算过你的大学投资“回报”吗_English Corner

八爷°(内阁元老)

楼主 2012-08-19

算过你的大学投资“回报”吗

College is the best investment you can make, President Obama told students last month at the University of Colorado.
　　
　　As a metaphor for the benefits of education, that statement is fine. But taken as a claim about the financial returns of a college degree, it poses two problems.

　　
　　The first is that students and their families still lack sufficient data to estimate long-term returns for specific college degrees the way investors do with stocks and bonds.
　　
　　The second problem is one of investment risk. Stock investors can manage risk by buying a diverse basket of shares, but a college student bets on a single asset: himself.
　　
　　That makes it crucial that students and their families understand the factors that affect the risk and return of a college investment in order to swing the math in their favor.
　　
　　College brings higher pay: $1,053 a week for the median bachelor's degree holder last year, versus $638 for a high school graduate with no college, says the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Last year's unemployment rate was 4.9% for college grads versus 9.4% for those with no college.
　　
　　The College Board, a not-for-profit association, calculated in a 2010 report (based on 2008 data) that a typical student who enters a four-year college at age 18 and borrows his way through earns enough by age 33 to make up for his costs, including foregone wages and loan interest.
　　
　　If a bond paid for itself that quickly, the return would be between 5% and 6% a year. That's a handsome payoff; stocks have historically returned around 7% a year after inflation. And it says nothing of college's other benefits, such as enlightenment, fun and higher job satisfaction.
　　
　　Two big caveats: The College Board math assumes everyone goes to a public college. Those usually cost less than private ones─often a lot less─and that skews returns higher. The report also doesn't account for dropouts or extra college years. Only 56% of students who enroll in a four-year college earn a bachelor's degree within six years, according to a report last year by the Harvard Graduate School of Education.
　　
　　PayScale, a Seattle data firm, examines the links between pay and variables like colleges and majors. Its analysis, which also ignores dropouts but accounts for students who take longer to complete their degrees, finds an average yearly return of 4.4% for degrees from 853 schools. That assumes students get financial aid, as most do.
　　
　　Returns vary sharply; they are negative for more than 100 schools and over 11% a year for ones like Harvey Mudd College in California, the Georgia Institute of Technology and the University of Virginia. Dartmouth, Harvard, Stanford and Princeton are over 10%, but so is Queens College in New York─where state residents pay just over $5,000 a year in tuition, versus about $41,000 for Stanford.
