∷楊小荷 譯注

在美國(guó)大學(xué)招生丑聞中，有50人被指控通過走后門，把富裕家庭的孩子送入了頂級(jí)高校。這成了人們茶余飯后的絕佳談資。檢察官宣稱，這些人中有一些是社會(huì)名流，為了讓孩子上好大學(xué)，不惜行賄和舞弊。這次丑聞還披露了不少詭異的細(xì)節(jié)，包括被處理過的圖片——臉是涉事孩子的臉，身體卻是優(yōu)秀的年輕運(yùn)動(dòng)員的。這件事值得反復(fù)推敲和說道，因?yàn)樗f出了人人都有所察覺卻說不出來的美國(guó)社會(huì)真相。那就是：美國(guó)的整個(gè)教育體系都是一場(chǎng)由少數(shù)人操控大多數(shù)人的騙局。

The college-admissions scandal—in which fi fty people have been indicted for scheming to get the children of wealthy parents into top schools—makes for perfect cocktail chatter. It involves a couple of celebrities among those who, prosecutors allege, bribed and cheated their kids’ way into college.1. prosecutor: 檢察官，公訴人；allege: 宣稱，指控；bribe: 賄賂。It includes bizarre details, like the Photoshopping of photographs of said children’s faces onto the bodies of outstanding young athletes. It bears savoring and retelling,because it says something intuitively obvious but barely articulated about American society: Its entire education system is a scam, perpetrated by a few upon the many.2. scam: 欺詐，騙局；perpetrate: 施行，從事（有害、違法或欺詐的行為）。

近日，美國(guó)爆出史上最大的高校招生舞弊案，多名商業(yè)領(lǐng)袖和娛樂明星為了讓子女進(jìn)入精英大學(xué)，不惜賄賂SAT/ACT考試管理人員或大學(xué)體育教練，金額高達(dá)650萬美元，牽涉到耶魯（Yale）、斯坦福（Stanford）、南加大（USC）等多所美國(guó)名校。然而，在這場(chǎng)浮出水面的舞弊案之下，我們看到的是美國(guó)長(zhǎng)久以來不公平的招生體系。更可悲的是，這一體系正逐漸制度化，普通民眾早已見怪不怪了。

這起丑聞讓我們看到的，遠(yuǎn)不止高等教育那高得實(shí)在讓人負(fù)擔(dān)不起的學(xué)費(fèi)（很多大學(xué)畢業(yè)生到最后都搞不清“l(fā)iterally”這個(gè)詞該怎么用，難得像我現(xiàn)在這樣用對(duì)）。我們還看到，進(jìn)入精英大學(xué)不僅是為了讓一個(gè)學(xué)生獲得教育，更是為了創(chuàng)造或強(qiáng)化社會(huì)聯(lián)系，從而為未來的財(cái)富打下基礎(chǔ)。我們還看到，美國(guó)每所大學(xué)，包括公立大學(xué)，在基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施、課程設(shè)置、人員聘用，及其自身存在方面作出的所有決定，都是建立在籌款和賺錢的邏輯之上的。我們還看到，入學(xué)一年比一年難，也一年比一年貴。我們還看到，申請(qǐng)流程從根本上被人操縱，而這也早已人盡皆知。這起丑聞讓我們看到了所有這一切。

It’s not just that higher education is literally prohibitively expensive (and at the end of it most college graduates still don’t know how to use the word “l(fā)iterally” correctly,3. literally: 確實(shí)地，名副其實(shí)地（在口語中，literally被濫用，只表示強(qiáng)調(diào)，喪失了“名副其實(shí)地”這個(gè)含義，所以作者說很多人大學(xué)畢業(yè)都不會(huì)正確使用這個(gè)詞）；prohibitively:（費(fèi)用）高得負(fù)擔(dān)不起地。as I am here). It’s not just that admission to an élite college—more than the education a student receives there—provides the foundation of future wealth by creating or reinforcing social connections. It’s not just that every college in the country,including public schools, makes decisions about infrastructure,curriculum development, hiring, and its very existence on the basis of fund-raising and money-making logic. It’s not just that the process of getting into college grows more stressful—and,consequently, more expensive—with every passing year. It’s not just that the process itself is fundamentally rigged4. rig: 操縱，做手腳。and everyone knows this. It’s all of it.

There is an adage5. adage: 諺語，格言。of journalism that holds that every story should be written as if by a foreign correspondent. I generally like this idea: Coverage of many issues could benef i t from an informed view. I now fi nd myself imagining applying it to the college-scandal story.

