9月27日口譯文章：斯坦福大學若何吸引經濟學泰斗
一向以來，美國經濟學思惟的中間都處於馬薩諸塞州坎布裏奇的一段兩英裏長的地帶，它的兩頭分離是哈佛大學和麻省理工學院。但如今，在迢遙的西部，有了一個競爭者湧現了。
曩昔幾年裏，斯坦福大學將一大量明星經濟學家吸引到了加州帕洛阿爾托——並力保本身的經濟學家不被哈佛和麻省理工挖走。
最新加盟斯坦福的傳授包含諾貝爾獎得到者、本來在哈佛的阿爾文·E·羅斯(Alvin E. Roth)，但是最能表現潮水湧動的是，那些頂尖青年經濟學家的去處。自2000年以來的11位約翰·貝茨·克拉克獎(John Bates Clark Medal)“40歲如下絕佳經濟學家”得主中，有四人如今斯坦福，比任何大學都多。個中兩人是曩昔幾個月裏參加的，他們是原在哈佛研討不屈等題目的拉傑·切蒂(Raj Chetty)，和從芝加哥大學轉投斯坦福的馬修·基恩茨科夫(Matthew Gentzkow)。
斯坦福正在盡力將本身塑造成為美國頭號大學，招募經濟學家方面的勝利便是這項行為的一部門。它的吸引力來自兩方面，一是作為現今美國最熱點的大學——它的本科入學率為全美最低，募資才能也緊隨哈佛以後位居第二——另有它的周邊具有全球最具活氣的企業。它和東部大學的反抗，和其他一些家當中的情形是相呼應的，從旅店到汽車臨盆商，老牌企業在各方面都面對著矽谷資金和創業者的挑釁。
這也反應了經濟學研討層面的一場更普遍的轉型，最尖真個事情開端愈來愈少地依附那些腦力軼群、研究著數學理論的學者個別，而是更多取決於將大批數據破碎摧毀後從中探求有代價信息的才能，後者能用於處置各類的題目，可所以社會各階級的收入差別，也能夠是家當的構造方法。
“一個為天下營建將來之處，誰不想去呢?”喬治·梅森大學(George Mason University)經濟學家(《紐約時報》歷久撰稿人)泰勒·考文(Tyler Cowen)說，他常常經由過程博客評論辯論經濟學的學術潮水。他說，斯坦福的經濟學系“有一種波士頓和坎布裏奇無法比較的活潑氛圍”。
在經濟學界，斯坦福常常被排在哈佛、麻省理工、普林斯頓和芝加哥大學背面，包含《美國消息與天下報導》(U.S. News & World Report)比來宣布的一項2013年的研討生院查詢拜訪，和學者論文援用量的盤算方面，都是如斯。但這一點大概有變。曩昔四年裏，斯坦福的資深老師增長了25%，有11名接收數百萬美元積累薪俸的學者，要末是從其他黌舍的頂尖科系挖來的，要末謝絕這些科系的勾引留了下來。
但是，比擬這些大人物的招募，斯坦福的將來更多地要看它造就的博士，他們的學術造詣可否獲得普遍援用，影響主要的經濟學評論辯論走向，或成為位高權重的政策制訂者，不論是作為總統的參謀，照樣央行的引導人。比來10任白宮經濟參謀委員會主席，都是哈佛或麻省理工的博士(比來一名不是來自這兩間黌舍的是1999年去職的珍妮特·L·耶倫，她是在耶魯獲得博士學位)。比年對環球經濟政策有龐大影響力的經濟學博士中，前美聯儲主席本·S·伯南克;歐洲央行行長馬裏奧·德拉吉;行將退休的國際泉幣基金構造首席經濟學家奧利維爾· 布蘭查德;聯儲副主席斯坦利·費希爾(Stanley Fischer)，都出生麻省理工。
不難想象，在東海岸的很多頂尖科系看來，坎布裏奇在常識界的王者位置是不容撼動的。“斯坦福對招募哈釋教員如斯上心，正解釋了咱們的壯大，”哈佛經濟系主任戴維·萊布森(David Laibson)說。“咱們很輕易被盯上，由於全球最奮發民氣、最具發明力和改革力的學者中，有很多在咱們這裏，斯坦福固然會想獲得他們。”他指出本系和哈佛其他院系和諸多互助，加上臨近麻省理工和國度經濟研討局(National Bureau of Economic Research)，構成了經濟學研討事情的高度會合，而且他的系自己也在大肆招募人材。
但是斯坦福比年在招募上的勝利註解，經濟學範疇正在舉行一場普遍的轉型。新加盟的人材雖研討偏向各有分歧，但都能表現經濟學潮水從理論建模向“實證微觀經濟學”的改變，後者是對真實天下的道理剖析，經常要睜開龐雜的試驗，或應用大批的數據。如許的事情須要很多研討助手，舉行包含社會學、電腦科學等範疇的跨學科研討，尖端電子盤算技巧的運用，是上一代人沒法想象的。
