Fund the students, not the universities
Government can finance higher education by funding universities or by funding students to attend universities. European governments mostly do the first and should instead do the second.
There is all the difference in the world between a tax on graduates that raises money for government to distribute to universities and a system of grants and soft loans that enables students to meet the costs of attending autonomous institutions of higher education. The debate over university fees in Britain - which turns on that issue - is therefore fundamental to the future of higher education everywhere.
We shall have better education and fairer access if government money is directed to students, not colleges. With state funding of universities comes state control of universities. This has been disastrous. Government has not been successful at managing banks, airlines or even railways. It is even worse at directing universities, which are by nature pluralist institutions populated by dysfunctional dons and fractious adolescents and fit badly into risk-averse and centralised bureaucratic systems of control.
"Find good people and let them get on with it" is a good management principle everywhere, but nowhere more than in the pursuit of knowledge. It is a long time since such freedom existed in a European university.
Many people now understand that US universities dominate the top echelons of higher education. Europe once took 75 per cent of Nobel prizes; today the US does. It is less widely appreciated that this is the triumph of autonomous institutions over government-controlled ones. In US News and World Report's rankings, none of the top 20 US universities is state-run. Berkeley - the jewel in the crown of California's state university - just fails to make the cut. And I doubt if any university outside the US is today as good as Berkeley.
Harvard and Chicago, Princeton and Caltech do not negotiate policies with any government agency: they are accountable to independent trustees, who work hard to raise funds and maintain standards. These institutions are vacuuming up talent from around the world. Maybe Europe can just let this happen. But it is a big risk to take.
In healthcare, the cash nexus undermines the doctor-patient relationship. Higher education is different. I have taught MBA students paying several thousand pounds to sit in my class. I have also taught 18-year-olds for whom an hour a week with me is the price of three jolly years in Oxford at the taxpayer's expense. When students are customers, the result is well-prepared classes and a demanding and committed audience in institutions that care passionately about the quality of their teaching.
Funding directed to students would make universities more effective and accessible. I was a student in a brief golden age of lavish funding for universities and generous student grants. Many people still long for that era. But it will not return, and probably should not. There are other demands on public expenditure.
So limited public resources for higher education must be directed towards students from poor households and to those graduates who will never earn enough to meet the costs of higher education. Fairer funding will recoup tuition expenses from lawyers and investment bankers but not from writers, people who work in voluntary organisations, or those whose careers fail. And it will provide generous bursaries to bright people who might otherwise find it difficult to attend university. Top US universities offer scholarships more extensively than European ones because they are better resourced. It should hardly be necessary to say more.
But it is. The fees proposal is strongly opposed. Political control of universities is welcome to those who dislike elite institutions and wish to influence admissions policies, internal organisation and the structure of courses. Well-off parents believe, correctly, that they will have to pay more if funding is targeted at needy students. Weak universities think, correctly, that they will do better if the distribution of funds between institutions results from political choices, not student preferences. The future of Europe's universities should not be sacrificed to these interests.
资助学生 而不是资助高校
政府资助高等教育不外有两种方式：一是资助大学，二是资助在大学就读的学生。欧洲各国的政府大多采取前一种资助方式。其实，它们应该采取的是后一种方式。
两者之间有天壤之别：前者是政府通过征税从已经毕业的学生身上募集资金，然后向大学拨款；后者是通过一套补助金和软贷款制度，资助学生到自治的高等学府就学。近期英国社会围绕大学学费问题展开辩论，使这个问题更为尖锐化，而这场辩论本身，也对全球高等教育的未来具有根本性的意义。
如果政府的资金面向的是学生，而不是高等院校，我们会有更好的教育和更公平的入学机会。如果大学由政府资助，则政府难免要插手大学的事务。这往往是灾难性的。无论是管理银行、航空公司还是铁路，政府从来就没有成功过。在管理大学方面，政府的表现就更差劲了。大学在本质上就是多元化的机构，活跃着一大批固执己见的学者和极难驾驭的青少年，而官僚管理体制墨守陈规而且集权化，两者必然格格不入。
"找到合适的人才，让他们施展自己的才华"是一条放之四海而皆准的优秀管理原则，对于追求知识而言更是再适用不过。但在欧洲的大学中，这样的自由已经绝迹很久了。
如今，美国大学在顶尖学府的排行中占据多数，这是许多人都知道的事实。75%的诺贝尔奖曾落入欧洲人之手；而今却由美国人保持着此项殊荣。但较少有人意识到的是，这恰恰体现了自治院校相对于政府管理院校的优越性。根据《美国新闻与世界报道》的排名，顶尖的20家美国大学中，没有一家是由政府管理的。加利福尼亚州立大学的王牌伯克利(Berkeley)分校，刚好未能进入20家最佳大学的排行榜。而我觉得，当今美国以外没有任何大学能与伯克利媲美。
一流美国大学，如哈佛(Harvard)、芝加哥(Chicago)、普林斯顿(Princeton)和加州理工学院(Caltech)，不需要与任何政府机构协商办学方针：学校管理层仅向独立的基金会董事负责，而这些基金会董事不遗余力地募集资金，维护教学标准。如今，这些院校正吸引着世界各地的优秀人才。或许，欧洲可以对此无动于衷，但其潜在危害不容忽视。
在医疗行业，金钱有可能扭曲医务人员与患者之间应有的关系。高等教育则不同。我曾经教过花了数千英镑来听我课的MBA学生；我也曾经在公立大学教过刚满18岁的年轻人。对于他们来说，每星期听我一节课是一种代价，以便他们能够名正言顺地在纳税人的资助下，在牛津快快乐乐地过上三年。当学生成为顾客之后，讲课的人就会认真备课，而听课的人也会专心致志，主动求学。他们所在的院校，更将全心全意地关注教学质量。
直接资助学生的方式，将使大学更为高效，也更容易进入。我做学生时，经历过一个短暂的黄金年代，那时候大学能得到大笔的拨款，而学生们可以得到慷慨的补助金。许多人至今还怀念那个年代，但它已经一去不复返了，而且很可能也不应该复返。还有不少其他领域需要国家的财政支出。
因此，拨给高等教育的有限的公共资源，必须用于资助贫困家庭的学生，以及那些永远不可能挣到足够的收入以偿还大学时代开支的毕业生。更公平的资助模式，将意味着从律师和投资银行家那里收回学费补助，而同时免除作家、志愿机构工作人员，以及那些职业失败人士的学生贷款。它还将为天资聪颖的年轻人提供充足的奖学金，让他们得到上大学的机会。美国的一流大学之所以能比欧洲大学发放更多的奖学金，是因为他们的财源更多更广。到此已经不用再说什么了。
但不说不行。目前，英国的大学收费方案遭到强烈反对。对于那些不喜欢精英学府，同时又希望插手大学招生方针、内部组织架构、乃至课程结构的人而言，针对大学的政治干预是他们所欢迎的。对于富裕家庭的父母而言，假如资助方案偏向有需要的学生，他们将不得不增加支出(他们是对的)。对于表现平平的大学而言，假如大学之间的资金分配取决于政治考虑，而不是学生的选择，那它们的表现会更好(这也是对的)。但是，欧洲大学的未来，终究不应该丧失在这些利益群体手里。