I would, of course, begin by explaining that fi fty people in six states are accused of conspiring to game the collegeadmissions system.6. conspire: 密謀，圖謀；game the system:鉆規(guī)則（法律）的空子牟利。They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars each to have other people take standardized tests in place of their children, to insure that the administration of the test itself would be fi xed7. fi x: 用不正當(dāng)?shù)氖侄尾倏v（選舉、比賽等的）結(jié)果。, and to bribe coaches and falsify their children’s athletic records. Here, the story would get complicated. A reader in any country can understand the concept of a standardized test—in some countries, in fact, standardized tests have been a tool to fi ght corruption in admissions. But what does athletic ability have to do with college, especially a college considered academically challenging?

搞新聞的有這么一個(gè)說法：記者每報(bào)道一則新聞，都應(yīng)該把自己當(dāng)作一個(gè)局外人。我大致贊同這個(gè)說法：在許多問題的報(bào)道上，信息越全越好。現(xiàn)在我假想自己在用這條準(zhǔn)則報(bào)道高校招生丑聞。

最開頭，我肯定會(huì)說，來自六個(gè)州的50個(gè)人被指控密謀在大學(xué)招生環(huán)節(jié)舞弊。他們每個(gè)人都花了幾十萬美元，找人在標(biāo)準(zhǔn)考試中給自己的孩子替考，確?？梢圆倏乜荚嚤O(jiān)管流程，并賄賂教練偽造孩子的體育成績(jī)。到這里，問題就變得復(fù)雜了。任何一個(gè)國(guó)家的讀者，肯定都知道什么是標(biāo)準(zhǔn)考試——事實(shí)上，在一些國(guó)家，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)考試被當(dāng)作抵制招生腐敗的手段。但是體育成績(jī)與上大學(xué)，尤其是學(xué)術(shù)上要求很高的大學(xué)，又有什么關(guān)系呢？

緊接著，我就得開始解釋美國(guó)大學(xué)一些奇特的招生規(guī)則。作為兩個(gè)孩子的家長(zhǎng)——他們一個(gè)剛走完申請(qǐng)流程，一個(gè)剛開始申請(qǐng)—— 這段時(shí)間我總結(jié)了一些經(jīng)驗(yàn)，用來給我的外國(guó)朋友們介紹美國(guó)的這一體系。（加拿大的一位老師近來對(duì)此表示懷疑：“在加拿大，上大學(xué)沒什么門檻！”）我得和他們解釋校友子女優(yōu)先錄取的政策，而精英教育可以代代相傳的這種觀念分明早已過時(shí)。我還得解釋說，美國(guó)的大學(xué)嚴(yán)重依賴于捐款，并因此形成了一批世代校友。除此之外我還要解釋說，包括課外活動(dòng)在內(nèi)的一些軟標(biāo)準(zhǔn)也越來越多——你不僅要比同齡人有更多的知識(shí)，還要為世界作過更大的貢獻(xiàn)。然而實(shí)際上，傳授知識(shí)、為學(xué)生進(jìn)入社會(huì)作準(zhǔn)備，這本身就是大學(xué)的職責(zé)。我必須要說的是，出資讓孩子們參與課外活動(dòng)，以及贊助志愿服務(wù)，對(duì)家長(zhǎng)來說這是最基本的要求。

Soon, I would fi nd myself explaining the exotic customs of American college admissions. As the parent of two young adults—one recently went through the application process and the other is in its beginning stages—I have accumulated some experience explaining the system to my friends in other countries. (A Canadian academic’s recent incredulous response:8. academic: 大學(xué)教師，（大學(xué)里的）學(xué)者；incredulous: 不愿相信的，表示懷疑的。“In Canada, people just go to university!”) I would have to explain the concept of legacy admissions:The positively pre-modern concept that the right to an élite education is heritable. I would have to explain that colleges depend heavily on fi nancial donors, whom they cultivate through generations. I would have to explain the growing part of softer criteria like extracurriculars—the race to be not only better-educated than your peers but also better at being a good person in the world—as if education and an initiation into adult civic life were not what college itself is for. I would have to note that it’s essential for parents to be able to afford to pay for their children’s extracurriculars and sponsor their volunteerism.