在全部領先的經濟學院系，這類趨向都不言而喻——在那些氣力壯大的傳統經濟學院系，也有許多學者在舉行實證微觀經濟學類的研討，好比麻省理工的埃斯特·迪弗洛(Esther Duflo)有關若何磨練反抗環球貧苦的辦法的研討，哈佛大學的小羅蘭·G·費賴爾(Roland G. Fryer Jr.)在種族不屈等的本源方面的研討。然則，比來和斯坦福大學簽約的學者們表現，該校特別合適做這種研討，由於它有試驗室空間、充分的研討預算和唾手可得的工程人材。
“以前在芝加哥大學事情，我也很高興，但斯坦福似乎有種讓人高興的感到，並且這裏確切在造詣些一些器械，”基恩茨科夫說道。“作為一所大學，斯坦福今朝現實上處在異常有益的地位，並且它仿佛異常故意將這些資本用於經濟學前沿範疇的研討。”
最新加盟的學者表現，他們的薪酬水溫和以前地點的大學差未幾，只不外在有些情形下他們手上的科研預算加倍裕如些。教務長約翰·W·埃切門迪(John W. Etchemendy)表現，斯坦福大學的雇用事情從該校的跨院系互助中獲益許多，由於經濟學家會和諸如盤算機科學和統計系的學者交換思惟，同享資本。
2012年從哈佛跳槽到斯坦福的羅斯枚舉了他本身在腎臟移植方面的研討事情。他一向致力於樹立一個“配對交流”體系，經由過程這一體系，那些因血型、抗原或抗體不立室而沒法給摯愛親朋募捐腎臟的人，可以將腎臟募捐授與之立室、同時又有救濟意願可以給其別人募捐器官的腎臟接收者。他在和醫學院、工程學院的同事互助。“如許的體系在盤算上是異常龐雜的，”他說。
與此同時，切蒂也看到專註於應用大數據的研討會有如何的好處，這類大型研討的體例和剖析異常艱苦。好比，他所做的項目就研討了幼兒園西席的品德是不是會對一小我將來的生存和收入發生連續性的影響。
“灣區吸惹人之處就在於，它在數據、辦法和機械進修方面，存在一些使人高興的機會，”他說。那類研討所須要的試驗室空間與硬科學更靠近——斯坦福應用了這一點。
相對於不那末清晰的是，明星經濟學者在斯坦福大學紮堆，是不是也能構成其他頂尖大學已具有的一脈相承的學派。
以米爾頓·弗裏德曼(Milton Friedman)為代表的芝加哥經濟學派，是新古典思惟中的俊彥，他們誇大市場的效力和當局幹涉的危害。麻省理工學院經濟學系一向秉持凱恩斯的傳統，造就出多位身居高位的經濟決議計劃人士，在曩昔幾年引領天下經濟渡過了重重風浪。
“不存在甚麽斯坦福學派，”斯坦福大學經濟學傳授B·道格拉斯·伯恩海姆(B. Douglas Bernheim)說。“這不是一個講求學說之處。學說每每會簡化事物，而咱們愈來愈意想到，咱們所要盡力辦理的社集會題是極其撲朔迷離的。在斯坦福，咱們的重要共鳴是，研討職員必需對各類研討辦法和思惟方法堅持開寧神態，但在本身的研討上則要嚴厲、完全和謹嚴地采取最高尺度。”
換句話說，更主要的不是學者得出如何的詳細結論，而是得出結論的進程。
“我感到這對經濟學而言，是一種提高，”切蒂說道。“我以為從事此類研討的斯坦福，會成為另外一個可以和哈佛和麻省理工經濟學系相媲美的頂級院系，這種研討證實經濟學範疇的研討正在變得加倍深刻。這對全部天下來講，都是天大的功德——我不以為這長短此即彼的零和遊戲。”
在比來的學者招募中，斯坦福大概已另有一個天賜的機密兵器。“連本年的氣象都很合營咱們，”伯恩海姆說。“客歲冬季波士頓九尺深的大雪確定有利益。”
【參考譯文】
The center of gravity for economic thought in the United States has long been found along the two miles in Cambridge, Mass., that run between Harvard University and M.I.T. But there is new competition for that title, and it is quite a bit farther west.
