教育專業(yè)外文翻譯---高等教育成本分擔(dān)中的財(cái)政與政治

1、<p>　　The Economics and Politics of Cost Sharing in Higher Education: Comparative Perspectives</p><p>　　D. Bruce.Johnstone</p><p><b>　　I</b></p><p>　　Cost- Sharing

2、in Higher Education</p><p>　　The term cost-sharing, in reference to higher education, begins with an assumption that the costs of higher education in all countries and in all situations can be viewed as eman

3、ating from four principal parties: (1) the government, or taxpayers; (2) parents; (3) students; and/or (4) individual or institutional donors.1</p><p>　　The governement. </p><p>　　Most economist

4、s in market-oriented economies prefer to view the source of public revenue not as “government,” but as people who pay taxes. Taxes can be paid by most citizens directly and visibly, as in taxes upon earnings, property, r

5、etail sales, general consumption, or special goods such as gasoline, cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, in line travel, or imported goods. Or, taxes can be paid indirectly and largely invisibly. Such indirect taxes, largel

6、y invisible to the average citizen, may origin</p><p><b>　　Parents. </b></p><p>　　The second party to cost-sharing is the parents, who may pay some of the costs of higher education t

7、hrough payment of tuition, or bear some of the costs of student living, sometimes by keeping the student at home. Parents can cover these extra costs from their current income, or in part from past savings, or even in pa

8、rt through borrowing--that is, drawing on future earnings. Grandparents or other members of an extended family, or even members of a village or a church, can also be “parents” hen</p><p>　　Students. </p&

9、gt;<p>　　The third party to share the burden of higher educational costs is the student, who can bear some of the costs through term-time or summer vacation earnings, or through loans. The loans, in turn, can be p

10、aid back when the student has graduated and is employed, like any regular loan, in monthly installments, or repaid through deductions that the employer removes from the graduate’s pay (like the withholding of income taxe

11、s, or contributions to an insurance or pension fund) and forwards to the len</p><p>　　Individual or institutional donors. </p><p>　　The last party to cost-sharing is the donor, whose contributio

12、ns may go either toward improving the quality of the university (and thus presumably the educational experience) toward the overall institutional budget, thus reducing the amount that must be passed on to parents and stu

13、dents directly, or toward some students, in the form of grants or scholarships, presumably in substantial measure based on the students’ financial need, or the students’ and/or their parents’ low income. These donors m&l

14、t;/p><p><b>　　II</b></p><p>　　Forms of Cost-Sharing</p><p>　　The term cost-sharing as it has come to be used in higher educational finance, and as used in this paper, refer

15、s to the shift of at least some of the higher educational cost burden from government, or taxpayers, to parents and students. Cost-sharing is most associated with tuition and with fees or “user charges,” especially on go

16、vernmentally- or institutionally-provided room and board. However, a policy shift in the direction of greater cost-sharing can take one or more of seven main forms: </p><p>　　1. The beginning of tuition (whe

17、re higher education was formerly free).</p><p>　　This would be the case in China in 1997, for example, or Britain in 1998, or as most recently announced (in November 2000 to begin in 20002) in Austria. </

18、p><p>　　2. The very sharp rise in tuition (where public sector tuition already exists). </p><p>　　A shift in the direction of greater cost-sharing requires that the rise in tuition be greater than

19、the rise in institutional costs generally in order for the government’s, or taxpayer’s, share to be lessened, and the parent’s and / or student’s shares to rise commensurately. This has been the case recently in the US,

20、where many state governments have failed to maintain their former “shares” of public university expenses and as public university tuitions have been increased very rapidly to “fill </p><p>　　3. The impositio

21、n of “user charges,” or fees to recover the expenses of institutionally provided and formerly heavily subsidized residence and dining halls. </p><p>　　This has been happening in China and in most countries,

22、including African countries where subsidized living costs were said by the World Bank to absorb the bulk of many country’s higher educational budgets. In the Nordic countries of Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark, for

