政府資助高等教育不外有兩種方式：一是資助大學，二是資助在大學就讀的學生。歐洲各國的政府大多采取前一種資助方式。其實，它們應該采取的是后一種方式。

Government can finance higher education by funding universities or by funding students to attend universities. European governments mostly do the first and should instead do the second.

    兩者之間有天壤之別：前者是政府通過征稅從已經畢業的學生身上募集資金，然后向大學撥款；后者是通過一套補助金和軟貸款制度，資助學生到自治的高等學府就學。近期英國社會圍繞大學學費問題展開辯論，使這個問題更為尖銳化，而這場辯論本身，也對全球高等教育的未來具有根本性的意義。

There is all the difference in the world between a tax on graduates that raises money for government to distribute to universities and a system of grants and soft loans that enables students to meet the costs of attending autonomous institutions of higher education. The debate over university fees in Britain - which turns on that issue - is therefore fundamental to the future of higher education everywhere.

    如果政府的資金面向的是學生，而不是高等院校，我們會有更好的教育和更公平的入學機會。如果大學由政府資助，則政府難免要插手大學的事務。這往往是災難性的。無論是管理銀行、航空公司還是鐵路，政府從來就沒有成功過。在管理大學方面，政府的表現就更差勁了。大學在本質上就是多元化的機構，活躍著一大批固執己見的學者和極難駕馭的青少年，而官僚管理體制墨守陳規而且集權化，兩者必然格格不入。

We shall have better education and fairer access if government money is directed to students, not colleges. With state funding of universities comes state control of universities. This has been disastrous. Government has not been successful at managing banks, airlines or even railways. It is even worse at directing universities, which are by nature pluralist institutions populated by dysfunctional dons and fractious adolescents and fit badlysintos risk-averse and centralised bureaucratic systems of control.

    “找到合適的人才，讓他們施展自己的才華”是一條放之四海而皆準的優秀管理原則，對于追求知識而言更是再適用不過。但在歐洲的大學中，這樣的自由已經絕跡很久了。

"Find good people and let them get on with it" is a good management principle everywhere, but nowhere more than in the pursuit of knowledge. It is a long time since such freedom existed in a European university.

    如今，美國大學在頂尖學府的排行中占據多數，這是許多人都知道的事實。75%的諾貝爾獎曾落入歐洲人之手；而今卻由美國人保持著此項殊榮。但較少有人意識到的是，這恰恰體現了自治院校相對于政府管理院校的優越性。根據《美國新聞與世界報道》的排名，頂尖的20家美國大學中，沒有一家是由政府管理的。加利福尼亞州立大學的王牌伯克利(Berkeley)分校，剛好未能進入20家最佳大學的排行榜。而我覺得，當今美國以外沒有任何大學能與伯克利媲美。

Many people now understand that US universities dominate the top echelons of higher education. Europe once took 75 per cent of Nobel prizes; today the US does. It is less widely appreciated that this is the triumph of autonomous institutions over government-controlled ones. In US News and World Report's rankings, none of the top 20 US universities is state-run. Berkeley - the jewel in the crown of California's state university - just fails to make the cut. And I doubt if any university outside the US is today as good as Berkeley.

    一流美國大學，如哈佛(Harvard)、芝加哥(Chicago)、普林斯頓(Princeton)和加州理工學院(Caltech)，不需要與任何政府機構協商辦學方針：學校管理層僅向獨立的基金會董事負責，而這些基金會董事不遺余力地募集資金，維護教學標準。如今，這些院校正吸引著世界各地的優秀人才。或許，歐洲可以對此無動于衷，但其潛在危害不容忽視。

Harvard and Chicago, Princeton and Caltech do not negotiate policies with any government agency: they are accountable to independent trustees, who work hard to raise funds and maintain standards. These institutions are vacuuming up talent from around the world. Maybe Europe can just let this happen. But it is a big risk to take.

    在醫療行業，金錢有可能扭曲醫務人員與患者之間應有的關系。高等教育則不同。我曾經教過花了數千英鎊來聽我課的MBA學生；我也曾經在公立大學教過剛滿18歲的年輕人。對于他們來說，每星期聽我一節課是一種代價，以便他們能夠名正言順地在納稅人的資助下，在牛津快快樂樂地過上三年。當學生成為顧客之后，講課的人就會認真備課，而聽課的人也會專心致志，主動求學。他們所在的院校，更將全心全意地關注教學質量。

In healthcare, the cash nexus undermines the doctor-patient relationship. Higher education is different. I have taught MBA students paying several thousand pounds to sit in my class. I have also taught 18-year-olds for whom an hour a week with me is the price of three jolly years in Oxford at the taxpayer's expense. When students are customers, the result is well-prepared classes and a demanding and committed audience in institutions that care passionately about the quality of their teaching.

    直接資助學生的方式，將使大學更為高效，也更容易進入。我做學生時，經歷過一個短暫的黃金年代，那時候大學能得到大筆的撥款，而學生們可以得到慷慨的補助金。許多人至今還懷念那個年代，但它已經一去不復返了，而且很可能也不應該復返。還有不少其他領域需要國家的財政支出。

Funding directed to students would make universities more effective and accessible. I was a student in a brief golden age of lavish funding for universities and generous student grants. Many people still long for that era. But it will not return, and probably should not. There are other demands on public expenditure.

    因此，撥給高等教育的有限的公共資源，必須用于資助貧困家庭的學生，以及那些永遠不可能掙到足夠的收入以償還大學時代開支的畢業生。更公平的資助模式，將意味著從律師和投資銀行家那里收回學費補助，而同時免除作家、志愿機構工作人員，以及那些職業失敗人士的學生貸款。它還將為天資聰穎的年輕人提供充足的獎學金，讓他們得到上大學的機會。美國的一流大學之所以能比歐洲大學發放更多的獎學金，是因為他們的財源更多更廣。到此已經不用再說什么了。

So limited public resources for higher education must be directed towards students from poor households and to those graduates who will never earn enough to meet the costs of higher education. Fairer funding will recoup tuition expenses from lawyers and investment bankers but not from writers, people who work in voluntary organisations, or those whose careers fail. And it will provide generous bursaries to bright people who might otherwise find it difficult to attend university. Top US universities offer scholarships more extensively than European ones because they are better resourced. It should hardly be necessary to say more.

    但不說不行。目前，英國的大學收費方案遭到強烈反對。對于那些不喜歡精英學府，同時又希望插手大學招生方針、內部組織架構、乃至課程結構的人而言，針對大學的政治干預是他們所歡迎的。對于富裕家庭的父母而言，假如資助方案偏向有需要的學生，他們將不得不增加支出(他們是對的)。對于表現平平的大學而言，假如大學之間的資金分配取決于政治考慮，而不是學生的選擇，那它們的表現會更好(這也是對的)。但是，歐洲大學的未來，終究不應該喪失在這些利益群體手里。

But it is. The fees proposal is strongly opposed. Political control of universities is welcome to those who dislike elite institutions and wish to influence admissions policies, internal organisation and the structure of courses. Well-off parents believe, correctly, that they will have to pay more if funding is targeted at needy students. Weak universities think, correctly, that they will do better if the distribution of funds between institutions results from political choices, not student preferences. The future of Europe's universities should not be sacrificed to these interests.

    譯者/和風