Stanford University has lured an all-star lineup of economists to Palo Alto, Calif., in the last few years — and fended off Harvard’s and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s attempts to woo Stanford economists.
The newest Stanford professors include a Nobel laureate — Alvin E. Roth, formerly of Harvard — but the shift is more noticeable among top young economists. Of the 11 people who have won the John Bates Clark Medal for best economist under age 40 since 2000, four are now at Stanford, more than at any other university. Two of them joined in the last few months: the inequality researcher Raj Chetty, who came from Harvard, and Matthew Gentzkow, who left the University of Chicago.
Stanford’s success with economists is part of a larger campaign to stake a claim as the country’s top university. Its draw combines a status as the nation’s “it” university — now with the lowest undergraduate acceptance rate and a narrow No. 2 behind Harvard for the biggest fund-raising haul — with its proximity to many of the world’s most dynamic companies. Its battle with Eastern universities echoes fights in other industries in which established companies, whether hotels or automobile makers, are being challenged by Silicon Valley money and entrepreneurship.
And it is a reflection of a broader shift in the study of economics, in which the most cutting-edge work increasingly relies less on a big-brained individual scholar developing mathematical theories, and more on the ability to crunch extensive sets of data to glean insights about topics as varied as how incomes differ across society and how industries organize themselves.
“Who wouldn’t want to be where the future of the world is being made?” said Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason University (and regular contributor to The New York Times) who often blogs about trends in academic economics. Stanford’s economics department, he said, “has an excitement about it which Boston and Cambridge can’t touch.”
In economics, Stanford has frequently been ranked just behind Harvard, M.I.T., Princeton and the University of Chicago, including in the most recent U.S. News & World Report survey of graduate school rankings, conducted in 2013, and in calculations of which department’s scholars are most frequently cited in academic literature. That might change. In the last four years, Stanford has increased the number of senior faculty by 25 percent, and 11 scholars with millions in cumulative salary have either been recruited from other top programs or resisted poaching attempts by those programs.
That said, Stanford’s reputation in the future may depend less on a few big-name recruits than on its ability to train the Ph.D.s whose scholarship is widely cited and reshapes important economic debates, or who become influential policy makers who advise presidents and lead central banks. The last 10 people to serve as chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers have all had a Ph.D. from either Harvard or M.I.T. (the last without one was Janet L. Yellen, who left the job in 1999, and received hers from Yale). Among the Ph.D. economists who have exerted great influence on global economic policy in recent years, the former Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke; the European Central Bank president, Mario Draghi; the retiring International Monetary Fund chief economist, Olivier Blanchard; and the Fed vice chairman, Stanley Fischer, all studied at M.I.T.