23、example, where higher education remains “free,” the expenses of higher education are exclusively the costs of student living, which are very high in those countries, and which are “shared” neither by the taxpayer nor (at

24、 lea</p><p>　　at were once part of the former Soviet Union</p><p>　　4. The diminution of student grants or scholarships.</p><p>　　This is sometimes accomplished sometimes simply by

25、“freezing” grant or loan levels, or holding them constant in the face of general inflation, which then erodes their real value. This happened to the once very generous grants in Britain (which were later abandoned altoge

26、ther), and has happened to the value of the maintenance grants in Russia and most of the rest of the former Soviet republics, and in Eastern and Central Europe.</p><p>　　5. This can be accomplished through a

27、 diminution of the subsidies on student loans (similar to the diminution in the value of non-repayable grants), and might be accomplished through an increase in interest rates, or a reduction in the length of time that i

28、nterest is not charged, or through a reduction in the numbers of loans for which the repayments, for any number of reasons, are forgiven. Or the effective cost recovery might be accomplished through a tightening of colle

29、ctions, or a reduction </p><p>　　6. The limitation of capacity in the low or tuition free public sector together with the official encouragement (and frequently a public subsidization) of atuition dependent

30、private higher education sector. </p><p>　　A number of countries—notably Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brazil, and other countries in Latin America and East Asia--have avoided much governmental e

31、xpenditure on higher education by keeping a limited public sector—usually elite and selective—and shifting much of the costs of expanded participation to parents and students through encouraging private (often profit-mak

32、ing) higher educational institutions.</p><p><b>　　III</b></p><p>　　Examples of Cost-Sharing and its Worldwide Growth</p><p>　　As seen above, cost-sharing takes on many d

33、ifferent forms. But in whatever form or forms, cost-sharing is generally increasing throughout the world at the start of the 21st</p><p><b>　　century </b></p><p>　　? The US, where th

34、e costs of higher education--high and rapidly rising over time to begin with--have been rising even faster in that share borne by parents and students in the form of tuition fees as the share borne by governments, or tax

35、payers, has been diminishing. Public sector tuitions and fees as reported by the College Board (2003) and as analyzed for their appropriateness by Johnstone (2001) vary widely—mainly by state and type of institution rath

36、er than by degree program--but range for u</p><p>　　? The UK in 1997 became the first European country to impose more than a nominal tuition fee—although it is still low by US public college and university s

37、tandards. The tuition fee in England and Wales is more than $1500 and can be covered by need based grants and loans, to be repaid as a portion of their earnings, or “income contingently.” The Government, in the form of a

38、 white paper that is “on the table” in the year 2003, is proposing to replace this “up front” tuition fee with a tuition fee </p><p>　　? Australia, inaugurated the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS)

39、 in 1989, officially described as a “… fair and equitable way of ensuring that students contribute to the cost of their higher education.” The tuition in 2001 was about $2600</p><p>　　(US) for undergraduate

40、arts and sciences, but could be borrowed and repaid as an income contingent loan at a rate of interest—like that proposed for the UK—that would mirror the prevailing Australian rate of inflation.</p><p>　　6?

41、 In much of Latin America, as well as much of East Asia, cost-sharing and revenue diversification generally have taken the form of increasing reliance on a tuition and fee-dependent private higher education sector (where

42、 the public universities continue to feature either no, or very low, tuition). This leads to the anomaly of students from upper and upper-middle income families, frequently benefiting from vastly superior (and often priv

43、ate) secondary education, and thus able to pass the rigoro</p><p>　　? Russia, where higher education by law must be without cost to the student, in the early years of the 21st century is securing up to 50 pe

44、rcent of all university revenue from tuition through the dual track tuition, described above. This was also a “l(fā)egal loophole” used by the Chinese prior to 1997, but who dropped the dual track tuition fee in favor of a u

