高等教育成本控制中英文對照外文翻譯文獻

英文資料翻譯PAGEPAGE1中英文資料對照外文翻譯RiggingthePriceforHigherEducationThereisnoquestionthatthecostofacollegedegreeisincreasingrapidly.Anoft-cited1996studybytheGeneralAccountingOfficefoundthattuitionandfeesatpublicinstitutionshaveincreasedsome234percentsince1980whilefamilyincomeandthegeneralinflationratehaveincreasedonlyabout80percentoverthesameperiod.Costsatprivatecollegeanduniversitieshavefaredlittlebetter,increasingmorethan220percent.Manyreasonshavebeengivenfortheincreasingcostsofhigheredition.Someofthemostpersuasiveincludetheincreaseddemandforcollegesdegrees,higheroverheadcostsassociatedwithincreasedfacultyresearch,rcentreductionsinstatesupportofpublicinstitutions,andfederalstudentaidprogramsthatindirectlysubsidizeschools.Theseallareimportantfactorsthatincreasecosts;however,thereisanotherreasonnot.oftenmentioned.Collegesanduniversities,particularlyeliteprivateuniversitiesexerciseacertaindegreeofmonopolypowerthatallowsthemtochargeeachindividualstudentahigherpricethanwouldbethecaseotherwise.Thisarticleaddresseseachofthereasonsforincreasedcosts.However,theemphasisisplacedonthelastone,themonopolisticpowerofschools.TheReasonsforIncreasingCostsIncreasedvalueofacollegedegree.Themostimportantreasoncollegecostshaveescalatedisthatthevalueofacollegeeducationhasincreased.Infact,accordingtotheGeneralAccountingOfficetheaveragecollegegraduateearnedabout43percentmorethantheaveragehighschoolgraduatedidin1980.Today,thedifferenceinearningsbetweenthesesametwogroupsismorethan70percent.Therefore,moreandmorefamiliesarefindingitnecessarytosucceedinthe,jobmarket.Atthesametime，thecollegeagepopulationingeneralhasincreased.Thisincreaseddemandforhighereducationhasdrivenupthepriceofcollegejustasincreaseddemandforanycommoditydrivesupthepriceifthatdemandisnotmetwithasufficientlyincreasedsupply.Increasedresearchatuniversities.Anotherfactoraffectingtuitioncostsatmanycollegesanduniversitiesisanincreasedemphasisonresearch.Theprestigeofacollegeoruniversitytodayislargelyafunctionofthepublishingprowessoftheinstitution'sprofessors.Publishingrequiresresearch,whichrequirestime.Thismeansthatprofessorsaredoinglessteachingandmoreresearch.Fewerhoursatthelecternforeachprofessormeanseitherthatcourseandclassselectionarereduced,whichforcesstudentstotakelongertofinishadegree,orthatmoreprofessorsarerequiredonstaff,whichforcestheinstitutiontospendmoreforsalaries.CharlesSykesmadethispointinhisexcellent1988book,Pro/scam.Eitherway,theresultishigherfixedoroverheadcosts,whichtypicallyarepassedontostudentsandparentsthroughhighertuitionandfees.Reducedstatefundingforpublicinstitutions.Inaddition,thecurrenteraoffiscalausterityingovernmenthasmeantslowergrowthinstatebudgets,whichoftenhasmeantslowergrowthinfinancialsupportofpublicuniversities.AccordingtoDpartmentofEducationstatistics,stategovernmentfundsaccountedfor46.3percentofpublicinstitutionrevenuesin1980.By1993thatfigurehaddroppedto36.8percent.Increasedtuitionhasbeentheonlyrecourseforpublicinstitutionssimultaneouslyfacedwithincreaseddemandandshrinkingstatesupport.Federalprogramsthatfacilitatefamilydebt.Federalprogramsmeanttoassiststudentsfacingsteepcollegecostshavethemselvesaddedtotheriseintuition.StartingwithpassageoftheHigherEducationActof1965,thefederalgovernmenthasguaranteedstudentloansextendedbyprivatebanks.TheStudentLoanMarketingAssociation(SallieMae)wasestablishedin1972asagovernment-sponsoredenterprisetoestablishasecondarymarketinstudentloans.Inaddition,alimiteddirectgovernmentloanprogramwasestablishedin1993.Theseloanprogramsnotonlyfacilitateindebtedness,butalsoboostthescaleofthatindebtednessbyencouragingsteepertuitionincreases.AsThomasDonlanrecentlywroteinBarron’smagazine,"Thefacultyandstaffcanvotethemselveshighersalariesandmoreresourcesiftheonlyconsequenceisthatstudentsandparentsjusthavetosignonthedottedlinetoborrowsomemoremoney."Withfederaldebtassistancesoreadilyavailable,schoolshavenoincentivetocontrolthecostsofeducation.Schoolsasmonopolists.Increaseddemand,increasedresearch,andreducedstatefundingallaffectthe"sticker"priceofacollegedegree-theadvertisedtuitionthataschoolcharges.However,federalprograms(andtoalesserextentprivatescholarshipsandinstitutionalaid)thatsubsidizestudentsdirectlyaffectnotonlythestickerpriceofcollegebutalsotheactualpricepaidbyastudentandhisfamily.Moststudentsandtheirfamiliesdonotpaythefullstickerpricejustasfewpeoplepaythefullstickerpriceforanewautomobile.Infact,thankstosubsidizedloans,institutionalscholarships,statesubsidies,andfederalgrants,schoolscanusuallygetawaywithchargingeachstudentadifferentprice.Thus,thesameeducationtypicallycostseverystudentadifferentamount.Theabilitytochargedifferentstudentsdifferentpricesisknownineconomictermsaspricediscrimination.Onlyfirmswithmonopolisticpowerareabletoengageinpricediscrimination.Theresultofpricediscriminationisthatcollegesareabletochargeeachstudentexactlyasmuchasheorsheiswillingtopay.Whilethismayseemfairandfinancialaidisoftentoutedas"levelingtheplayingfield,"thefactisthatpricediscriminationrarelybenefitsanyconsumers,eventhosewithlowincomes.Tounderstandthisimportantfirsttounderstandthebasisofeveryeconomictransactiontakesplaceinthemarketplace.Everyonewhotakespartinanyeconomictransactiondoessobecausehebelieveshewillbebetteroffafterthedealthanhebefore.Whyotherwiseshouldengageinthetrade?Forexample,ifyou,thestudent,decideasemesterofclassesataparticularschoolfor$10,000thendecisionthatatpresentthatsemesterofclassesisworthmoretoyouthanholdingontothe$10,000.Ifthiswerenotthecasethenyouwouldbebetteroffholdingontothecashormakinganotherpurchase.Theextravalueyoureceivefromthattransaction-aboveandbeyondthe$10,000paid-isknownasyourconsumersurplus.Theuniversityismakingexactlythesamecalculationontheothersideofthedeal.Ifthetransactiontranspiresthentheschoolhasobviouslydecidedthatthe$10,000incashismorevaluablethannotspendingthetimeandresourcestooffertheclasses.Theexcessvalueonthissideoftheledgerisknownineconomictermsasproducersurplus.Thisexamplehelpsillustratethatatransactionwilltranspireonlywhenboththepurchaserandthesellerreceivesomesurplusvaluefromthedealandconversely,aneconomictransactionwillalwaysoccurifthereisasurplustobegainedbyboththeconsumerandtheproducer.Ofcourse,theactualamountofsurplusenjoyedbytheconsumerorproducerisdifficultifnotimpossibletomeasureinmostindividualmarkettransactions.However,itgenerallyistruethataconsumerwillreceiveagreatersurplusinacompetitivemarket(oneservedbymanyproducers),thaninamonopolisticmarket(oneserverdbyasmallnumberofproducers)andaprducerwillenjoyalargersurplusinamonopolisticmarket.Thisisbecauseinacompetitivemarkettheconsumercanswitchfromoneproducertoanotherifheisunhappywiththelevelofsurplusheisreceiving.Competitionamongproducerslowerspricesandthusincreasesconsumersurplusattheexpenseofproducersurplus.Firmsthathavemonopolisticpower,however,neednotcompetewithotherproducersasmuchandareabletoretainalargersurplusforthemselves.Inshort,monopolisticproducershavetheluxuryofdeterminingexactlyhowmuchanindividualwillpayfortheirservicesandchargingpreciselythatamount.Consumershavelittlechoicebuttopaythemonopolist'sprice.What,then,isthelessonforhighereducation?Collegesanduniversitieshavegreatermonopolisticpowertodaythaneverbefore.Thisfactcametotheforefrontin1991whenagroupofIvyLeagueschoolswereinvestigatedbytheDepartmentofjusticeforcollusioninsettingtheirtuitionprices.Inshort,theseschoolsagreedthattheywouldnolongeroffermerit-basedscholarshipsandwouldofferfinancialaidonthebasisofneedonly.Thus,theschoolsinvolvedagreedtoendeconomiccompetitionfortalentedstudents.TheDepartmentofjusticebrokeuptheIvyLeaguecartel.However,thishasnotputanendtotheexerciseofmonopolisticpowerbyschoolsofhigherlearning.Infact,thepowerofthemonopolyhasspreadbeyondasmallnumberofeliteinstitutionsandhasbeenwidelyadoptedbymoreordinarycollegesanduniversities.Inpart,thisexpansionisattributabletoafailuretomeettheincreaseddemandforhighereducationwithacommensurateincreaseinsupply.Itisdifficulttobuildanewcollegeoruniversity.Andsothesamenumberofschoolsisservinganincreasingnumberofstudents.Thiswilleventuallyevenoutasnewcollegesarecreatedandgainareputationinthemarketplace,butthatwilltaketime.Moredirectlyandconcernisthatfederalstudentaidhasenabledmonopolisticbyschools.Collegesanduniversitiesareabletoincreasethestickerpricebeyondthereachofmoststudentsandthenreducetheactualpricechargedindividualstudentsbyofferingthemvariousbundlesoffinancialaid.Thus,eachstudentisofferedadifferentpricethatmatchesalmostexactlywhatheorsheiswillingtopay.Theresultisthatthestudent's(consumer)surplusisdecreasedandtheschool's(producer)surplusisincreased.Intheend,studentswillbenefitlessfromtheeducationbecausecollegesanduniversitieshavecapturedmoreoftheirconsumersurplus.This"capturedconsumersurplus"maybeagreaterpercentageofthefamily'sincomethanwouldhavebeenpaidundercompetitivecircumstances.Or