干预与反干预之争——美国首个联邦政府大学评级体系的构建

2014年,美国联邦政府公布《新的大学评级体系框架》草案,直接干预高等教育评估,意图构建自己的大学评级体系.此举引发了联邦政府与高等教育界干预与反干预之争.联邦干预高等教育评估的原因主要是高等教育长期以来存在着学费上涨、毕业率低以及贷款还款违约率高等问题,且认为高等教育现有的评估对此无能为力.奥巴马政府以公平和绩效为导向,意图促进大学扩大弱势群体入学机会,增加大学教育的可支付性以及提升教育结果.但反干预者认为,联邦政府没必要干预高等教育评估,而且其设计的大学评级不但指标体系存在问题,在操作上也不可行.这种干预和反干预之争最终使联邦大学评级体系并没有按照预先设计实行,而变成了简单的信息公布.     

试论美国联邦政府与大学科研间的关系

美国大学科学研究在发展过程中,联邦政府的作用至关重要."二战"之后,美国形成了全国性的科学研究组织,联邦政府以其独特的方式大力资助大学科研,并形成了自身的资助特色.这一特色背后蕴涵着联邦主义和多元理念、有所为有所不为的思维方式以及工具主义理论,这成为支撑联邦政府和大学科学研究之间关系的价值因素.分析其历史、探求其背后价值,能为我们当前大学科研的发展提供借鉴.     

美国联邦政府高等教育财政资助体制的早期孕育与成型

政教分离原则和新教思想引领了殖民地和建国时期美国联邦政府自由放任的高等教育财政资助政策。宪法对联邦政府教育权力的回避使得创办国立大学的计划破产,达特茅斯学院案再一次维护了私立大学的合法地位,刺激了州立大学的广泛创建。这段时期,联邦政府基本徘徊在高等教育门外。《莫里尔法案》开启了联邦以土地赠予形式干预高等教育的时代。随着一战的爆发,联邦政府通过军事服务全面介入高等教育,逐渐形成了以资助军事研究和人员培训为主要形式的早期联邦高等教育财政资助体制。     

美国联邦政府支持大学科研的价值因素思考

美国大学科学研究在历史上经历了从小到大的发展过程,联邦政府在其中作用至关重要。在历经"二战"全国性有组织的科学研究之后,联邦政府开始以其独特的方式大力资助大学科研,并形成自身的资助特色。这一特色背后的联邦主义和多元理念、有所为有所不为的思维方式以及工具主义理论等成为支撑联邦政府和大学科学研究之间关系的价值因素。分析历史、探求背后价值对于我们当前大学科研的发展提供了借鉴作用。     

美国公共教育联邦干预的历史演进

在美国公共教育中是否存在联邦干预以及联邦干预是以何种形态呈现,在美国历史上经历了长期曲折的变化过程.梳理联邦政府对美国公共教育干预策略可以发现,联邦政府对美国公共教育的干预经历了18世纪中后期到19世纪中期的拨款赠地模式、19世纪中期到20世纪中期的组织控制模式,以及从20世纪中期开始的文化控制模式.这使得美国公共教育在保持历史形成的地方主义或分权格局的同时,随着联邦政府不断加大"干预"力度而形成了"同质化"与"集权制"的内核.究其根源,这是"镶嵌型"资本主义的文化逻辑,成为晚期资本主义避免走向自毁深渊的自救逻辑,从而使得集权制的文化教育形态成为美国公共教育历史的必然.     

全球性研究型大学的出现:伯克利加州大学

本研究通过伯克利加州大学的案例,从联邦政府研发投入与大学中知识生产的变革,大学学术职业的分化,研究型大学内部组织的复杂性,大学办学自主权与问责,大学经费的联邦化和私人化及大学科学研究与教学的全球性合作等几个方面剖析目前出现的全球性研究型大学的形成过程和发展特征.     