45、nitary tuition policy out of a concern for the awkwardness and the potential for abuse in a system that made such a momentous distinction bet</p><p>　　? India, where tuition-supported private higher educatio

46、n is growing and where the several official commissions have reported and recommended the inauguration of some limited cost-sharing, still cannot (as of 2003) openly embrace even the concept, much less the actual impleme

47、ntation of an official policy of tuition fees.</p><p>　　? China, also still officially a Socialist country, in which higher education was once assumed to be just another part of the vast public sector, like

48、health care or retirement pensions, the costs of which were supposed to be born by the government, charges tuition to nearly all students in the neighborhood of 3500-5000 Yuan (US$400-600).</p><p>　　New form

49、s of student loans and means-tested grants in 2003 are only being developed, as reported by Shen and Li (2003).What these and countless other illustrations show is that governments throughout the world are embracing—howe

50、ver tentatively and frequently with euphemisms and political “spin, --some version of cost sharing in the form of tuition, user fees, and official encouragement of a tuition-dependent private higher education sector.<

51、/p><p>　　高等教育成本分擔(dān)中的財(cái)政與政治</p><p><b>　　約翰斯通</b></p><p>　　一、高等教育成本分擔(dān)</p><p>　　高等教育成本分擔(dān)這個(gè)術(shù)語源于這樣一個(gè)假設(shè)，即高等教育的成本可以看成來自四大塊：1) 政府、納稅人；</p><p>　　2) 家長(zhǎng)；3) 學(xué)生；

52、4) 個(gè)人或機(jī)構(gòu)捐助者。下面詳細(xì)闡明各部分所承擔(dān)的成本。</p><p>　　1 ．政府 許多市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)國(guó)家的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家更傾向于認(rèn)為公共資金來源于納稅人而不是“政府”。稅收可以由公民直接地或顯性地交納，如收入稅、財(cái)產(chǎn)稅、零售稅以及對(duì)汽油、煙卷、酒類、航空旅游、進(jìn)口物品等征收的消費(fèi)稅；稅收亦可通過間接或隱蔽的形式交納，這類間接稅對(duì)普通百姓來說是看不見的，如營(yíng)業(yè)稅和企業(yè)所得稅，就是以更高價(jià)格的形式由消費(fèi)者最終承擔(dān)。如果價(jià)

53、格由政府控制，像過去多數(shù)社會(huì)主義國(guó)家那樣，或者如果企業(yè)不能以漲價(jià)的形式將稅賦轉(zhuǎn)嫁給消費(fèi)者，那么，稅收就只能由雇工以低工資的形式負(fù)擔(dān)。最后，政府還可以不通過稅收的形式而通過印制鈔票的形式來剝奪公民的購(gòu)買力，即通過財(cái)政赤字、通貨膨脹導(dǎo)致公民的工資和資產(chǎn)的實(shí)際價(jià)值的消損而將購(gòu)買力轉(zhuǎn)移給政府。</p><p>　　2. 學(xué)生家長(zhǎng) 他們以付學(xué)費(fèi)，或承擔(dān)學(xué)生的部分生活費(fèi)或有時(shí)讓學(xué)生住在家里等形式分擔(dān)高等教育成本，家長(zhǎng)從他們的

54、現(xiàn)期收入中負(fù)擔(dān)這些成本，或部分來自儲(chǔ)蓄存款，甚至部分還是借來的(這實(shí)際上是來自于未來的收入)。祖父母或大家庭中的其它成員， 如果他們資助學(xué)生的話，甚至是鄰里或教友也都可以歸為“家長(zhǎng)”之列。</p><p>　　3 ．學(xué)生 他們通過勤工助學(xué)或暑期打工的形式，或通過借款來負(fù)擔(dān)部分成本。學(xué)生貸款可以在學(xué)生畢業(yè)后</p><p>　　或受雇后，或者按月分期償還，或者由雇主從該畢業(yè)生的工資收入中扣除

