双语：名校社会风俗的改变

　　Almost three decades ago, I applied to Cambridge University in England for an undergraduate degree. Just before my interview, a school teacher proffered some advice: “Don"t mention that your father went to Cambridge - or not unless you are asked!”
　　大约三十年前，我试着申请了英国剑桥大学(Cambridge University)的一个本科生项目。在我面试之前，学校里的一位老师提了一条建议：“不要主动提起你的父亲曾在剑桥就读——除非他们问起！”

　　The reason? Back then in 1980s Britain, there was an aversion to the idea that family connections could help students get an elite university place. Indeed, the only thing considered more taboo by admissions officers was the idea that somebody could “buy” their way into a university with charitable donations, coupled with family ties.
　　为什么会这样呢？在二十世纪80年代的英国，人们不喜欢那种认为家庭人脉可以帮助学生在精英大学获得一席之地的想法。事实上，在招生官员眼中，唯一比这更加忌讳的想法是认为既有家庭关系又有大把金钱的人可能通过慈善捐款“买”出一条通往大学的捷径。

　　How times change. Or, more accurately, how perceptions vary according to geography and social customs. This autumn, the children of several American friends entered a clutch of elite US colleges, such as Brown, Harvard and Princeton. Most of these kids have “earned” their places, in the sense of having high-performing SAT tests and curriculum vitae packed with accolades. And yet these intelligent teenagers had another advantage: connections. More specifically, their parents and relatives are usually alumni of those elite universities, visibly involved in the alumni network and have often made philanthropic donations.
　　而现在情况已经大为不同了，或者更确切地说是地理环境和社会风俗导致了人的观念发生巨大变化。今年秋天，几位美国朋友的孩子进入了布朗、哈佛以及普林斯顿这样的美国名校。其中绝大多数孩子都是凭“硬实力”得到录取的，因为他们有着优异的SAT考试成绩以及满是各种荣誉的个人简历。除此之外这些聪慧的少年们还有一项优势：人脉。他们的父母或亲属通常是这些精英大学的校友，不仅公开参与校友圈的活动，还常常为母校慷慨捐款。

　　To be sure, those parents usually do not want to stress this aspect of their kids' lives: it would be rude to ever discuss the “price” of securing a spot (ie how much philanthropy or alumni involvement is required). But there is no shame incurred by the practice either. On the contrary, when I relate my Cambridge tale it provokes astonishment. This is little wonder, perhaps, when educational researchers estimate that at least 10 per cent of students (if not many more) at some top Ivy League universities are “legacy” kids - and having a family link increases a mid-level student's chance of entry by about 60 per cent.
　　这些家长通常不愿强调孩子人生的这一侧面：讨论要花多大“价钱”（例如要捐出多少慈善款项或者要参与多少校友活动）才能确保获得一个名校名额显得非常粗鲁。然而这些事情实际做起来却也不会让人感到羞耻。正相反，当我谈到我的剑桥故事时听者都会深感震惊。因此，下面这个调查结果也许就没有什么值得大惊小怪的了：教育研究人员估计在某些常青藤顶级名校里至少有10%（或者更多）的学生具有“家族渊源”——拥有家庭人脉可以令一名中等学生获得名校录取的几率增加约60%。

　　“It is just how the system works,” says a friend in Washington, a prominent Harvard alumnus who proudly “helped” get his nephew to Harvard this year. “My nephew is incredibly bright - he deserves to be there. But the problem is that there are lots of other bright kids, so I did everything I could.” Or as Larry Summers, former Harvard University president, has observed, “Legacy admissions are integral to the kind of community that any private educational institution is” - or they are in the eyes of Ivy League leaders and some private liberal arts colleges.
　　一位在华盛顿的朋友表示：“招生体系就是这样运作的”；这位颇有名望的哈佛校友今年自豪地“帮助”自己的侄子进入了哈佛大学。他说：“我的侄子非常聪明，他完全有资格进哈佛。问题是聪明的孩子太多了，所以我尽了自己的全力帮助他。”或许正如哈佛前任校长劳伦斯?H?萨默斯(Larry Summers)所说的：“录取校友子女正是私立教育机构这样的社团组织的一部分。”——其他常青藤学校以及部分私立人文学院的校长也持同样看法。

　　Don't get me wrong: in telling this story I am emphatically not suggesting that Britain's educational system is a paragon of effectiveness or meritocracy. There is hypocrisy aplenty in those British norms. With or without legacies, most students at Oxford or Cambridge come from privileged backgrounds. And there is a practical problem too: precisely because institutions such as Cambridge will not sell places for philanthropy, they are cash-strapped compared with the likes of Harvard.
　　请不要误会：我讲这个故事的目的不是为了可以强调英国的教育体系是效率或英才教育的典范。英国的教育制度中有着足够多的伪善。不管有没有“家族渊源”，绝大多数牛津(Oxford)或剑桥的学生通常都拥有优越的家庭背景。而且英国还存在一个非常现实的问题：正因为像剑桥这样的学校不愿用招生名额换取慈善捐助，它们相对于哈佛等学校在资金方面面临制肘。

