钞能力和美国精英教育

本文选自经济学人2023年3月9日文章，原文标题：American universities are pursuing fairness the wrong way

这篇文章主要讨论了美国大学的招生政策，认为取消标准化考试成绩的要求并不是解决公平问题的最佳方法。相反，应该取消校友子女录取优惠等不公正的入学途径。文章还指出，标准化考试虽然与特权有关，但却是招生申请中最难以用金钱扭曲的部分，因此放弃考试并不是一个好的解决方案。文章呼吁大学需要更多的数据来解决教育不平等问题，并且应该努力打造一个真正的以能力为本的精英主义制度，而不是维持这种以世袭为主的现状。

Drop legacy admissions—not standardised exams.

放弃传统的录取-非标准化考试

The best American universities wish to be ruthlessly discriminating(歧视) on academic merit—and beacons for diversity on everything else. Trying to accomplish both at once can prompt mistakes. Lately Columbia University, an Ivy League member in New York, has been making a lot of them. Last year it admitted to submitting incorrect data to a college-rankings outfit in a bid to seem more exclusive than it really is. And on March 1st, in a bid to seem more inclusive than it is, Columbia said it would drop the requirement for applicants to submit standardised exam scores.

美国最好的大学希望在学术成绩上毫不留情地区别对待，并在其他方面树立多元化的榜样。试图同时完成这两项任务可能会导致错误。最近，哥伦比亚大学，一个常春藤联盟的成员在纽约，已经作出了很多。去年，它承认向一家大学排名机构提交了不正确的数据，试图让自己看起来比实际情况更排外。3月1日，哥伦比亚表示，为了让自己看起来更具包容性，它将取消申请人提交标准化考试成绩的要求。

in a bid to 为了

Campaigners claim that exams favour the privileged. Evidence for this is thin. Maths problems involve neutral things like numbers and algebra; reading-comprehension tests are rarely about silverware or yachting. The bias, however, is said to be latent. Because scores are correlated with race and parental income, the exams must therefore be contaminated with racism and classism.

活动家们声称考试偏袒特权阶层。这方面的证据很少。数学问题涉及像数字和代数这样的中性事物;阅读理解测试很少涉及银器或游艇。然而，这种偏见据说是潜在的。由于分数与种族和父母收入相关，考试必然沾染种族主义和阶级歧视。

be contaminated with 被污染上

This confuses disparity with discrimination. Tests correctly measure educational inequality, which begins before kindergarten and grows as a result of bad policy. Just as smashing thermometers does not prevent climate change, so abandoning the measurement of educational inequality will not magic it away.

这混淆了差距和歧视。考试正确地衡量了教育不平等，这种不平等在幼儿园之前就开始了，并由于糟糕的政策而加剧。就像打碎温度计并不能阻止气候变化一样，放弃对教育不平等的衡量也不会让它消失。

替换名词词组教育不平等，就可以得到一个高亮部分是满分句型：就像打碎温度计并不能阻止气候变化一样，放弃对……的衡量也不会让它消失。

In fact, for meritocrats to abandon exams is self-defeating. Scores may be correlated with privilege, but they are probably the hardest part of an admissions application to warp with money. Children of the rich can get ample help in completing their coursework (which may receive inflated grades), hire professional writers to “edit” their essays and even spend lavishly on consultants who will help craft a delectable（美味的） smorgasbord of extra-curricular activities. Yet research shows that intensive tutoring has a marginal effect on test scores. That is why, in the Varsity Blues scandal of 2019, very rich parents paid to have others sit their children’s exams.

事实上，精英放弃考试是弄巧成拙。分数可能与特权有关，但它们可能是入学申请中最难用钱扭曲的部分。富人的孩子在完成他们的课程作业（可能会得到夸大的分数）时可以得到充分的帮助，聘请专业作家“润色”他们的论文，甚至可以慷慨地聘请顾问，帮助他们制作一个美味的课外活动自助餐。然而，研究表明，强化辅导对考试成绩的影响微乎其微。这就是为什么在2019年的校园蓝调丑闻中，非常富有的父母花钱让别人参加孩子的考试。

get ample help in 在某方面可以得到充足帮助

Have a marginal effect on 在某方面的影响微乎其微 ；marginal=limited，margin本身是边缘的意思，这里延伸为不起眼的意思

Worse, supposedly progressive universities like Columbia operate affirmative-action(平权行动) schemes for deep-pocketed dullards in the form of “legacy” admissions that shower advantages on the relatives of alumni(校友). One study found that undergraduates at Columbia are more than 100 times more likely to belong to the top 0.1% of families by income than to the poorest 20%. The best way to promote fairness would be to eliminate such a regressive pathway to admission.

更糟糕的是，像哥伦比亚这样被认为是进步的大学以“遗产”录取的形式为财大气粗的笨蛋实施平权行动计划，给校友的亲属带来好处。一项研究发现，哥伦比亚的本科生属于收入最高的0.1%家庭的可能性是最贫穷的20%家庭的100倍以上。促进公平的最佳途径是消除这种倒退的入学途径。

deep-pocketed 口袋很深，比喻为拥有坚实的资金基础。

The best way to promote fairness would be to eliminate such a regressive pathway to admission.  满分句型，可用作观点句，只要替换admission即可百搭，表示各种解决方法。

In the 1920s Harvard moved to a “holistic” admissions system because its president thought it had too many Jewish students (who excelled on the standardised exam adopted in 1905). A century later, Harvard is being sued over a holistic admissions system that limits the number of Asian-American students, who also do well on tests. Based on that case, the Supreme Court is expected to rule that race-based affirmative action is unconstitutional. A cynical observer might conclude that universities are jettisoning quantitative measures, the lawsuit’s key evidence, to make discrimination harder to detect.

20世纪20年代，哈佛转向了“整体”招生体系，因为校长认为该校犹太学生太多（他们在1905年采用的标准化考试中表现优异）。一个世纪后，哈佛大学因限制亚裔学生数量的整体招生制度而被起诉，而亚裔学生在考试中也表现出色。根据该案，预计最高法院将裁定基于种族的平权行动违宪。 一个愤世嫉俗的观察者可能会得出结论，大学正在抛弃定量指标，诉讼的关键证据，使歧视更难发现。

Fixing educational inequality requires more data, not less. Susan Dynarski, an economist at Harvard, makes the case that free, universal testing helps unearth promising young talent from rough backgrounds. Timely reminders about financial aid also help. For decades, elite universities have sought skin-deep diversity to paper over abysmal(深不可测的) socioeconomic diversity, a failing that is exacerbated by legacy admissions. If the Supreme Court rules that stratagem out, universities should not devote their energies to maintaining an undesirable status quo, but to crafting something better: a true meritocracy shorn of an unjustifiable, hereditary mediocracy.

解决教育不平等需要更多的数据，而不是更少。哈佛大学经济学家苏珊·戴纳斯基（Susan Dynarski）认为，免费的普遍测试有助于从艰苦的背景中发掘出有前途的年轻人才。及时提醒有关经济援助的信息也会有所帮助。几十年来，精英大学一直在寻求肤浅的多样性，以掩盖糟糕的社会经济多样性，而传统的录取方式加剧了这一失败。如果最高法院排除了这一策略，大学就不应该把精力花在维持不可取的现状上，而应该花在创造更好的东西上：剔除了毫无道理的世袭平庸者的真正的精英统治

Skin-deep 比喻不深入本质，只停留在表层，故理解为肤浅，等同于superficial

paper 名词为论文，但是这里是动词用法，表示用纸糊住，延伸为掩盖的意思。