55、一部分轉(zhuǎn)還給貸款人。學(xué)生貸款還可以按收入比例償還的形式或通過其它類似的形式，如畢業(yè)生收入附加稅來還清本息(假定貸款人是政府的話)。在所有情況下，無論是傳統(tǒng)的分期償還制還是按收入比例償還制，對(duì)學(xué)生來說，最重要的不是貸款的形式，而是借貸后還款的總數(shù)、利率以及年限。</p><p>　　4 ．個(gè)人和機(jī)構(gòu)捐助者 他們可能是捐贈(zèng)給大學(xué)，然后一般由大學(xué)根據(jù)學(xué)生的經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況，給家庭收入低的學(xué)</p><p&g

56、t;　　生發(fā)獎(jiǎng)學(xué)金。這些捐助者或許早已去世，但他們捐給大學(xué)的大量的捐款卻作為捐贈(zèng)基金的形式(這在美國(guó)是很普遍的)保留下來了，只用基金的增值部分來作獎(jiǎng)學(xué)金或彌補(bǔ)大學(xué)的運(yùn)行費(fèi)之不足。這些捐助實(shí)際上能永久存續(xù)。捐助人也許是個(gè)人或基金會(huì)，他們現(xiàn)期捐款以降低高教成本，否則這些成本就要由其他人來分擔(dān)。當(dāng)大學(xué)向來自窮困家庭但有才華的學(xué)生提供特別的經(jīng)過經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況調(diào)查后的助學(xué)金時(shí)，大學(xué)本身似乎也是捐助人，但這種情況下，真正的捐助人更有可能是富裕學(xué)生的家長(zhǎng)，

57、他們可能比要求他們分擔(dān)的教學(xué)成本要多，但他們或許會(huì)認(rèn)為大學(xué)設(shè)立一些必需的獎(jiǎng)學(xué)金是提高大學(xué)的質(zhì)量和聲譽(yù)所必不可少的——因而這也是大學(xué)的合法性支出。</p><p><b>　　二、成本分擔(dān)的形式</b></p><p>　　成本分擔(dān)主要與學(xué)雜費(fèi)及由政府或?qū)W校提供的住宿的“使用費(fèi)”相聯(lián)系。然而更大力度的成本分擔(dān)的政策性轉(zhuǎn)移可能會(huì)以下列六種形式中的一兩種進(jìn)行。</p&

58、gt;<p>　　1．開始繳交學(xué)費(fèi)(這些國(guó)家過去高等教育是免費(fèi)的)。如中國(guó)1997 年開始收費(fèi)，英國(guó)1998 年開始收費(fèi)，以及奧地利最近(2000 年11 月)宣布要收費(fèi)就是這種類型。</p><p>　　2．學(xué)費(fèi)快速上漲(這些國(guó)家公立高校過去已收學(xué)費(fèi))。成本分擔(dān)的轉(zhuǎn)移意味著學(xué)費(fèi)的增長(zhǎng)要快于高校成本的增長(zhǎng)，以使政府或納稅人分擔(dān)的份額減少而家長(zhǎng)和學(xué)生分擔(dān)的比例要相應(yīng)增加。最近美國(guó)就屬這種情況，許多州政

59、府沒有維持以前公立高校支出中所占的份額(我們要記住美國(guó)舉辦公立高校是州政府的責(zé)任而不是聯(lián)邦政府的責(zé)任)，而公立高校的學(xué)費(fèi)卻增長(zhǎng)迅猛以彌補(bǔ)州政府投資減少后留下的經(jīng)費(fèi)空缺。</p><p>　　3．負(fù)擔(dān)“使用費(fèi)”或雜費(fèi)以補(bǔ)償由學(xué)院提供以前由學(xué)院補(bǔ)貼良多的膳宿費(fèi)。中國(guó)及多數(shù)國(guó)家(包括一些非洲國(guó)家)就是如此。世界銀行說，過去這些國(guó)家資助膳宿費(fèi)占去許多國(guó)家高教預(yù)算的一大塊。例如在瑞典、挪威、芬蘭、丹麥等北歐國(guó)家，目前的高等

