College education:
　　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.

　　参考译文：

　　高校教育名誉之阶
　　《美国新闻与世界报道（US News & World Report）》于8月18日刊登了2007年度美国名校的排名。这项调查最早在1983年以一种非正式投票的形式开始。当时，为挑出全国最好的大学，杂志向662所高校的校长发出了调查。从此以后，这项调查就成了那些名校一年一度必经的考核：如果学校名列前茅将吸引学生的兴趣和校友的赞助；排名下滑的话就会严重影响学校的声誉。
　　大学的主管们对这项调查深恶痛绝。他们认为将学校依次排序没有任何意义，而且调查的方法也令人生疑。排名仍要参考来自同僚的评估，调查还要比较各校的校友捐赠率，而这与传授知识并无干系。此外，杂志所采用的数据均由学校提供，并未经过核实。
　　然而排名公平与否并不重要，因为这些排名早已深入人心。1983年的调查中，不到一半的校长愿意给予答复；而今天，敢于不参与此项调查的学校寥寥无几。
　　实际上，大多数学校所做的不仅是简单地填写调查表。大学之间招收优等生的竞争日益激烈，部分原因是学生很看重大学排名。俄勒冈州里德大学校长科林•戴福尔（Colin Diver）认为，“排名（的重要性）使人们有强烈的欲望去捏造数据，或采用非正当手段（参与竞争）。”学校也许会给原本无望入学的学生发出邀请函，或者依靠校友为毕业生安排工作，以此来赢取好的排名。里德大学是为数不多的敢于拒绝《美国新闻》排名调查的名牌大学之一。
　　从某种程度上来说，生源的竞争使学生得益。加利福尼亚州北部的杜克（Duke）大学和休斯敦的莱斯（Rice）大学等均增加了奖学金的投入。这显然是为争取排名而采取的合理应对措施。因为据美国教育中心统计数据表明，约有三分之二的本科生依赖助学金就学。
　　然而，其他一些大学所采取的扩大生源的手段在几十年前闻所未闻。加州大学洛杉矶分校的学生现在非常赞赏寝室里每周一次的女佣服务。一名热心网友在网络问卷中这样说道电梯闻起来有新鲜的柠檬味。宾夕法尼亚州立大学的学生可以免费使用Napster（一种音乐共享服务）。学校投入数百万美元建设健身房也已司空见惯。
　　校方人员为此类行为辩解时通常表示，他们只是满足学生的需求。对于那些认为学校的职责是教育而非溺爱的人而言，这样的话实在让人气馁。