不公平的優(yōu)勢(shì)

　　According to the writer Walter Ellis, author of a book called the Oxbridge Conspiracy, Britain is still dominated by the old-boy network: it isn't what you know that matters, but who you know. He claims that at Oxford and Cambridge Universities (Oxbridge for short) a few select people start on an escalator ride which, over the years, carries them to the tops of British privilege and power. His research revealed that the top professions all continue to be dominated, if not 90 per cent, then 60 or 65 per cent, by Oxbridge graduates.

　　作家瓦爾特?埃利斯是《牛津――劍橋幫》一書的作者，他認(rèn)為英國(guó)仍在牛津――劍橋老同學(xué)關(guān)系網(wǎng)的控制下：一個(gè)人懂什么不重要，重要的是他認(rèn)識(shí)誰(shuí)。他說(shuō)，在牛津和劍橋兩所大學(xué)(簡(jiǎn)稱牛津――劍橋)求學(xué)的少數(shù)經(jīng)過(guò)嚴(yán)格選拔的優(yōu)秀人才一開始就登上了青云之梯，幾年之后，他們便乘青云之梯登上了特權(quán)和權(quán)力的頂峰。他的研究表明，所有最好的職位仍繼續(xù)由劍橋畢業(yè)生把持著，百分比不到90%，也有60%或65%。

　　And yet, says Ellis, Oxbridge graduates make up only two per cent of the total number of students who graduate from Britain's universities. Other researches also seem to support his belief that Oxbridge graduates start with an unfair advantage in the employment market. In the law, a recently published report showed that out of 26 senior judges appointed to the High Court last year, all of them went to private schools and 21 of them went to Oxbridge.

　　然而，埃利斯指出，牛津――劍橋畢業(yè)生只占全英國(guó)大學(xué)畢業(yè)生的20%。另外一些研究似乎也證實(shí)了他的這一看法，即牛津――劍橋畢業(yè)生在就業(yè)市場(chǎng)上從一開始就擁有不公平的優(yōu)勢(shì)。一份新近發(fā)表的報(bào)告表明，在法律界，去年由高等法院任命的26名高級(jí)法官都上過(guò)私立學(xué)校，其中21名曾就讀過(guò)牛津――劍橋。

　　But can this be said to amount to a conspiracy? Not according to Dr. John Rae, a former headmaster of one of Britain's leading private schools, Westminster:

　　但這能說(shuō)明形成了幫派嗎?英國(guó)最好的私立學(xué)校威斯敏斯特學(xué)校的前任校長(zhǎng)約翰?雷博士對(duì)此持反對(duì)看法。

    "I would accept that there was a bias in some key areas of British life, but that bias has now gone. Some time ago -- in the 60s and before ?entry to Oxford and Cambridge was not entirely on merit. Now, there's absolutely no question in any objective observer's mind that, entry to Oxford and Cambridge is fiercely competitive."

　　“我承認(rèn)過(guò)去在英國(guó)生活的某些重要領(lǐng)域里存在著偏見，但現(xiàn)在這種偏見已不存在了。在60年代或更早的某個(gè)時(shí)期，進(jìn)入牛津或劍橋大學(xué)不一定全靠學(xué)業(yè)成就。現(xiàn)在毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)，在任何客觀的觀察者眼里，入牛津和劍橋大學(xué)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)是異常的激烈。”

　　However, many would disagree with this. For, although over three-quarters of British pupils are educated in state schools, over half the students that go to Oxbridge have been to private, or "public" schools. Is this because pupils from Britain's private schools are more intelligent than those from state schools, or are they simply better prepared?

　　然而，許多人不同意這種看法。因?yàn)楸M管英國(guó)3/4以上的學(xué)生在國(guó)立大學(xué)接受教育，但去牛津――劍橋大學(xué)讀書的學(xué)生的半數(shù)以上曾上過(guò)私立學(xué)校，即所謂的“公學(xué)”。這難道是私立學(xué)校的學(xué)生比那些公立學(xué)校的學(xué)生更聰明嗎?或是就是比他們準(zhǔn)備得更充分嗎?

　　On average, about $ 5,000 a year is spent on each private school pupil, more than twice the amount spent on state school pupils. So how can the state schools be expected to compete with the private schools when they have far fewer resources? And how can they prepare their pupils for the special entrance exam to Oxford University, which requires extra preparation, and for which many public school pupils traditionally stay at school and do an additional term?