60、教育仍然是“免費(fèi)”的，高教收費(fèi)的只是學(xué)生的住宿費(fèi)，而住宿費(fèi)在這些國(guó)家是很高的，但這些費(fèi)用既不是由納稅人負(fù)擔(dān)也不是由家長(zhǎng)負(fù)擔(dān)(至少名義上是這樣)，而是完全由學(xué)生本人靠學(xué)生貸款來負(fù)擔(dān)，而學(xué)生貸款又是由納稅人在某種程度上以還款補(bǔ)貼的形式間接分擔(dān)的。</p><p>　　4．減少學(xué)生助學(xué)金或獎(jiǎng)學(xué)金。有時(shí)僅僅是通過“凍結(jié)”助學(xué)金或貸款水平來實(shí)現(xiàn)的，或通過在嚴(yán)重通貨膨脹時(shí)助學(xué)金保持不變而實(shí)際上在貶值的方式來完成，英國(guó)就有過慷

61、慨的助學(xué)金，后來也徹底放棄了。俄羅斯及其它大多數(shù)前蘇聯(lián)獨(dú)立出來的國(guó)家、東歐中歐國(guó)家，雖然維持了助學(xué)金水平，但也貶值了。</p><p>　　5．增加學(xué)生貸款的有效回收。這可以通過減少對(duì)學(xué)生貸款的補(bǔ)貼的形式來實(shí)現(xiàn)(這點(diǎn)類似于毋須償還的助學(xué)金的貶值)，也可以通過提高利率或利率不變但縮短還款期限來實(shí)現(xiàn)，還可以通過減少貸款數(shù)額(其中一部分還款是因?yàn)楦鞣N原因要減免掉)來實(shí)現(xiàn)。有效的成本回收還可以通過加緊貸款回收，減少拖欠以

62、及不論是否提前還款而實(shí)際利率不變等形式來實(shí)現(xiàn)。</p><p>　　6．政府鼓勵(lì)并經(jīng)常補(bǔ)助靠學(xué)費(fèi)來維持的私立高等教育。許多國(guó)家——尤其是日本、韓國(guó)、菲律賓、印度尼、西亞、巴西及其它拉丁美洲及東亞國(guó)家——通過舉辦數(shù)量有限的公立高校(通常這些高校都是精英型的、選擇性的)來避免政府對(duì)高等教育的過多投資，并且通過鼓勵(lì)舉辦私立高等教育機(jī)構(gòu)(一般都是贏利性的)將擴(kuò)大的高等教育參與的成本轉(zhuǎn)嫁給家長(zhǎng)和學(xué)生。</p>

63、<p>　　三、成本分擔(dān)全球增長(zhǎng)的案例</p><p>　　?在美國(guó)，高教成本一直很高而且增長(zhǎng)很快，而家長(zhǎng)和學(xué)生以繳納學(xué)費(fèi)的形式所分擔(dān)的成本增長(zhǎng)更快，因?yàn)橛烧蚣{稅人近年所分擔(dān)的比例在下降。公立高校的學(xué)雜費(fèi)差異很大，但對(duì)本科生收費(fèi)一般低至2000 美元，高至4000-5000 美元。學(xué)生年人均總開支上社區(qū)學(xué)院且住在家里低至5000 美元，而上名牌私立高校加住宿可高至35000 美元。但是在美國(guó)聯(lián)邦政

