The UK government’s bill on higher education is under fierce examination in the House of Lords. The government argues in its defence that it “will drive up the standard of teaching at universities, deliver greater competition and choice for students, while safeguarding institutional autonomy and academic freedom”. It is more likely to deliver the reverse.

英国政府关于高等教育的法案正在上议院接受严格审查。政府方面辩称，该法案“将提升大学教学水平，形成更大竞争，为学生带来更多选择，同时捍卫学府自治和学术自由”。但实际上，该法案更有可能带来反效果。

The proposals manage to be both too radical¹ and not radical enough. The explanation for this is the influence of half-baked economics. One example is the idea that, since competition is good, more competition must be better. Another example is the idea that, since graduates earn more than non-graduates, raising their numbers must deliver a matching rise in benefits. The first error is market fundamentalism. The second is the fallacy of composition.

这些政策建议有的过于极端，有的又不到位。对此的解释是半吊子经济学的影响。例如，有观点认为，既然竞争有好处，那么更多的竞争一定更好。还有一种观点认为，既然大学毕业生比非大学生挣得更多，那么增加大学生数量必然带来相应的效益增加。第一种观点的错误在于市场原教旨主义。第二种错在以偏概全。

I sought to explain the limits of market competition in guiding higher education in a lecture delivered to the Council for the Defence of British Universities. A market in university education suffers from five defects.

在为“捍卫英国大学协会”(Council for the Defence of British Universities)所做的一次讲座中，我力图解释市场竞争在引导高等教育发展上的种种局限。大学教育市场化受到五种缺陷的影响。

First, consumers do not know what they have bought until well after they have bought it. Second, the most important information is the reputation of the institution. Third, the price charged is a decisive signal of quality. Fourth, the failure of providers destroys the value of its qualifications. Finally, the government rightly takes much of the risk, via income-contingent loans.

首先，消费者要等到买下很久之后，才会知道自己购买了什么。其次，最重要的信息是大学的名气。第三，所收学费价格是教育质量的决定性指标。第四，教育提供方的失败会破坏其所授学历的价值。最后，政府通过根据收入偿还学生贷款的政策，正确地承担了大部分风险。

Given these features, reliance on market competition to drive this sector² is almost sure to lead to perverse³ results. The government’s answer is a new regulator — the Office for Students. Yet this body, apart from being far too powerful, will find it impossible to provide credible⁴ evidence on teaching quality.

鉴于这些特点，依靠市场竞争推动高等教育几乎必然导致扭曲的结果。英国政府的回应是成立新的监管机构——学生办公室(Office for Students)。然而，除了掌握过多实权以外，该机构会发现，它不可能提供有关教学质量的可信证据。

The proposed creation of a market-driven university system, with no limits on numbers, no minimum qualifications on entry and government-backed loans is a disaster waiting to happen. In this respect, the policy is too radical.

拟议创建的市场导向型大学体系——没有数量限制，没有最低入学资格要求，却有政府支持的贷款——将是一场必然降临的灾难。就此而言，政策过于极端。

The root of this plan is the idea that expanding student numbers will bring huge economic benefits. Yet, as Alison Wolf of King’s College London (my wife) argues in a paper on Remaking Tertiary Education for the Education Policy Institute, this is unjustified.

上述计划根植于这样的理念：扩大学生数量将带来巨大的经济效益。但是，正如我的妻子、伦敦大学国王学院(King's College London)的艾莉森?沃尔夫(Alison Wolf)在为教育政策研究所(Education Policy Institute)撰写的一篇有关重塑高等教育的论文中所主张的，这一理念毫无依据。

Ample evidence exists of graduates doing jobs that used not to need degrees. With close to half of the age cohort now acquiring degrees (up from 8 per cent in 1970), a rising number of graduates fails to earn more than non-graduates. Far more of them will not earn enough extra to justify⁵ a debt of ￡27,000 for a three-year degree. The economy also shows no sign of the surge in productivity that the huge rise in graduation rates was intended to create.

有大量证据证明，大学毕业生正做着过去并不需要学历的工作。随着同龄人群中如今有近一半获得学位（1970年时仅为8%），越来越多的大学毕业生赚的钱并不比非大学毕业生多。还有多得多的大学毕业生将无法赚到足够多的额外收入，来证明为一个三年制学位课程背上2.7万英镑债务是划算的。英国经济也没有显示出大学扩招旨在带来的生产率大幅提高的迹象。

The belief that the university degree is the only tertiary qualification that matters has had other dysfunctional results. The system of tertiary-level vocational qualifications has collapsed⁷. Funding is concentrated almost entirely⁸ on universities. Marginal students gain little but debts. But they (and those who do not attend university) have few good alternatives. As Professor Wolf puts it, “Far from equalising opportunity?.?.?.?, our current tertiary arrangements work systematically⁹ against it.”

认为大学学历是唯一重要高等教育学历的信念，还带来了其他功能失调的结果。高等职业资格教育体系已经崩溃。资金几乎完全集中在大学。处在边缘的学生除了背债之外没有什么收获。但是他们（以及那些未上大学的青年）几乎没有什么好的替代选择。正如伦敦大学国王学院的艾莉森教授指出的，“非但没有让机会均等……，我们现行的高等教育安排正在系统化地阻碍机会均等。”

It does not have to be this way. Many European countries, notably¹⁰ including Austria, Germany and the Netherlands, have well-respected non-degree tertiary qualifications that deliver substantial benefit to students and employees. England seems unique in the extent to which this provision has been allowed to collapse⁶. Yet there is clear evidence of market demand for such skills. But little or no incentive¹¹ exists to meet that demand, because government support is so skewed toward universities.

其实不必如此。许多欧洲国家（尤其是奥地利、德国和荷兰）都有受尊敬的非学位高等学历教育，这些课程给学生和雇员带来了巨大的好处。在让这一级的教育体系崩溃方面，英格兰似乎是独一无二的。然而，有明确证据证明此类技能的市场需求。但很少或根本不存在对满足这种需求的激励，因为政府支持如此向大学倾斜。

In this respect, the policy on higher education is not nearly radical enough. A good reform would create a universal entitlement to borrow for tertiary education, which could be used over a lifetime, subject to an upper age limit.

就此而言，高等教育政策根本不到位。好的改革将创建一种用于接受高等教育的全民借款资格（可设定一个年龄上限）。

The government would also create an updated set of tertiary vocational qualifications equivalent to those that existed in the 1970s, but were then destroyed. Qualifications are a public good. It is government’s job to help establish procedures for creating them.

政府还应创建一套升级版的高等职业资格教育体系；这种体系在上世纪70年代存在过，但后来被放弃。学历是一种公益。协助建立创造学历的程序是政府的工作。

Until these things happen, most young people will seek to gain a degree, however useless, because there is no credible and adequately funded alternative. We are moving into a world in which tertiary education of some kind will be almost universal.

在实现这些之前，大多数年轻人将寻求获得一个学位——无论多么无用——因为他们没有可信的、有充足资金支持的其他选择。我们正在步入一个某些高等教育将几乎普及的世界。

Yet that does not mean everyone should do a three-year degree. A radical government would universalise the entitlement, but promote a more diverse and appropriate set of qualifications. This happens elsewhere. Why not in England?

然而，这并不意味着每个人都应该攻读一个三年制学位课程。一个激进的政府会让这种权利全民化，同时推广一个更加多样化、更加合用的职业资格教育体系。这在其他地方早已实现。为什么英格兰不行？