I would have to explain all that before I even got to the standardized tests. Then I would note that an SAT/ACT tutor in New York City charges between three hundred and four hundred and fi fty dollars an hour.9.SAT:（美國(guó)）學(xué)業(yè)能力傾向測(cè)驗(yàn)（Scholastic Aptitude Test，是高中生升入大學(xué)前的資格考試）；ACT:美國(guó)大學(xué)測(cè)驗(yàn)（American College Test，是美國(guó)一些大學(xué)的入學(xué)考試）。I would note that, to make parents feel better about parting with that sort of money, many programs guarantee a precise bump in test scores for their students: about a hundred and eighty points, out of a possible total of sixteen hundred, for the SAT; about four, out of thirtysix, for the ACT. I would note that gaming the test legally is such a well-established practice that children whose parents can’t afford thousands of dollars in test-prep fees will score more than ten per cent lower than those who get tutored.

只有把這些都講清楚了，我才能再談標(biāo)準(zhǔn)考試。然后我還得告訴他們，在紐約，一個(gè)SAT/ACT的輔導(dǎo)老師，每小時(shí)要收300到450美元。我得說明，這么多錢，為了讓家長(zhǎng)花得心安，很多項(xiàng)目會(huì)保證學(xué)生有明確數(shù)值的提分：滿分1600分的SAT，大概可以提180分；滿分36分的ACT，大概可以提4分。我要說的是，這種合法的提分方式由來已久。因此家里負(fù)擔(dān)不起這類考前培訓(xùn)費(fèi)用的孩子，平均成績(jī)要比受過培訓(xùn)的低10%還多。

當(dāng)然，考試成績(jī)不是全部。每所學(xué)校都會(huì)跟你說，他們?cè)谡猩鷷r(shí)會(huì)進(jìn)行“全面考查”。課程論文也很重要，可以請(qǐng)專人指導(dǎo)和修改，自有一套方法可循。這種服務(wù)的價(jià)格，按小時(shí)算下來，比考試輔導(dǎo)還要貴。除此以外還有額外花錢的招生咨詢，因?yàn)榧幢闶亲詈玫墓W(xué)校的輔導(dǎo)員，能給那些有志向的學(xué)生的特殊關(guān)照，或者能利用的關(guān)系，也比不上砸錢管用。有些關(guān)系也可以間接靠砸錢獲得，比如考生父母有朋友在學(xué)校教書或在招生辦工作，或者能對(duì)學(xué)校在論文和申請(qǐng)人的課外活動(dòng)中看重哪些方面提出許多建議。其中一點(diǎn)就是要展現(xiàn)出對(duì)目標(biāo)學(xué)校的興趣——巨大的興趣——但學(xué)校還是希望考生已經(jīng)參觀過他們的校園。是的，在大多數(shù)國(guó)家，學(xué)生們都會(huì)在自己長(zhǎng)大的城市上大學(xué)，但是我想說，在美國(guó)，多數(shù)年輕人想要“走遠(yuǎn)”一點(diǎn)兒，這也意味著申請(qǐng)前參觀校園要花費(fèi)更多的金錢和時(shí)間。另外我可能要說，學(xué)生宿舍作為大學(xué)收益的主要來源，收費(fèi)自然也不低。但現(xiàn)在，很多原本以走讀生為主的學(xué)校，也開始要求一二年級(jí)的學(xué)生住宿舍了，即便有的學(xué)生家就在本地。低收入家庭的學(xué)生不敢嘗試申請(qǐng)好大學(xué)的原因還遠(yuǎn)不止這些。這些學(xué)校，基本上是有錢人跟更有錢的人去競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。

Granted10. granted: （表示肯定屬實(shí)，然后再作另一番論述）不錯(cuò)，的確。, the test results aren’t everything. Every college will tell you that it takes a “holistic11. holistic: 整體的，全面的。approach” to admissions. There are essays, for which there is also coaching, and editing, and a formula; the hourly rate for these services can exceed that of the test tutors. There is also additional college counselling,because a guidance counsellor even at the best public school can’t give an aspiring college student the kind of individual attention, or the kinds of connection, that money can buy. And then there are the connections that money buys indirectly: the parents’ friends who teach, or who work in admissions, or who have generous tips on what colleges are looking for in an essay or an applicant’s list of extracurriculars. One of those things is interest in the particular college—an immeasurable quality, to be sure, but colleges like to see that an applicant has visited the campus. Yes, in most of the world, young people go to university in the city where they grew up, but in the United States, I would explain, most young people aspire to “go away” to college, and that means that even a pre-application tour is a costly and time-consuming proposition12. proposition: 事情。. I might mention that the dormitory system, a major source of revenue for the colleges, is also a giant expense for the families, but,these days, even colleges that used to be known as commuter schools13. commuter school: 指大部分學(xué)生不住在校園，需要每日通勤的學(xué)校。require fi rst- and often second-year students to live in the dorms, even if their families live in the same city. This is but an incomplete list of reasons that many low-income students don’t even try to apply to selective14. selective:（學(xué)校挑選學(xué)生）有選擇性的，嚴(yán)格篩選的。colleges. The wealthy compete with the even wealthier.