64、府、各州政府及高校本身有各種各樣的建立在經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況調(diào)查基礎(chǔ)上的助學(xué)金及有一定補(bǔ)貼的學(xué)生貸款，這樣所有的學(xué)生都至少能上得起公立大學(xué)或?qū)W院，而才華突出的學(xué)生則無論家庭收入如何都能保證上得起最貴的大學(xué)，因?yàn)橛懈鞣N各樣的學(xué)生貸款及勤工助學(xué)的機(jī)會(huì)。</p><p>　　?在英國(guó)、荷蘭 及最近的奧地利開始征收學(xué)費(fèi)，而這些地方高等教育是“免費(fèi)”的——也就是說由普通納稅人、公民及消費(fèi)者付費(fèi)。英國(guó)的學(xué)費(fèi)大約為1500 美元。<

65、/p><p>　　?在澳大利亞“高等教育貢獻(xiàn)方案”開始于1989 年，這個(gè)方案被官方描述為“?讓學(xué)生分擔(dān)高教成本的公平、合理的方案?！比ツ晁囆g(shù)及理科類的學(xué)費(fèi)為2600 美元，但可以反映澳大利亞通貨膨脹率的利率，然后按收入比例還款的方式還清貸款。換句話說，澳大利亞的學(xué)生要按實(shí)際條款償還所借款項(xiàng)。</p><p>　　?在拉丁美洲及亞洲大多數(shù)國(guó)家，“成本分擔(dān)”及籌資多元化則更多地依賴以借學(xué)費(fèi)來運(yùn)行

66、的私立高等教育，而公立高等教育則仍然不收學(xué)費(fèi)或收很低的學(xué)費(fèi)。這會(huì)導(dǎo)致中高收入家庭學(xué)生的錄取率更高，因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)诟咧须A段就占優(yōu)勢(shì)，更容易通過競(jìng)爭(zhēng)激烈的公立大學(xué)入學(xué)考試而享受“免費(fèi)”的高等教育，而普通學(xué)生及中低收入家庭學(xué)生及農(nóng)家子弟則要么被排斥在大學(xué)之外，要么被迫付學(xué)費(fèi)去上更低層次的私立高校。這種“公平”受到人們的質(zhì)疑，政府也感到有壓力要去尋求一種讓上公立高校的學(xué)生及家長(zhǎng)分擔(dān)一些高教成本的辦法。</p><p>　　?

67、在俄羅斯，法律規(guī)定高等教育是免收學(xué)費(fèi)的，但現(xiàn)在俄羅斯卻有20%多的高教經(jīng)費(fèi)是來自學(xué)費(fèi)。這種顯然是不正常情況的答案就在于：對(duì)有資格享受免費(fèi)高等教育的“學(xué)生”作了嚴(yán)格的限定，因而無權(quán)享受免費(fèi)高等教育的學(xué)生人數(shù)就大增。這就是中國(guó)人所熟悉的“法律上的漏洞”。中國(guó)過去也曾實(shí)行過“學(xué)費(fèi)雙軌制”，1997年則開始實(shí)行了統(tǒng)一的學(xué)費(fèi)政策，因?yàn)榭紤]到雙軌制弊端及被濫用的可能性，這種制度下學(xué)生同樣上大學(xué)并完成學(xué)業(yè)，但在收費(fèi)上卻有天壤之別。</p>

68、<p>　　?在印度，由學(xué)費(fèi)支持的私立高等教育在不斷增長(zhǎng)，有幾個(gè)正規(guī)的委員會(huì)提出報(bào)告并建議實(shí)行有限的成本</p><p>　　分擔(dān)，但政府似乎不敢公開接納這種觀念，更不用說真正實(shí)施收費(fèi)政策。</p><p>　　?在中國(guó)，過去高等教育像醫(yī)療及退休金一樣被認(rèn)為是一項(xiàng)公益事業(yè)，高等教育的經(jīng)費(fèi)自然被認(rèn)為要由政</p><p>　　府負(fù)擔(dān)。現(xiàn)在中國(guó)的學(xué)費(fèi)大約是