美国研究型大学成功的内在要素及办学条件与联邦政府的作用

在中国建设世界一流大学的过程中，美国研究型大学的成功及其在提高综合国力方面所起的巨大作用备受关注。本文从内在要素、办学条件和联邦政府的作用三个方面论述美国研究型大学的特点。     

美国联邦政府干预公共教育起点问题的再讨论

学界一般认为,18世纪中后期《西北土地法》的颁布确立了联邦以赠地的形式参与教育事务,是联邦干预公共教育问题的起点,但这一认识是不准确的.通过系统梳理18世纪中后期一系列土地法令形成的过程,发现《西北土地法》中教育条款的出现并不是出于联邦对教育自身的考量,而是意在提高西北新州的地价、稳定移民的妥协方案,这不足以成为联邦干预公共教育的起点事件.联邦政府对美国公共教育的有意干预是在南北战争之后美国工业化的腾飞中最终生成并确立下来的.19世纪早期的美国公共学校运动迫切需要一条有效的"同质化"策略来消解自殖民地时期以来的教育地方主义;同一时期的美国的工业化与工厂制——科学、效率、一致性和科层制,有效地为美国公共学校运动提供了一条逻辑缜密的"同质化"策略.这意味着,联邦政府干预教育实质上是19世纪后期联邦政府引导、干预、成就美国工业化过程中所扮演的领导角色在教育系统的体现.     

美国大学专利活动的历史考察

美国大学专利活动已有将近百年历史,大学对待专利的态度和政策,大学专利活动的模式均有显著变化.二战后美国大学推动联邦政府修订专利法案,不但反映出政府-大学之间深刻而复杂的关系,也为大学从事技术转移进而为经济发展服务奠定了基础.     

美国联邦政府建设一流大学的政策分析

二战以来美国陆续涌现出一批世界一流大学,这并非完全是大学自然发展的结果,还有美国政府,特别是联邦政府,出于美国国家利益而采取的政策扶植与介入.美国建设一流大学的时间段主要集中于1941-1971的30年间,以1960年的<西博格报告>为标志,可划分为前后两个阶段,在两个阶段中,联邦政府均发挥重要作用.联邦政府首先通过科技政策间接地扶持了一流大学的出现,继而采取专项资助的方法帮助一批大学实现跨越式发展.美国政府长期稳定的高等教育发展战略,不同阶段具体政策的运作方式及其经验教训值得我们思考和借鉴.     

Impact of federal intervention on higher education

One of the most serious crises currently facing institutions of higher education is federal intervention. The level which this crisis has reached is attested to by the fact that the presidents of three leading universities (Yale, Harvard, and Cornell) have in the past two years presented major reports addressed exclusively to this concern.The purpose of this article is to assess the impact of recent federal legislation and regulations on higher education. The author articulates the precepts posited in defense of such federal intervention, some of which are: financial contributions, social injustice, moral responsibility, student unrest, etc. The general costs of complying with federal laws and regulations are enumerated. In addition, the article considers the impact of a number of recent federal laws and regulations, including: Health Professions Educational Assistance Act of 1976; Copyright Law of 1976; Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity; and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The author explores the steps that have recently been undertaken to reduce costs of complying with federal regulations and suggests additional solutions to this problem. The article concludes with a prognosis for what higher education can anticipate from the federal government and how higher education best protects its interests.Presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Houston, Texas, May 1978.     

New politics of higher education: Hidden and complex

Public universities in the United States are in a changed political environment, resulting from past enrollment growth and increased budget needs, centralization, the routinization of state-university relations, government budget uncertainty, and the emergence of strong competing claims on state or federal monies. The author argues that centralized government intervention is carried through technocratic approaches that mask the political forces at work. The article discusses characteristics of government intervention such as: buffer groups, formulas and data monopoly. It suggests these technocratic approaches hide the political weakness of the public universities. These, in turn, have been weakened. In conclusion, three new trends are suggested: (1) public universities will seek to do with less government support - that is, the privatization of some American public university services; (2) they will seek to increase government's or society's dependency on what it is the public universities do - that is, making universities more immediately useful to government and society; and (3) they will increasingly organize political coalitions both inside and outside the universities. This last strategy implies greater collaboration between faculty, students and university administrators and between higher education, the public schools and other potential allies.     