I would explain that many American colleges have made a concerted effort to admit students from more varied backgrounds, but have failed even to keep up with the changing demographics of the country.15. concerted: 一致的，協(xié)調(diào)好的；demographics: 人口統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)。The top colleges and universities continue, overwhelmingly, to educate the wealthy and white.The proportional representation of African-Americans and Latinos in the population of top colleges has been dropping,with a few exceptions, which are, in turn, determined largely by wealth: Only the wealthiest colleges can admit a lot of students whose parents can’t afford tuition. And if they want to keep these students, they have to invest in revamping16. revamp: 修改，改進(jìn)。their curricula and training faculty and allocating additional teaching and counselling resources to help students for whom the culture of élite colleges is alien and alienating.

我要說明的是，美國(guó)很多大學(xué)都一致聲稱要招收來自不同背景的學(xué)生，但是對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)正在變化的人口比例卻并不敏感。一直以來，頂尖的大學(xué)錄取的學(xué)生基本都是富人和白人，非裔和拉美裔學(xué)生的比例逐年下降。即便有例外，也要?dú)w功于資本：只有最有錢的學(xué)校，才敢招收許多付不起學(xué)費(fèi)的孩子。而如果想留住這些學(xué)生，學(xué)校還得斥資調(diào)整課程設(shè)置，對(duì)教職工進(jìn)行培訓(xùn)，并配置額外的教學(xué)和咨詢資源，從而幫助這些對(duì)精英校園文化感到陌生、覺得自己格格不入的學(xué)生。

既然要解釋以上所講的各種額外資源的重要性，那么相應(yīng)地就要解釋在美國(guó)，教育是怎樣接受資助的，學(xué)區(qū)是怎樣劃分的，中產(chǎn)階級(jí)家庭怎樣在最合適的社區(qū)投資房產(chǎn)，從而讓該區(qū)的公立學(xué)校為孩子上名校提供助力。我想說，最好的公立小學(xué)培養(yǎng)出的學(xué)生，才有能力跟昂貴的私立學(xué)校的學(xué)生去競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。在我看來，對(duì)那些在社會(huì)地位和經(jīng)濟(jì)上都有野心的家庭來說，在美國(guó)養(yǎng)一個(gè)孩子，意味著在其出生后的18年間，家長(zhǎng)都要為其進(jìn)好大學(xué)而投資。

Explaining why these additional resources would be necessary would in turn require an explanation of how education is funded in this country, how school districts are drawn, how middle-class parents invest in a house in the right neighborhood, where public schools will give their kids a chance at a decent college. The best public primary schools, I would explain, enable graduates to compete with kids who went to expensive private schools.For the socially and economically hopeful17. hopeful: n. 希望獲得成功的人，雄心勃勃的人。, I would explain, raising a child in America is an eighteen-year process of investing in the collegeadmissions system.

All this, I would hope, would serve to elucidate18. elucidate: 闡明，解釋。how a corruption scheme like the college-admissions conspiracy could come to be. But it would also raise the question: Why are these ridiculous crooks the only people who might be punished for perpetuating—by gaming—a bizarre, Byzantine, and profoundly unmeritocratic education system?19. crook: 騙子，無賴；Byzantine: 類似古拜占庭政治情況的（特點(diǎn)是多陰謀詭計(jì)），錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜的；unmeritocratic: 非精英管理的（“精英管理制度”的英文為meritocracy，指依據(jù)人的能力和成績(jī)而非社會(huì)階層來評(píng)定人的體制）。Why is such a clearly and unabashedly20. unabashedly: 不害臊地，不怕羞地。immoral system legal at all?

我希望，通過以上種種，可以說明美國(guó)大學(xué)招生何以黑幕重重。但這又帶來另一個(gè)問題：幕后黑手固然可惡，但這種進(jìn)行暗箱操作、奇特怪異、多陰謀詭計(jì)且不看重真實(shí)能力的教育制度得以持續(xù)，難道僅僅是這些人之過嗎？這樣一個(gè)明顯不道德的制度，又為何會(huì)合法存在呢？