69、3500-5000 元人民幣(也就是400-600 美元，有的地方可能更高一些)。學(xué)費(fèi)已開始成為一種學(xué)生上學(xué)的經(jīng)濟(jì)障礙，因?yàn)閷W(xué)生貸款和貧困助學(xué)金制度還不夠完善。</p><p>　　上述例子表明，全球各國(guó)政府都在接受成本分擔(dān)的理念開始征收學(xué)費(fèi)、使用費(fèi)，并鼓勵(lì)發(fā)展依靠學(xué)費(fèi)運(yùn)行的</p><p><b>　　私立高等教育。</b></p><p>

70、　　四、成本分擔(dān)的理論依據(jù)</p><p>　　贊成成本分擔(dān)的理論依據(jù)有以下幾種。一種依據(jù)是，將一部分成本轉(zhuǎn)移給付得起學(xué)費(fèi)的家長(zhǎng)，并在經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況調(diào)查基礎(chǔ)上對(duì)付不起學(xué)費(fèi)的人以資助，這朝公平邁進(jìn)了一大步。這是主張市場(chǎng)導(dǎo)向的新古典或新自由經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家的經(jīng)典論據(jù)。他們認(rèn)為，全球私立高等教育的蓬勃發(fā)展清楚地表明，家長(zhǎng)和學(xué)生都認(rèn)識(shí)到了高等教育存在著巨大的個(gè)人收益，因而也應(yīng)該讓他們分擔(dān)一些成本。如果考慮以下四種因素時(shí)，這種論點(diǎn)特別有

71、說服力，即：(1) 高等教育仍然由少部分人分享；(2) 那些“少部分人”主要來自中上家庭；(3) 政府用以資助所謂“免費(fèi)”高等教育的稅收大部分來自按比例或累退稅率征收的銷售稅收入及企業(yè)所得稅，或來自于印制鈔票，而這又通過通貨膨脹使貨幣的購(gòu)買力下降而讓中低收入家庭承擔(dān)；(4) 根據(jù)經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況而給予的助學(xué)金和很便利的貸學(xué)金總是有限的。相反，在高等教育入學(xué)率很高、又與父母的經(jīng)濟(jì)收入和社會(huì)地位不相關(guān)聯(lián)而且稅收又實(shí)施累進(jìn)稅率的國(guó)家，也就是說稅收更多

72、地靠有錢人的國(guó)家，或者既有建立在經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況調(diào)查基礎(chǔ)上的助學(xué)金及學(xué)生貸款普遍有效的國(guó)家，所謂的成本分擔(dān)中的公平問題就不那么突出。</p><p>　　另外一種依據(jù)是，成本分擔(dān)仍然符合新自由經(jīng)濟(jì)傾向，因而能得到這樣一個(gè)假設(shè)的支持：成本分擔(dān)更有效率，更關(guān)心市場(chǎng)，至少在既有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)又有由消費(fèi)者承擔(dān)成本的國(guó)家是如此。顯然，在高等教育領(lǐng)域就像在其它領(lǐng)域一樣，存在著過分的“消費(fèi)者敏感”，在那里消費(fèi)者(學(xué)生或家長(zhǎng))可能很難判斷他們所要

73、購(gòu)買的東西的價(jià)值，而且也很容易為廣告所誤導(dǎo)，或者被“消費(fèi)欺詐”所蒙騙。但是傳統(tǒng)古典大學(xué)在全球日益被看作是一成不變的自我服務(wù)的象牙塔，尤其在政府讓其壟斷高水平的高等教育的國(guó)家和在缺少刺激讓其更能滿足學(xué)生和家長(zhǎng)的需要或滿足更大的經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)需求的國(guó)家更是如此。大學(xué)和學(xué)院無論公立還是私立，都必須為生源而競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，并為無效和不關(guān)心社會(huì)需求而承擔(dān)后果。這樣，高校就更有可能提供優(yōu)質(zhì)的教育，更能滿足學(xué)生的需求，而不是僅僅為政府利益和教師的便利而開辦。還有一種