雅思阅读考前必看文章之教育心理类

雅思阅读：Coarse work

　　BRITISH universities， it appears， are considering abandoning a 200-year old system of degree classification in favour of the American GPA model. At present， students are bunched into grade clusters. The top 10-20% receive a "1st"， the majority receive a "2.1" or "two-one" and the stragglers receive either a "two-two" or a "3rd". The latter group can be very small (5%) at the elite universities but is larger nationally.

　　The main reasoning for this is that it is hard for employers to distinguish between graduates if everyone has a 2.1 grade. But it is possible for employers to ask for a full transcript of individual grades， though this is not nearly as common in Britain as you might expect. The stronger point (which you might have already picked up on) is that the existing system can be difficult to interpret internationally. Adopting the GPA system would be helpful to undergraduates wishing to study or work abroad.

　　I think this might be missing a trick. My experience of the 1st/2.1/2.2 system is that it has a very strong effect on students' work effort. For weaker students， either those of lower natural ability or the more workshy， fear of the notorious "Desmond" (cockney rhyming slang after the eponymous archbishop) is the ultimate motivator. Many attractive careers simply advertise the minimum requirement of a 2.1， and therefore getting the lower grade can be quite a handicap in the job market.

　　For stronger students， the aspiration of a first， the only true distinguisher in the system， is also a strong incentive. The risk is that working quite hard could leave you with only a high 2.1， largely indistinguishable from all other 2.1's. The crudeness of the grading system drags everyone up.

　　An interesting paper by Pradeep Dubey and John Geanakoplos of the Cowles foundation at Yale Univeristy makes the same point. They write：

　　Suppose that the professor judges each student's performance exactly， though the performance itself may depend on random factors， in addition to ability and effort. Suppose also that the professor is motivated solely by a desire to induce his students to work hard. Third and most importantly， suppose that the students care about their relative rank in the class， that is， about their status. We show that， in this scenario， coarse grading often motivates the student to work harder.

　　One might think that finer hierarchies generate more incentives. But this is often not the case. Coarse hierarchies can paradoxically create more competition for status， and thus better incentives for work.

　　They give a simple example. Suppose there are two students， Brainy and Dumbo， with disparate abilities. Brainy achieves a uniformly higher score even when he shirks and Dumbo works. Suppose， for example， that Dumbo scores between 40 and 50 if he shirks， and between 50 and 60 if he works， while Brainy scores between 70 and 80 if he shirks and 80 and 90 if he works. With perfectly fine grading， Brainy will come ahead of Dumbo regardless of their effort levels. But since they only care about rank， both will shirk.

　　But， by assigning a grade A to scores above 85， B to scores between 50 and 85， and C to below 50， the professor can inspire Dumbo to work， for then Dumbo stands a chance to acquire the same status B as Brainy， even when Brainy is working. This in turn generates the competition which in fact spurs Brainy to work， so that with luck he can distinguish himself from Dumbo. He doesn't want to be mislabelled. With finer grading everyone gets their own label so this effect disappears.

　　The corollary to this in my example is that if the brainy student knows that even when slacking off he will still do measurably better than most students he may decide that he can still get a very good job with 70 to 80. There may be students who score 80 to 90 with superior credentials but academic performance is only part of the hiring criteria. If he can signal himself as a brainy student he might think this is enough.

　　However， critical to all this is that all exams are taken together， as they are at Oxford or Cambridge universities， usually at the end of the degree in a consecutive-day marathon. The trend in other British universities has been to examine various courses throughout the degree. The result is that those in the middle of the ability range can work very hard at the beginning， bank a 2.1 and then slack off in the remaining years. It is partly for this reason that those universities pushing hardest for the changes have exams split across years. Oxford and Cambridge are less keen.

雅思阅读：Why so few university slots？

　　GETTING into college in America has gotten considerably more difficult over time. Zubin Jelvah writes：

　　Thanks to the positive effects of higher education on pay， the competition for entrance into the top colleges has increased sharply over the past three decades--particularly in the Northeast and California. But over the same period， the number of slots available at these schools has stayed largely unchanged， leading to a situation where demand far outstrips supply.

　　He says that this has led students to go to ever greater lengths to develop a competitive advantage in applying for university admission—taking advanced placement courses and test preparatory courses， and investing heavily in extracurricular activities. But that's a positive， right？ Competition is forcing students to learn more and be more involved in the community.

　　To a certain extent， yes， but new research suggests that intense admissions competition also brings with it serious costs. Mr Jelvah cites a paper by John Bound and Brad Hershbein and says：

　　The researchers argue that instead of better preparing high school students for the rigors of higher ed， increased competition may actually be counterproductive. They find that increased competition is negatively correlated with college enrollment and earnings at age 25 for students in a subset of highly competitive states.

　　The authors themselves note：

　　In conjunction with the psychological and informational costs associated with competitive pressure ... these results should raise doubts that the increased competition for college admission has had a net positive effect on what and how students learn.

　　From an economic standpoint， it also seems probable that stagnant supply coupled with rising demand should generate a predictable price response. And sure enough：

　　That chart is from Niraj Choksi at the Atlantic. Now Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz have argued convincingly that recent growth in income inequality can be attributed to a relative decline in the supply of college graduates and a corresponding increase in the relative supply of lower skilled workers. But James Heckman has established that declines in college completion are about a drop in the rate of college enrolment and a corresponding decline in high school graduation rates. Here's the conclusion to a Vox piece by Mr Heckman and co- author Paul LaFontaine：

　　In the first half of the 20th century， growth in high school graduation was the driving force behind increased college enrolments. The decline in high school graduation since 1970 (for cohorts born after 1950) has flattened college attendance and completion rates as well as growth in the skill level of the U.S. workforce. To increase the skill levels of its future workforce， America needs to confront a large and growing dropout problem.The origins of this dropout problem have yet to be fully investigated. Evidence suggests a powerful role of the family in shaping educational and adult outcomes. A growing proportion of American children are being raised in disadvantaged families. This trend promises to reduce productivity and promote inequality in the America of tomorrow.

　　Mr Heckman tends to focus his policy solutions on the very young where， he has argued， remediation efforts bear the most fruit. At the same time， it's possible that the relative lack of success of remediation efforts later on in a student's career is directly related to the above state of affairs.

　　There is a wage premium earned by high school graduates relative to non- graduates， but its pretty small—much smaller than the gap between high school graduates and those with college degrees. The big advantage of a high school diploma is that it clears the way for a student to move on to the next level.

　　But the next level is increasingly out of reach for disadvantaged students. Money is occasionally the problem， but competition may be more of an issue. Disadvantaged households do not have the resources to invest in preparatory courses or multiple admissions applications. Students may not have the time after school to participate in extracurricular activities， needing， instead， to work. And disadvantaged students are unlikely to get the parental pressure at home to continue investing in activities designed to enhance competitiveness in admissions.

　　Perhaps the increasing competitiveness of college admissions processes are leading more students to conclude that college is out of reach—which is therefore reducing the return to a high school diploma and increasing the dropout rate.