47、 federal student aid and the monopolistic power it grants to colleges and universities. Unlike the other factors affecting higher education costs, federal subsidies will not correct themselves, will not lead to an effici

48、ent and socially beneficial outcome, and-in the end-will hurt far more students than they will help. It is ironic that the American academy, typically the loudest voice against "capitalist excess" and an eager

49、supporter of egalitarianism, shamelessly raises pri</p><p><b>　　高等教育的成本控制</b></p><p>　　JOHN S.BARRY</p><p>　　高校教育成本正在快速增長，這是毫無疑問的。1996 年會計研究中心的一份報告中指出從 1980 年至今公共學(xué)費和費用已經(jīng)

50、增長了234%， 但是家庭收入和通貨膨脹率在相同時期只增長了80%。私立學(xué)校和大學(xué)的費用要好一些，大概增長了220%。</p><p>　　高等教育成本增加有很多原因。其中最有說服力的原因包括對大學(xué)學(xué)位需求的增長，教職員研究費用的增加，政府對教育支持的減少，以及聯(lián)邦學(xué)生援助計劃給與學(xué)校的津貼減少等，這些都是成本增加的重要原因。但是還有一些沒有經(jīng)常被提到的原因，就是學(xué)院和大學(xué)尤其是重點私立大學(xué)，擁有強大的力量要求他

51、的學(xué)生給付高額的費用。 </p><p>　　本文將討論高等教育成本提高的一些原因，但是對高校壟斷手段的分析放在最后。 </p><p>　　一、 成本增長的原因 </p><p>　　1. 大學(xué)學(xué)位價值的增長 </p><p>　　上大學(xué)的費用不斷攀升的最重要的原因是大學(xué)教育價值的增加。事實上根據(jù)會計研究中心的報告在 1980 年，大學(xué)畢業(yè)

52、生的收入比高中畢業(yè)生多 43%。現(xiàn)在這兩個不同群體的收入已相差 70%。因此越來越多的家庭認(rèn)為送他們的孩子去上大學(xué)時必須的。只有這樣他們以后才會有一個較好的就業(yè)機會。同時，能夠上大學(xué)的人數(shù)增加了。對高等教育需求的增長正如對任何商品需求的增長，如果供不應(yīng)求就會導(dǎo)致價格的上漲。 </p><p>　　2. 大學(xué)研究的增加 </p><p>　　影響學(xué)費的另一個原因在于許多學(xué)院和大學(xué)在研究經(jīng)費方

53、面的增加。今天一個學(xué)院或大學(xué)的聲望很大程度上取決于學(xué)校教師的出版能力。出版取決于研究并且需要時間。這就意味著教師將會減少教學(xué)而增加研究。 教師授課時間的減少就意味著課程和課程選擇的減少。這就要求學(xué)生花更長的的時間去完成學(xué)業(yè)，或者增加更多的老師，這樣學(xué)校就要給付更多的薪水。 Charles Sykes 在他 1998 年寫的 Profscam 這本書中給出了這樣的觀點。不管怎樣，結(jié)果都是固定成本和其他成本更高了。這些都使得學(xué)生和家長必須付

54、出更高的學(xué)費和費用。 </p><p>　　3. 聯(lián)邦政府計劃增加家庭債務(wù) </p><p>　　聯(lián)邦計劃意味著使得學(xué)生不得不去面對不斷增加的學(xué)費。在高等教育開始的 1965 年，聯(lián)邦政府還通過私人銀行擔(dān)保學(xué)生貸款。學(xué)生貸款市場協(xié)會作為一個政府支持的中等貸款市場在 1972 年成立。另外，一個有限制的政府直接貸款項目在 1993 年成立。這些貸款項目不僅僅使人們受惠，而且通過鼓勵學(xué)費增長提

55、高了負(fù)債規(guī)模。正如 Donlan 最近在雜志Barron 中所寫的，教職員可以通過投票使自 己獲得更多的薪金和資源， 而這樣做的后果是使家長和學(xué)生不得不去簽字借更多的錢。 聯(lián)邦債務(wù)援助是如此的方便， 使得學(xué)校沒有控制成本的刺激。 </p><p><b>　　4. 學(xué)校的壟斷 </b></p><p>　　學(xué)校認(rèn)為需求的增加，研究的增多以及政府幫助的減少都影響高校成本