　　每年每個(gè)私立學(xué)校的平均費(fèi)用是五仟英磅，是國(guó)立學(xué)生的兩倍多。所以，如果公立學(xué)校開設(shè)的課程少得多，怎么能指望他們與私立學(xué)校競(jìng)爭(zhēng)呢?又怎么能讓學(xué)生準(zhǔn)備好牛津大學(xué)的專門入學(xué)考試呢?這個(gè)考試需要額外的準(zhǔn)備，為此，許多公立學(xué)校的學(xué)生一般要在校多學(xué)一個(gè)學(xué)期。

　　Until recently, many blamed Oxford for this bias because of the university's special entrance exam (Cambridge abolished its entrance exam in 1986). But last February,Oxford University decided to abolish the exam to encourage more state school applicants. From autumn 1996, Oxford University applicants, like applicants to other universities, will be judged only on their A level results and on their performance at interviews, although some departments might still set special tests.

　　直到最近，許多人還指責(zé)大學(xué)專門入學(xué)考試存有偏見(劍橋大學(xué)在1986年廢止了入學(xué)考試)。不過(guò)，牛津大學(xué)在去年二月決定廢止考試，以鼓勵(lì)更多的國(guó)立學(xué)生申請(qǐng)入學(xué)。自1996九六年秋，申請(qǐng)就讀牛津大學(xué)的學(xué)生像申請(qǐng)其他大學(xué)的學(xué)生一樣，將只根據(jù)他們中學(xué)的A級(jí)學(xué)業(yè)成績(jī)和面試表現(xiàn)來(lái)判斷錄取與否，當(dāng)然有些系部可能會(huì)進(jìn)行專門的考試。

　　However, some argue that there's nothing wrong in having elite places of learning, and that by their very nature, these places should not be easily accessible. Most countries are run by an elite and have centres of academic excellence from which the elite are recruited. Walter Ellis accepts that this is true:

　　不過(guò)，有些人反駁說(shuō)，設(shè)置精英學(xué)校沒(méi)有什么不妥;他們還說(shuō)，從本質(zhì)上講，這類學(xué)校就不應(yīng)該輕易地可以入學(xué)。多數(shù)國(guó)家是由杰出的人才領(lǐng)導(dǎo)著，并有高水平的人才集聚的學(xué)術(shù)中心。瓦爾特?埃利斯認(rèn)為這一點(diǎn)是正確的。

　　"But in France, for example, there are something like 40 equivalents of university, which provide this elite through a much broader base. In America you've got the Ivy League, centred on Harvard and Yale, with Princeton and Stanford and others. But again, those universities together -- the elite universities -- are about ten or fifteen in number, and are being pushed along from behind by other great universities like, for example, Chicago and Berkeley. So you don't have just this narrow concentration of two universities providing a constantly replicating elite.”

　　“但比如在法國(guó)，有40所水平相當(dāng)?shù)拇髮W(xué)，這些大學(xué)通過(guò)更寬的基礎(chǔ)上培養(yǎng)精英人才。再比如美國(guó)，有“常春藤”聯(lián)合會(huì)，核心是哈佛和耶魯，其他的還有普林斯頓和斯坦福大學(xué)等等。不過(guò)這些大學(xué)――一流的大學(xué)，加起來(lái)總數(shù)有10～15所，并且有芝加哥、伯克利和其他院校緊隨其后，這樣就不存在集中在兩所院校范圍狹窄地培養(yǎng)近親精英人才的局面了。”

　　When it comes to Oxford and Cambridge being elitist because of the number of private school pupils they accept, Professor Stone of Oxford University argues that there is a simple fact he and his associates cannot ignore:

　　當(dāng)談到牛津大學(xué)和劍橋大學(xué)因錄取私立學(xué)校學(xué)生數(shù)量之多而成為一流大學(xué)時(shí)，牛津大學(xué)的斯頓教授說(shuō)，他和他的同事們不能忽視這樣一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的事實(shí)：

　　"If certain schools do better than others then we just have to accept it. We cannot be a place for remedial education. It's not what Oxford is there to do.”

　　“如果某些學(xué)校做得比別的學(xué)校好，我們必須接受這種現(xiàn)實(shí)。我們不是進(jìn)行補(bǔ)習(xí)教育的場(chǎng)所，這不是牛津大學(xué)所做的事。”

　　However, since academic excellence does appear to be related to the amount of money spent per pupil, this does seem to imply that Prime Minister John Major's vision of Britain as a classless society is still a long way off. And it may be worth remembering that while John Major didn't himself go to Oxbridge, most of his ministers did.

　　19 不過(guò)，既然學(xué)習(xí)優(yōu)異確實(shí)看來(lái)與在每個(gè)學(xué)生身上花的錢有關(guān)，那么這似乎在暗示，首相梅杰要讓英國(guó)成為無(wú)階級(jí)的社會(huì)的設(shè)想還十分遙遠(yuǎn)。而且值得注意的是，約翰?梅杰雖本人沒(méi)有.

?2013年7月各省市自考成績(jī)查詢?nèi)肟趨R總

?各地10月自考時(shí)間

更多信息請(qǐng)?jiān)L問(wèn)：自學(xué)考試頻道    自學(xué)考試論壇