　　
　　The worst returns tend to come from schools whose programs focus on nursing, criminal justice, sociology and education, says Katie Bardaro, an analyst at PayScale. The best returns are often from schools with strong engineering, computer science, economics and natural-science programs.
　　
　　There's a flip side: 'It's a lot harder to successfully graduate from those engineering programs,' says Ms. Bardaro.
　　
　　PayScale's analysis doesn't show how a specific degree from one school compares with that same degree from another school. 'Until we know that, students, school counselors and policy makers are flying blind,' says Mark Schneider, former U.S. Commissioner of Education Statistics and vice president of American Institutes for Research, a think tank.
　　
　　Mr. Schneider set up a data firm, College Measures, to collect such data, and hopes to report his findings later this year. In the meantime, the U.S. Department of Education is set to release 'gainful employment' data as soon as this coming week, including loan-repayment rates and debt-to-income ratios. The information is meant to show which schools are putting federal aid to good use, but it will also provide clues to returns.
　　
　　Until we can predict college returns more accurately, students and their families should think in terms of reducing investment risk, says Richard Vedder, an Ohio University professor and director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, a Washington-based advocacy group. After all, outstanding student loans now eclipse total credit-card debt, and even bankruptcy filers don't typically get out from under their school loans.
　　
　　Start with a frank assessment of performance. High school students with high grades and excellent test scores are likely to go to good schools and earn high returns on their investment, says Mr. Vedder. Middling performers can reduce risk by going to low-cost state and community colleges, perhaps transferring to another school after two years if they do well.
　　
　　For that matter, anything that cuts college costs reduces investment risk, says Jennifer Ma, a College Board analyst. Living at home for the first two years of school won't do wonders for a student's social life, but it's likely to boost his returns.
　　
　　Mr. Schneider says students should compare net college costs after projected aid. (They can approximate net costs using the government's College Navigator tool) The riskiest investment is a high-cost liberal-arts college that lacks a strong brand name and doesn't offer much aid, says Mr. Schneider. By contrast, a high-cost school with a strong brand and plenty of aid may be a 'good buy.'
　　
　　PayScale's Ms. Bardaro says students should research carefully the pay they are likely to secure before deciding how much to spend on college. After all, tuition and fees have increased 184% in 20 years after accounting for inflation, but wages for college grads have risen just 9%, according to Labor Department data.