56、。但聯(lián)邦援助學(xué)生的計劃不僅僅影響高校成本并且是學(xué)生以及家長的實際負(fù)擔(dān)。很多學(xué)生和家長不能完全負(fù)擔(dān)費用就像沒有家庭能夠完全負(fù)擔(dān)一輛新車的價格。事實上應(yīng)該感謝貸款的幫助，獎學(xué)金制度，國家補貼和聯(lián)邦補助，這些都使得學(xué)校不會因?qū)W生不同而收不同費用。相反就會導(dǎo)致教育相同收費卻不一樣。</p><p>　　向能力不同的學(xué)生收取不同的費用就如經(jīng)濟方面的價格歧視一樣。 只有公司壟斷力量能夠造成價格歧視。價格歧視的結(jié)果是導(dǎo)致學(xué)校對

57、學(xué)生的管理取決于他們的經(jīng)濟負(fù)擔(dān)能力。這雖然看似公平，因為經(jīng)濟援助通常被稱為“水平運動場”。實際上價格歧視很難使人們尤其是低收入者受益。了解市場交易是每一個經(jīng)濟的基礎(chǔ)這一點是非常重要的。每一個參加商業(yè)交易的人都是這樣的，因為他們都認(rèn)為他們會比交易前更好。否則他為什么會從事貿(mào)易呢? 舉例來說，如果你是一個學(xué)生，你選擇購花 10000 購買這一學(xué)期的課程，你肯定已經(jīng)得出這一學(xué)期的課程比你手中的 10000 元現(xiàn)金更值錢的結(jié)論。如果不是這樣你就

58、會選擇繼續(xù)持有現(xiàn)金或購買其他商品。你從交易中獲得的額外價值將會大于你付出的 10000 元，這就是消費者盈余。</p><p>　　大學(xué)方面的交易也是這樣計算的。只有學(xué)校都明顯的覺得擁有 10000 元的現(xiàn)金比花時間和資源授課更有價值時交易才會發(fā)生。這樣多余的價值在經(jīng)濟上被認(rèn)為是生產(chǎn)剩余。 這個例子有助于說明一個交易只有在買方和賣方都能從這筆交易中得到一些剩余價值時才會發(fā)生。 如果生產(chǎn)者和消費者都能獲得利益那經(jīng)濟

59、交易就會導(dǎo)致發(fā)生。 </p><p>　　當(dāng)然，在大多數(shù)人的交易市場的測量中發(fā)現(xiàn)生產(chǎn)者和消費者所享有的利益是不一樣的。但是與壟斷市場相比，消費者在競爭激烈的市場將會得到更多的利益。而生產(chǎn)者在壟斷市場能收到更多利益。因為在競爭激烈的市場中，如果消費者對于他從一家中獲得的收益不滿意時他可以換另一家。生產(chǎn)者之間的競爭會降低價格，消費者就能從生產(chǎn)者剩余中獲得更多利益。 機構(gòu)擁有壟斷力量，可以不用與其他生產(chǎn)者進行過多的競爭

60、。機構(gòu)能夠從中獲得很大的收益。在短時間內(nèi)，壟斷生產(chǎn)者在服務(wù)項目和收費標(biāo)準(zhǔn)方面擁有完全的決定權(quán)。消費者除了支付壟斷價格沒有別的選擇。</p><p>　　什么是高等教育? 現(xiàn)在學(xué)院和大學(xué)擁有比以前更大的壟斷力量。在 1991 是由司法部門對常春藤聯(lián)盟學(xué)校的學(xué)費進行定價的?，F(xiàn)在這些學(xué)校認(rèn)為他們不應(yīng)該再支付獎學(xué)金。他們只在需要的基礎(chǔ)上提供財政援助。這些學(xué)校同意結(jié)束在引進優(yōu)秀學(xué)生上的經(jīng)濟競爭。因此，司法部門解散了常春藤組

61、織，但是這樣并沒有破壞高等學(xué)校的壟斷力量。</p><p>　　事實上，學(xué)校的壟斷力量已不局限于小范圍的精英學(xué)府，已經(jīng)擴散到一般的學(xué)院和大學(xué)。這種擴張可歸咎于高等教育還不能滿足社會需求。建立一座新的學(xué)院或大學(xué)是很困難的。學(xué)校還是那么多但學(xué)生增加了。雖然最終會建立新的大學(xué)并獲得名聲，但這需要時間。更直接更多的關(guān)心是聯(lián)邦學(xué)生援助計劃將會使學(xué)校壟斷力量加強。學(xué)院和大學(xué)都能使標(biāo)價增長超過大多數(shù)學(xué)生所能承受的。學(xué)校通過提供

