The ladder of fame

　　ON AUGUST 18th US News & World Report released its 2007 rankings of America’s top colleges. The survey began in 1983 as a simple straw poll, when the magazine asked 662 college presidents to identify the country’s best places of learning. It has since mutated into an annual ordeal for reputable universities. A strong showing in the rankings spurs student interest and alumni giving; a slip has grave consequences for public relations.

　　University administrators deeply dislike the survey. Many reject the idea that schools can be stacked up against one another in any meaningful way. And the survey’s methodology is suspect. The rankings are still based partly on peer evaluations. They compare rates of alumni giving, which has little to do with the transmission of knowledge. Besides, the magazine’s data are supplied by the schools and uncorroborated.

　　But whether the rankings are fair is beside the point, because they are wildly influential. In the 1983 survey barely half of the presidents approached bothered to respond. Today, only a handful dare abstain.

　　Most, in fact, do more than simply fill out the survey. Competition between colleges for top students is increasing, partly because of the very popularity of rankings. Colin Diver, the president of Reed College in Oregon, considers that “rankings create powerful incentives to manipulate data and distort institutional behaviour.” A school may game the system by soliciting applications from students who stand no chance of admission, or by leaning on alumni to arrange jobs for graduates. Reed is one of the few prominent colleges that dares to disdain to take part in the US News survey.

　　In some ways, the scramble to attract applicants has helped students. Universities such as Duke in North Carolina and Rice in Houston are devoting more money to scholarships. That seems a reasonable response to the challenge of the rankings, as the National Centre for Education Statistics reckons that roughly two-thirds of undergraduates rely on financial aid.

　　Other colleges, though, are trying to drum up excitement by offering perks that would have been unheard of a generation ago. Students at the University of California, Los Angeles now appreciate weekly maid service in the dorms. “The elevators”, enthused a respondent to an online survey, “smell lemon fresh.” Students at Pennsylvania State University enjoy free access to Napster, the music-sharing service. Multi-million dollar gyms have become so common that they are unremarkable.

　　University officials, defending this strategy, often imply that they are only responding to student demand. Discouraging words for those who believe that a college’s job is to educate, not coddle.

　　考研詞匯：

　　spur[spə:]

　　n.①靴刺，馬刺;②刺激，刺激物;v.刺激，激勵

　　grave[greiv]

　　n.墳墓;a.嚴肅的，莊重的

　　[真題例句]Lots of Americans bought that nonsense, and over three decades, some 10 million smokers went to early graves (n.).[2005年閱讀2]

　　[例句精譯] 竟然有許多美國人買這些謬論的帳，30年來，大約有一千萬煙民早早就進了墳墓。

　　reject[riˈdʒekt]

　　v.①拒絕，抵制，駁回;②丟棄;③排斥，退掉

　　[真題例句]In fact it is simply shallow: the confused center is right to reject (②) it.[1997年翻譯]

　　[例句精譯] 事實上，它很膚淺;困惑的中間派正要放棄它。

　　[真題例句](65) Until these issues are resolved, a technology of behavior will continue to be rejected (③), and with it possibly the only way to solve our problems.[2002年翻譯]

　　[例句精譯] (65)(如果)這些問題得不到解決，研究行為的技術手段就會繼續(xù)受到排斥，解決問題的惟一方式可能也隨之繼續(xù)受到排斥。

　　peer[piə]

　　n.同等的人，貴族;vi.凝視，窺視;vt. 與……同等，封為貴族

　　[真題例句]38. In the author’s opinion, advertising__________.[2006年閱讀4]

　　[B]is a cause of disappointment for the general peer (n.)

　　[例句精譯] 38. 根據(jù)作者的觀點，廣告_________。

　　[B]是造成大部分人沮喪的原因

　　distort[diˈstɔ:t]

　　v.歪曲，扭曲

　　[真題例句]Hallucinogens have their primary effect on perception, distorting and altering it in a variety of ways including producing hallucinations.[1997年閱讀3]

　　[例句精譯] 迷幻劑主要影響人的感知，通過多種方式對感知加以扭曲或改變，其中包括產(chǎn)生幻覺。

　　scramble[ˈskræmbəl]

　　n./v.攀爬，爭奪

　　背景常識介紹：

　　近年來，各個機構、各個組織都打著各種旗號來進行所謂的大學排名，希望從一定方面來把大學的層次、水平進行有序排列，列出個英雄榜來。一列英雄榜，那自然是排名有分先后，水平高低也不一了。面對各種繁多的排名花樣，僅從高校方就反映不一，有的寵辱不驚，安之若素，有的怒發(fā)沖冠、堅決抵制。對于排名榜本身的科學性和權威性來說，人們也不知該如何參照，卻也全當是小兒游戲“排排坐”，合己胃口便充分采納，反之則以其無科學依據(jù)缺乏權威等理由視而不見罷了。

　　參考譯文：

　　高校教育名譽之階

　　《美國新聞與世界報道(US News & World Report)》于8月18日刊登了2007年度美國名校的排名。這項調查比較早在1983年以一種非正式投票的形式開始。當時，為挑出全國比較好的大學，雜志向662所高校的校長發(fā)出了調查。從此以后，這項調查就成了那些名校一年一度必經(jīng)的考核：如果學校名列前茅將吸引學生的興趣和校友的贊助;排名下滑的話就會嚴重影響學校的聲譽。

　　大學的主管們對這項調查深惡痛絕。他們認為將學校依次排序沒有任何意義，而且調查的方法也令人生疑。排名仍要參考來自同僚的評估，調查還要比較各校的校友捐贈率，而這與傳授知識并無干系。此外，雜志所采用的數(shù)據(jù)均由學校提供，并未經(jīng)過核實。

　　然而排名公平與否并不重要，因為這些排名早已深入人心。1983年的調查中，不到一半的校長愿意給予答復;而今天，敢于不參與此項調查的學校寥寥無幾。

　　實際上，大多數(shù)學校所做的不僅是簡單地填寫調查表。大學之間招收優(yōu)等生的競爭日益激烈，部分原因是學生很看重大學排名。俄勒岡州里德大學校長科林·戴福爾(Colin Diver)認為，“排名(的重要性)使人們有強烈的欲望去捏造數(shù)據(jù)，或采用非正當手段(參與競爭)�！睂W校也許會給原本無望入學的學生發(fā)出邀請函，或者依靠校友為畢業(yè)生安排工作，以此來贏取好的排名。里德大學是為數(shù)不多的敢于拒絕《美國新聞》排名調查的名牌大學之一。

　　從某種程度上來說，生源的競爭使學生得益。加利福尼亞州北部的杜克(Duke)大學和休斯敦的萊斯(Rice)大學等均增加了獎學金的投入。這顯然是為爭取排名而采取的合理應對措施。因為據(jù)美國教育中心統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)表明，約有三分之二的本科生依賴助學金就學。

　　然而，其他一些大學所采取的擴大生源的手段在幾十年前聞所未聞。加州大學洛杉磯分校的學生現(xiàn)在非常贊賞寢室里每周一次的女傭服務。一名熱心網(wǎng)友在網(wǎng)絡問卷中這樣說道“電梯聞起來有新鮮的檸檬味。賓夕法尼亞州立大學的學生可以免費使用Napster(一種音樂共享服務)。學校投入數(shù)百萬美元建設健身房也已司空見慣。

　　校方人員為此類行為辯解時通常表示，他們只是滿足學生的需求。對于那些認為學校的職責是教育而非溺愛的人而言，這樣的話實在讓人氣餒。