　　
　　Mr. Obama's investment tip is well-intentioned, but in college as on Wall Street, returns aren't guaranteed.
　　
　　JACK HOUGH
　　
　　美国总统奥巴马(Obama)上个月在科罗拉多大学(University of Colorado)告诉学生，大学教育是你能做的最佳投资。
　　
　　Illustration by Luci Gutierrez用投资来打比方说明教育带来的益处是可以的。但如果把这话当作是在谈大学学位的经济回报，那么它有两个问题。
　　
　　第一个问题是，学生和他们的家人仍然缺少充足的数据，他们无法像股票和债券投资者那样估算特定大学学位的长期回报。
　　
　　其二是投资风险问题。股票投资者可以通过购买多元化股票投资组合来管理风险，但大学生则只能把注全压在单一资产上：他自己。
　　
　　因此，对学生和他们的家人来说，了解影响大学投资风险和回报的因素具有至关重要的意义，这样才能做出有利于己的决定。
　　
　　上大学能带来更高的收入：美国劳工统计局(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)称，去年拥有学士学位的人收入中值为一周1,053美元，而没上过大学的高中毕业生为一周638美元。去年大学毕业生的失业率为4.9%，而没上过大学的人失业率为9.4%。
　　
　　非营利组织美国大学理事会(College Board)在2010年的一份报告中（基于2008年数据）计算出，一个18岁入读四年制大学、并且大学阶段一直贷款的普通学生到33岁可以收回上大学的全部成本，包括因读大学而放弃的工资以及贷款利息。
　　
　　假如一只债券也能在相同的时间里收回投资成本，那么它的年收益率应该在5%到6%之间。这个收益率水平是不错的；将通货膨胀因素考虑在内，股票投资的历史收益率在7%左右。另外，该报告并没有谈到上大学的其他益处，比如开启心智、获得乐趣和较高的工作满意度。
　　
　　有两个地方需要着重指出：大学理事会的估算假定所有人念的都是公立大学。公立大学的费用通常比私立大学便宜──常常会便宜很多──这就推高了回报。此外，该报告也没有考虑辍学或延期毕业等问题。哈佛大学教育学研究生院(Harvard Graduate School of Education)去年发布的一份报告显示，进入四年制大学学习的学生仅有56%在六年内取得学士学位。
　　
　　位于西雅图的数据统计公司PayScale考察了薪酬与大学和主修专业等变量的关系。该分析也未考虑退学者，但考虑了延期完成学位的学生。研究发现，853所学校的所有专业平均年回报率为4.4%。此项研究假定学生能获得助学金（多数学生都有）。
　　
　　学校与学校之间的回报水平差别很大；有超过100所学校的回报率为负，加州哈维玛德学院(Harvey Mudd College)、佐治亚理工学院(Georgia Institute of Technology)、弗吉尼亚大学(University of Virginia)等学校的年回报率超过11%。达特茅斯学院(Dartmouth)、哈佛(Harvard)、斯坦福(Stanford)和普林斯顿(Princeton)的回报率超过10%，不过纽约的皇后学院(Queens College)回报率也在10%以上──因为纽约州居民一年只需要支付5,000美元多一点的学费，而斯坦福一年的学费则为41,000美元左右。
　　
　　PayScale的分析师凯蒂?巴尔达罗(Katie Bardaro)称，回报最低的一般是主要开设护理、刑事司法、社会学和教育学等专业的学校。回报最佳的通常是工程、计算机科学、经济学和自然科学等专业较强的学校。
　　
　　不过事物也有另外一面。巴尔达罗说，“要想成功地拿到工程专业学位要困难得多。”
　　
　　PayScale的分析未将一个学校的某一特定专业与其他学校相同专业进行对比。前美国教育统计专员(U.S. Commissioner of Education Statistics)、智囊机构美国研究协会(American Institutes for Research)副主席马克?施耐德(Mark Schneider)称，“在我们搞清楚这个问题之前，学生、学校指导老师和政策制定者都有些盲目。”
　　
　　施耐德建立了一家名为College Measures的数据统计公司来收集这类数据，并希望在今年晚些时候报告他的发现。此外，美国教育部(U.S. Department of Education)近期将发布“有酬就业”数据，其中包括贷款偿还率和负债收入比率数据。该信息意在揭示哪些学校合理利用了联邦助学资金，但它也将为我们了解教育回报情况提供线索。
　　
　　总部位于华盛顿的游说团体大学学费和绩效中心(Center for College Affordability and Productivity)负责人、俄亥俄大学(Ohio University)教授理查德?维德(Richard Vedder)称，在我们能够更加准确地预计大学的回报之前，学生和他们的家人应该考虑减少投资风险。毕竟，未偿还学生贷款现在已经超过了信用卡债务总额，就连宣布破产的人一般也还是要偿还学生贷款。
　　
　　首先要对学业成绩进行实事求是的评估。维德说，成绩好、考试分数高的高中学生有可能进入好学校，获得较高的投资回报。而中不溜的学生可以通过上成本较低的州立和社区大学来降低风险，如果他们在大学里成绩好的话，或许可以在两年后转学到其他学校。
　　
　　大学理事会的分析师詹妮弗?马(Jennifer Ma)称，关于这个问题，只要能削减上大学的成本就可以降低投资风险。上大学的头两年住在家里对学生的社交生活没什么好处，但有可能提升他的投资回报。
　　
　　施耐德说，学生应该对扣除预期助学金后的大学净成本进行比较。（他们可以利用政府的大学导航(College Navigator)工具估算出净成本）。施耐德说，风险最大的投资是上费用高、没什么名气又不提供很多助学金的文理学院。反之，如果一个费用高的学校有名气而且助学金多，或许也是“值得投资”的。
　　
　　PayScale的巴尔达罗称，学生应该先认真研究一下毕业后能拿到多少钱，再决定要花多少钱上大学。毕竟，将通货膨胀因素考虑在内的话，学杂费在过去20年里上涨了184%，但美国劳工部(Labor Department)的数据显示，大学毕业生的薪资只上涨了9%。
　　
　　奥巴马的投资建议用意是好的，但大学和华尔街一样都无法确保投资回报。