62、各種經(jīng)濟援助降低個別學(xué)生對實際價格的指控 因此每個學(xué)生按照他們愿意支付的價格支付費用。結(jié)果使得學(xué)生的收益降低而學(xué)校的收益增加。最后，由于學(xué)校從他的消費者中獲得了更多得利益，所以學(xué)生從學(xué)習(xí)中獲得的利益就減少了。這種消費者盈余可能是家庭收入中的一部分，但這要比在市場競爭環(huán)境下支付的多?；蛘咚馕吨鴮W(xué)生將從教育中獲得一個很小的價值。舉例來說，學(xué)生不得不忍受大班授課或更多的研究生授課。 </p><p>　　額外的生產(chǎn)者

63、剩余使得學(xué)校能夠從事在激烈競爭市場中不可能從事的活動。 舉個例子， 學(xué)校能夠通過管理者在某些政治議程提出以前展開學(xué)術(shù)研究，即使這些議程在真實世界中受到懷疑。教育壟斷的存在可以幫助解釋為什么在前蘇聯(lián)盡管政治和經(jīng)濟制度徹底失敗的情況下仍有很多學(xué)校繼續(xù)宣傳共產(chǎn)主義的好處。同樣不實在的是學(xué)校提供給某些管理者和終生教職人員奢侈的報酬和額外的津貼。在一個較低的操作系統(tǒng)，競爭將制止這樣的情況。所有這些犧牲學(xué)生的活動有助于學(xué)校的創(chuàng)立。 </p&g

64、t;<p>　　盡管學(xué)生被學(xué)校壟斷的情況更糟了，仍有一些人認(rèn)為一個較高的價目表系統(tǒng)和再分配財政援助對社會是有益的。因為它能幫助一些收入較低家庭的學(xué)生。這些聽起來可能吸引人，但它不真實。我們應(yīng)該記住任何壟斷的本質(zhì)都是減少所有消費者的收益而不僅僅是富人。 </p><p>　　這個假設(shè)已被數(shù)據(jù)證實。David C .Rose 和 Robert L.Sprensen 在 1992 年的文章 Souther

65、n Economic Journal 中指出機關(guān)通過擴大獎項援助項目來擴充自己的費用。他們沒有足夠的獎項去減少貧困學(xué)生必須繳納的費用。更多的是，St. Louis 經(jīng)濟大學(xué)指出高學(xué)費率的收入更多的是用在了行政費用、教師工資、研究生薪金的過度增長，而不是用于對貧困學(xué)生的補助。還有壟斷力量的受益者是學(xué)校而不是學(xué)生。 </p><p><b>　　二、 含義和結(jié)論 </b></p>

66、<p>　　大學(xué)費用的大部分驅(qū)動因素是天然的市場力量，他們將提供最有效并對社會有益的結(jié)果。 大學(xué)學(xué)歷價值的增長導(dǎo)致了對高等教育需求的增加，這最終將會使供應(yīng)增加。到那時我們將會看見費用降低。 </p><p>　　同樣的，對于學(xué)校過分強調(diào)的研究學(xué)生可以找學(xué)校集中教學(xué)。那些通過擴大班級規(guī)模、增加費用、減少授課的學(xué)校的招生將會減少學(xué)生將轉(zhuǎn)移流失。到那時，研究性大學(xué)就會重新重視教學(xué)或降低更多學(xué)生的費用。<

67、/p><p>　　國家對學(xué)校的補貼的減少是學(xué)?？释嘭斦刂频慕Y(jié)果。有人會認(rèn)為這不是問題。事實上這里涉及的問題太大。每個國家的居民都有他們的優(yōu)先權(quán)而那些公共高等教育費用就包含在這些優(yōu)先權(quán)中。</p><p>　　學(xué)院和大學(xué)就剩下聯(lián)邦援助計劃和壟斷權(quán)力。不同于其他影響高等教育成本的因素，聯(lián)邦政府補貼不會改正自己，也不會給社會帶來一個高效的有益的結(jié)果。到最后可能給學(xué)生帶來更大的傷害。具有諷刺意味