,itmaymeanthatthestudentreceivesalower-valueeducation(fromhisorherperspective).Forexample.thestudentmayhavetoendurelargeclasssizesormoregraduatestudentledclasses.Additionalproducersurplusmeansthatschoolsmayengageinactivitiesthatwouldnotbepossibleinacompetitivemarket.Forexample,schoolsmaybeabletooperateacademicprogramsthatadvanceacertainpoliticalagendafavoredbytheschool'sadministratorsevenifthatagendahasbeendiscreditedintherealworld.Theexistenceofaneducationalmonopolymaythushelpexplainwhysomanyschoolscontinuetopreachthebenefitsofcommunismdespitethatpoliticalandeconomicsystem'scompletefailureintheformerSovietUnion.Similarly,unrealarethelavishremunerationandperquisitesthatschoolsoffercertainadministratorsandtenuredfaculty.Inalessmanipulatedsystem,competitionwoulddiscouragesuchexcesses.Alloftheseactivitiesbenefittheschoolestablishmentattheexpenseofstudents.Despitetheobviousfactthatmorestudentswillbeworseofgiventhemonopolisticpowerofuniversities,somebelievethatasystemoftiignstickerpriceandredistributivefinancialaidissociallybeneficialbecauseithelpsthosestudentsfromlowincomefamilies.Howeverappealingthismaysound,itissimplyuntrue.Rememberthatthenatureofanymonopoly(inthiscasecollegesanduniversities)istoreducetheconsumersurplusofallcustomersnotjustthewealthy.Thishypothesishasbeenborneoutbythedata.DavidC.RoseandRobertL.Sorensenina1992articleintheSouthernEconomicJournalfound“thatwhileinstitutionsthatappeartoinflatetheirtuitiondomakelargeraidawards,theirawardsarenotlargeenoughtoreducetheaveragenetpricepaidbyneedystudents.”Whatismore,theUniversityofSt.Louiseconomistsfoundthatrevenuesfromhightuitionratesareactuallyexpendedonincreasedadministrativeoverhead,facultysalaries,andstipendsforgraduatestudents,ratherthanlowertuitioncostsforneedystudents.Again,thebeneficiaryofmonopolypoweristheschoolandnotstudent.ImplicationsandConclusionsMostofthefactorsdrivingupcollegecostsarenaturalmarketforcesand,lefttothemselves,theywillproducethemostefficientandsociallybeneficialoutcome.Thevalueofacollegedegreethathasledtoincreaseddemandforhighereducationeventuallywillbemetbyincreasedsupply.Whenthathappenswecanexpecttoseetuitionpricesfallnaturally.Similarly,anoveremphasisbyuniversitiesonresearchwillbecorrectedasstudentsseekoutschoolsfocusedonteaching.Thoseuniversitiesthathaveforsakenstudentsincreasedclasssize,increasedtuitionorreducedprofessorialteachingwillseetheirenrollmentfalloffandshifttoschoolsthatfocusonthestudents.Asthishappensreachuniversitieswilleitherhavetoreturntoteaching(whichwouldreducecosts)orlowertheirtuitiontoattractmorestudents.Thedropinstatesubsidiestocollegesistheresultoftaxpayerdesireforgreaterfiscalrestraint.Dependingonone'sviewthismayormaynotbeaproblem.Ineithercasetheissuesinvolvedaretoogreattobecoveredhere.Itisenoughtosaythattheresidentsofeachstatemustdecideforthemselvestheirownprioritiesandwherethecostofpublichighereducationfitsamongthesepriorities.What'sleftthenisfederalstudentaidandthemonopolisticpoweritgrantstocollegesanduniversities.Unliketheotherfactorsaffectinghighereducationcosts,federalsubsidieswillnotcorrectthemselves,willnotleadtoanefficientandsociallybeneficialoutcome,and-intheend-willhurtfarmorestudentsthantheywillhelp.ItisironicthattheAmericanacademy,typicallytheloudestvoiceagainst"capitalistexcess"andaneagersupporterofegalitarianism,shamelesslyraisespricesandotherwiseprofitsfrommonopolisticlobbiesinWashingtonashardorharderthananyone,becausetheredistribuyivepoliciesofanactivistgovtrnmentbenefiteveryoneinthehighereducationestablishment.Everyone,thatis,exceptthestudent.高等教育的成本控制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)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%。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的學(xué)生給付高額的費用。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。一、成本增長的原因1．大學(xué)學(xué)位價值的增長上大學(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)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。2．大學(xué)研究的增加影響學(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。CharlesSykes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)生和家長必須付出更高的學(xué)費和費用。3．聯(lián)邦政府計劃增加家庭債務(wù)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。4．學(xué)校的壟斷學(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。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。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。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