八爷°(内阁元老)

沙发 2012-08-19

囧：女同性恋者更易辨认

A study found that students asked to tell whether someone was gay or straight guessed correctly more often than could be put down to mere chance. Women had greater accuracy with 65 per cent able to identify someone's sexuality at a glance, while men were correct 57 per cent of the time。

　　
　　一项研究发现，在要求学生辨认一个人是同性恋还是异性恋的时候，通常会猜中的几率比较大，这可不仅仅是随机猜测的问题。女人在瞥一眼就能分辨一个人性征的准确率更是高达65%，而男人的准确率只有57%。
　　
　　Evidence suggest it is easier to recognise gay women's faces than men's even when photos were shown upside down and with no hairstyle visible。
　　
　　研究中还有证据表明，哪怕是照片混乱出现而且不显示发型，女同性恋者的面庞也比男同性恋者的更容易辨认出来。
　　
　　Researchers in journal PLoS One say the results suggest we may unconsciously make gay or straight decisions when meeting a new face。
　　
　　公共科学图书馆日报的研究人员说，这样的结论表明当我们碰到一张新面孔的时候，可能无意识地做着同性恋或是异性恋的辨别判断。
　　
　　Joshua Tabak, of the University of Washington, said: "It may be similar to how we don't have to think about whether someone is a man or a woman or black or white. This information confronts us in everyday life."
　　
　　来自华盛顿大学的约书亚·塔巴克说：“这种情况和我们不用考虑一个人是男人还是女人/黑人还是白人的状况很相似。我们在日常生活中都会遭遇这些信息。”
　　
　　For the study, 129 college students viewed 96 photos each of young adult men and women who identified themselves as gay or straight. Faces with facial hair, glasses, makeup and piercings were excluded to limit any potential prejudice associated with these embellishments. Only the faces and not the hairstyle were visible。
　　
　　在这项研究里，129名大学生观察了96张确定为同性恋或是异性恋的成年男女的照片。面部毛发、化妆和穿孔等因素被排除在外，来限制人们联系这些饰品的出现的潜在偏见。所以，照片上只有面庞也没有发型。
　　
　　For women's faces, participants were 65 percent accurate in telling the difference between gay and straight faces when the photos flashed on a computer screen. When the faces were flipped upside down, participants were 61 percent accurate in telling the two apart。
　　
　　对于女性面庞来说，当照片在电脑屏幕上闪过时，参与者识别同性恋和异性恋面庞的正确率是65%。当照片面庞被混在一起，参与者辨别准确率为61%。
　　
　　Figures were slightly lower with men at 57 percent accuracy. This slipped to 53 percent - still statistically above chance - when the men's faces appeared upside down. There were more 'false alarm' guesses with men's faces than women's - where the students wrongly assumed someone was gay。
　　
　　男性面庞辨别准确率有些低，只有57%，打乱放置时准确率虽然只有53%，但从统计学上来说仍然高于随机水平。研究里，男性面庞也比女性面庞有更多的“虚假”猜想，就是说学生会错误地假设一些人是同性恋者。
　　
　　This may be because people are more familiar with the concept of gay men than lesbians so more liberal in judging men's faces, suggests Dr Tabak, although it may also be that the difference is more noticeable。塔巴克博士说，这种情况可能是因为比起女同性恋者来说，人们更加熟悉男同性恋者的概念，所以在评判男性面庞的时候就更加自在。尽管这也可能是由于差异性太明显而造成的。
　　
　　Dr Tabak said: "We were surprised that participants were above-chance judging sexual orientation based on upside down photos flashed for just 50 milliseconds, about a third the time of an eyeblink."
　　
　　塔巴克博士说：“我们很吃惊滴发现，混在一起的照片在比三分之一眨眼速度还快的50毫秒内闪过，参与者从中辨别面庞性取向的准确率都在随机几率之上。”
　　
　　Some subjects were unable to guess accuarately and Dr Tabak said there was "always a small number of people with no ability to distinguish gay and straight faces."
　　
　　有一些受试者无法准确地猜中性征，塔巴克博士说：“这里也存在着一些根本没有能力辨认同性恋和异性恋面庞的一小撮人。”
　　
　　And he speculates that "people from older generations or different cultures who may not have grown up knowing they were interacting with gay people" may be less accurate in making gay versus straight judgments。
　　
　　并且他推测：“老一辈的人，或是在不知道会与同性恋人群接触的文化背景中成长的人们”，他们可能会在同性恋和异性恋辨别中准确率会比较低。”

[News] 算过你的大学投资“回报”吗