Unsurprisingly, many of those with top East Coast programs view Cambridge’s intellectual leadership role as safe. “Stanford’s keen interest in recruiting Harvard faculty is testimony to our strength,” said David Laibson, chairman of the Harvard economics department. “We’ve got a big target on our back because many of the world’s most exciting, creative, and innovative scholars are on our faculty, and Stanford is rightly going for some of them.” He notes that his department has lots of collaboration with other schools at Harvard, and that nearby M.I.T. and the National Bureau of Economic Research create a deep concentration of economic thinking, and said the department is on a recruiting push of its own.
But the recent recruiting success of Stanford shows something broader about how the economics profession is changing. The specialties of the new recruits vary, but they are all examples of how the momentum in economics has shifted away from theoretical modeling and toward “empirical microeconomics,” the analysis of how things work in the real world, often arranging complex experiments or exploiting large sets of data. That kind of work requires lots of research assistants, work across disciplines including fields like sociology and computer science, and the use of advanced computational techniques unavailable a generation ago.
That trend is evident across leading economics departments — the traditional powerhouses have plenty of scholars doing work in the same vein, including work by Esther Duflo at M.I.T. on how to test ways to fight global poverty and by Roland G. Fryer Jr. at Harvard on the roots of racial inequality. But the scholars who have newly signed on with Stanford described a university particularly well suited to research in that vein, with a combination of lab space, strong budgets for research support and proximity to engineering talent.
“I was very happy where I was in Chicago, but it felt like there is a sense of excitement and really building something at Stanford,” Mr. Gentzkow said. “Stanford as a university is in a really strong position right now, and has a lot of resources, and seems very committed to using those resources to build on the frontier of economics.”
Recent hires said that their compensation packages were about the same as their previous employers offered, though in some cases with more generous research budgets. Provost John W. Etchemendy argued that the university’s recruiting had benefited from cross-departmental work as economists share ideas and resources with, for example, computer science and statistics departments.
Mr. Roth, who joined Stanford from Harvard in 2012, cited his own work on kidney transplants as an example. He has led efforts to build a “paired exchange” system through which people who cannot donate a kidney to a loved one because of a mismatch in blood type, antigens or antibodies can instead donate a kidney to a recipient who is a match and who has a donor willing and able to donate to the other recipient. He collaborates with colleagues from the medical and engineering schools. “This gets very computationally complex,” he said.
Mr. Chetty, meanwhile, saw benefits in the concentration of research that uses Big Data, large sets of research that are hard to compile and analyze. His work has examined, for example, whether the quality of a kindergarten teacher has long-lasting effects on a person’s life and earnings.
“Some of the attraction of the Bay Area is simply the fact that there are exciting opportunities with data and methods and machine learning,” he said. And that type of work requires lab space that more closely resembles that needed in the hard sciences — a fact Stanford has exploited.
Less clear is whether the agglomeration of economic stars at Stanford will ever amount to the kind of coherent school of thought that has been achieved at some other great universities.
The Chicago School, under the intellectual imprint of Milton Friedman, was a leader in neoclassical thought that emphasizes the efficiency of markets and the risks of government intervention. M.I.T.’s economics department has a long record of economic thought in the Keynesian tradition, and it produced several of the top policy makers who have guided the world economy through the tumultuous last several years.
“There isn’t a Stanford school of thought,” said B. Douglas Bernheim, chairman of the university’s economics department. “This isn’t a doctrinaire place. Generally doctrine involves simplification, and increasingly we recognize that these social issues we’re trying to figure out are phenomenally complicated. The consensus at Stanford has focused around the idea that you have to be open to a lot of approaches and ways of thinking about things, and to be rigorous, thorough and careful in bringing the highest standard of craft to bear on your research.”
In other words, it is less about the specific conclusion a scholar reaches, and more about how they get there.
“My sense is this is a good development for economics,” Mr. Chetty said. “I think Stanford is going to be another great department at the level of Harvard and M.I.T. doing this type of work, which is an example of economics becoming a deeper field. It’s a great thing for all the universities — I don’t think it’s a zero-sum game.”
And in its recent recruiting, Stanford may have had a secret weapon, coming from the skies. “Even the weather cooperated with us this year,” Mr. Bernheim said. “Nine feet of snow in Boston this past winter couldn’t have hurt.”
市場價：HK$ 110
