2009.11.22 罗德的反击

shiyi18

TECHNOLOGY
Rhodes pushback
By James Fallows
NOVEMBER 22, 2009
SHARE
Yesterday I mentioned Elliott Gerson's op-ed in the Washington Post, which said that a shift in career choices for Rhodes scholars -- before, mainly politics/academics/writing; now, increasingly Wall Street -- was one more illustration of how outlandish pay in the financial world was distorting American incentives. For a Chinese perspective on this same point, see the thoughts of Gao Xiqing in my article last year, here.

A current Rhodes scholar at Oxford writes in defense of today's students:

"Although I'm [from a country other than the US] and so outside of Mr Gerson's jurisdiction, I'm friends with many American Rhodies and I think it's worth noting one or two things about his article. It was an interesting and thought-provoking piece, but...

"First, it should not be assumed that Rhodes Scholars are leaving Oxford for business in overwhelming numbers. The most convincing evidence Mr Gerson cites is that 6 (presumably 6 out of 32 American Scholars) went into business "recently". While 6/32 is a lot more than the 3/320 in the 1970s, it hardly signals that there has been a fundamental change in the nature of the organisation or the Scholars involved. The road from Oxford High Street to Wall Street is far less well travelled than the road from Oxford to law school in New Haven or med school in Cambridge, MA.
"Second, it should not go unsaid that there is a lively debate in Oxford among Rhodes Scholars (of all nationalities) as to what is an 'appropriate' career path for those who have been fortunate to be given this tremendous opportunity. There is ongoing heated debate over the 'appropriateness' of professional work, non-profit work, academic work, and, yes, business work. To the extent that Mr Gerson's piece implies that we are all unquestioningly interested in, or tempted by, obscene earning differentials, this is unfair, inaccurate and offensive.

"Third, it was a curious decision indeed for Mr Gerson to focus on this aspect of the Rhodes program. Why, on the day that 32 new [U.S.] Scholars were elected, should we focus on the minority who go into business? Why not focus on the overwhelming majority who work in higher education, medicine, law or public service? Mr Gerson opened his piece by noting that "For much of this time, they have overwhelmingly chosen paths in scholarship, teaching, writing, medicine, scientific research, law, the military and public service." Mr Gerson's own statistics, and my own experience, confirm that Rhodes Scholars continue to overwhelmingly choose these paths.

"Fourth, it should not be forgotten that while the scholarships are important in the United States, they are overwhelmingly an international scholarship. More than two-thirds of each class come from outside the 50 states. Mr Gerson's data sample is limited.

"Mr Gerson may well have an interesting point to make about earning differentials and the undoubtedly obscene levels of pay in many businesses today. He struggles to make the point convincingly by using the data relating to Rhodes Scholars."
For what it's worth. The point of the article really was about today's grotesque pay differentials rather than this select group of American youth, but it's fair to hear pushback at their being used as data points this way. That's the end of this discussion, for my purposes. Consistent with my ongoing points about coverage of American diplomacy in Asia, we'll wait to see in a generation or so how this crop of students decides to spend its time.

James Fallows is a contributing writer at The Atlantic, and author of the newsletter Breaking the News. He was chief White House speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter, and is a co-founder, with his wife, Deborah Fallows, of the Our Towns Civic Foundation.



技术
罗德的反击
作者：詹姆斯-法洛斯
2009年11月22日
分享
昨天我提到了Elliott Gerson在《华盛顿邮报》上发表的专栏文章，他说罗兹学者职业选择的转变--以前主要是政治/学术/写作；现在，越来越多的是华尔街--再次说明了金融界离谱的薪酬如何扭曲了美国的激励机制。关于这一点的中国观点，请看我去年的文章中高西庆的想法，这里。

牛津大学的一位现任罗德学者在为今天的学生辩护时写道。

"虽然我[来自美国以外的国家]，所以不在Gerson先生的管辖范围内，但我和许多美国的Rhodies是朋友，我认为值得注意他文章中的一两点。这是一篇有趣和发人深省的文章，但是......

"首先，不应该认为罗兹学者正以压倒性的数量离开牛津大学去做生意。格森先生引用的最有说服力的证据是6个（估计是32个美国学者中的6个）"最近 "进入企业。虽然6/32比20世纪70年代的3/320要多得多，但这并不表明该组织或所涉及的学者的性质发生了根本变化。从牛津高街到华尔街的路，远不如从牛津到纽黑文的法学院或马萨诸塞州剑桥的医学院的路好走。
"第二，不应该不说，在牛津大学的罗德学者（所有国籍）中，对于那些有幸获得这一巨大机会的人来说，什么是'适当的'职业道路，存在着热烈的辩论。关于专业工作、非营利性工作、学术工作以及商业工作的 "适当性"，一直存在着激烈的辩论。格森先生的文章暗示，我们都毫无疑问地对淫秽的收入差距感兴趣，或者受到诱惑，这是不公平的，不准确的，也是令人反感的。

"第三，格森先生把注意力放在罗兹项目的这个方面，确实是一个奇怪的决定。为什么在32名新的[美国]学者当选的日子里，我们要关注那些进入企业的少数人？为什么不关注绝大多数从事高等教育、医学、法律或公共服务的人？格森先生在文章的开头指出："在这段时间里，他们绝大多数都选择了学术、教学、写作、医学、科学研究、法律、军事和公共服务的道路"。格森先生自己的统计数字和我自己的经验都证实，罗兹学者继续以压倒性的优势选择这些道路。

"第四，不应忘记，虽然奖学金在美国很重要，但它们绝大多数是一种国际奖学金。每届学生中超过三分之二的人来自50个州以外。格森先生的数据样本是有限的。

"格森先生很可能有一个有趣的观点，那就是今天许多企业的收入差异和毫无疑问的淫秽的薪酬水平。他通过使用与罗德学者有关的数据，难以令人信服地提出这个观点。"
对于它的价值。这篇文章的重点其实是关于当今怪异的薪酬差异，而不是这个选定的美国青年群体，但听到有人对他们这样被用作数据点进行反驳是公平的。为了我的目的，这个讨论就到此为止。与我一直以来对美国在亚洲的外交报道的观点一致，我们将等待在一代人左右的时间里看到这批学生决定如何度过他们的时间。

詹姆斯-法洛斯(James Fallows)是《大西洋》杂志的特约撰稿人，也是通讯《突发新闻》的作者。他曾是吉米-卡特总统的白宫演讲稿撰写人，并与他的妻子黛博拉-法洛斯共同创办了我们的城镇公民基金会。