　　But while the American cultural standards are arguably more honest - and commercial - they carry potentially debilitating consequences. And what I find truly striking is just how little this system is openly discussed, particularly compared to the whole issue of “positive discrimination” (or the idea of awarding places proactively on the basis of race, say, which has sparked a storm of discussion in America in recent days). One problem of the legacy system is that it entrenches privilege. It also gives the student body of the Ivy League a bifurcated, if not “caste” feel. For while a commendably large chunk of students at Ivy League schools study on scholarships, there are relatively few children from “middle” families - those too wealthy to qualify for aid but not wealthy and elite enough to pull strings.
　　不过虽然美国的文化标准被认为是更加诚实，也更加商业化，它们却可能造成使自身日渐衰弱的后果。真正令我感到惊讶的是，美国人很少就这种招生体制展开公开讨论，特别是相对于近期在美国激起了一轮讨论浪潮的“正面歧视”（positive discrimination，基于种族背景主动分配招生名额的做法）问题而言。家族渊源式招生体制的一大问题在于强化了社会特权。它还赋予了常青藤学校的学生群体一种二元分化感，虽然这还算不上是“种姓制度”。因为虽然很大一部分常青藤学校的学生拥有奖学金，来自“中产”家庭的孩子仍然相对较少——他们的家庭过于富有以至于不满足申请助学补助的条件，但又没富贵到可以调动人脉走后门的地步。

　　More damaging still, the legacy system contributes to bifurcation in the education world. These days, many private Ivy League institutions are drowning in funds because of those alumni donations. Indeed, fundraising is usually cited as a key benefit of that legacy system. But while Harvard, say, has plenty of largesse, much of America's publicly funded higher education system is being crushed. Over in California, for example, the public universities that cluster around Berkeley are currently facing “draconian” cuts, as Nathan Brostrom, executive vice president, says. Indeed, they have already lost a third of their state aid in the past five years.
　　更具破坏力的是，这种渊源式招生体制也导致了教育界的二元分化。现如今，许多常青藤私立院校拥有数量庞大的来自校友的捐助资金。而资金募集通常被认为是这种招生体制的关键优势之一。不过虽然哈佛获得了足够多的慷慨捐助，美国依赖公共财政拨款的高等教育体系却在很大程度上面临资金压力。伯克利大学(Berkeley)执行副校长内森?布罗斯特洛姆(Nathan Brostrom)表示，在加州，以伯克利为首的公立大学体系正面临“严峻”的资金缩水。过去五年中，州政府对这些学校的补助减少了三分之一。

　　But it is tough for Berkeley to replace that state money since the colleges do not practise a legacy policy at all: instead, Brostrom says that 40percent of students come from low-income families (compared with 10 per cent at Ivy League institutions.)
　　但对于伯克利大学来说，填补政府资金缺口的难度很大，因为该校从未施行过校友子女优先录取政策。正相反，布罗斯特洛姆表示有40%的学生来自低收入家庭（在常青藤院校这一比例通常仅为10%）。

　　So too at the State University of New York, which runs a vast network of public community colleges and universities. This has lost $1.5bn of its state funding, or some 30 per cent, in the past four years, says Nancy Zimpher, head of SUNY. She is trying to replace this with private money. But the battle “is tough”, since SUNY has no legacy policy and no real tradition of raising private funds. After all, hedge fund managers are unlikely to give millions to a community college to secure a place for their children. Their largesse typically either goes to their alma mater or to fund a school for poor, photogenic, little kids.
　　纽约州立大学(State University of New York, SUNY)也面临同样困境，该校运营着一个由公共社区学院以及大学组成的庞大网络。SUNY校长南希?金弗尔(Nancy Zimpher)表示，过去四年州政府对该校的拨款减少了15亿美元，降幅高达30%。目前她正试图用来自私人部门的资金填补这一缺口。但这是一场“艰难”的斗争，因为SUNY既没有施行校友子女优先录取政策，也没有募集私人捐助的传统。毕竟对冲基金经理们不太可能为一所社区学院捐助数百万美元，以保证自己的孩子以后能到那里就读。通常来说，他们要么会为自己的母校慷慨解囊，要么会把钱捐给那种招收贫困、低龄而又上镜的孩子的学校。

　　This is a tragedy. After all, what happens (or does not happen) at a place such as SUNY is crucial for future American growth. Or to put it another way, if America is going to stay competitive and cohesive, it desperately needs to create decent higher education for a wide swathe of its population - and not just for an elite that is becoming adept at reproducing privilege across generations, under the banner of donations.
　　这是一个悲剧。归根结底，在像SUNY这样的地方发生或没有发生的事情对于美国未来的发展来说至关重要。如果美国要想继续保持竞争力和凝聚力，就迫切需要为本国民众中范围更广的群体创造优质的高等教育环境——而不是仅仅为了精英阶层服务，这一阶层打着捐助的旗号正变得越来越善于将特权代代相传。