For whom the Pell tolls: The response of university tuition to federal grants-in-aid

The Pell grant program is the largest federal program for college students, with support to over three million students at more than 6000 institutions. A prominent question in public debate is whether Pell grants tend to be appropriated by universities through increases in tuition—consistent with what is known as the Bennett hypothesis. Based on a panel of 1554 colleges and universities from 1989 to 1996, we find little evidence of the Bennett hypothesis for in-state tuition for public universities. For private universities, though, increases in Pell grants appear to be matched nearly one for one by increases in list (and net) tuition. Results for out-of-state tuition for public universities are similar to those for private universities, suggesting that they behave more like private ones in setting out-of-state tuition. Institutional responses in these latter cases appear at odds with federal grants-in-aid policy.     

Indirect cost rate variation for university research: Several conventional explanations do not work

The wide variation in indirect cost rates that universities charge the federal government in research grants and contracts has reduced the credibility of universities, as have accompanying charges that universities have been overreaching in indirect cost recovery. Many explanations for rate differences have been presented, but not systematically examined. Detailed cost and policy data from seven major research universities were used to simulate a standardization of costs and policies to eliminate several of the differences widely believed to contribute to rate variation. The result was an increase in rate variation, rather than the expected decrease. Furthermore, each of the universities could have charged the federal government a higher rate than actually charged, providing evidence that universities have not been over-reaching in indirect cost recovery.     

Academic staff and academic drift in Australian colleges of advanced education

The Australian colleges of advanced education have been developed since the mid-1960s mainly on the initiative of the federal government with the aim of creating a separate sector of higher education parallel to the universities. They illustrate well what has been referred to in the literature as academic drift, a process whereby non-university institutions aspire to become more like universities. Academics in the colleges of advanced education have contributed to the process of upward drift. Academic drift in turn has produced important changes on some key characteristics of college academics.     

组建联邦大学:俄罗斯区域高等教育均衡发展新路径

21世纪以来,俄罗斯政府和高校基于国际竞争的压力,一直致力于高水平大学建设,先后提出发展创新型大学、组建联邦大学、创建大学综合体等策略,其中联邦大学的组建是俄罗斯实现区域高等教育一体化建设的新模式,它带给我们的启示是:区域高等教育一体化不仅需要良好的政策法律环境,也需要考虑区域间高等教育的均衡发展,同时,构建高校与社会力量合作的有效机制也极为重要。     

Higher Education and Industry

University research in Australia has in the past been devoted primarily to basic curiosity-initiated research based on the English model. Most senior academic staff have had advanced degrees from British universities and the ethos of pure research has permeated their work. In 1984 68 per cent of all higher education research and development was classified as basic research. The impetus for change in the early 1980s has come largely from federal government. In particular shrinking per student grants have forced universities to try to supplement their incomes from other sources. This paper summarizes and analyses some of the new initiatives and concludes with an examination of future prospects.     

告别自治:合规时代的美国大学治理

传统上,受学术自由、大学自治以及联邦主义的影响,美国联邦政府较少干预高等教育事务。20世纪后半叶,在学术界和法律界之间关系发生革命性转变的背景下,基于开支权、税收权、贸易权以及公民权利执行权四种与教育相关的明示或默示的联邦宪法权力形态,联邦政府开始积极介入大学治理。至此,美国大学治理进入合规时代。联邦高等教育规制的强化在促进师生权利保障、增进公共利益的同时,也不可避免地滋生了“合规恐慌”与教师权利危机。近年来,在“螺旋式”合规文化的影响下,美国大学合规的压力来源持续增多。作为受规制最为广泛的机构类型之一,大学经常被拉入不同的、有时相互冲突的、有时不可调和的方向之中。当前,通过联邦高等教育规制的革新、大学合规职能的拓展以及大学法律顾问角色的重新定义等举措重塑联邦政府与大学之间的关系,构成了合规时代美国大学治理变革的最新动向。