The Student Union

August 8, 2022

8 . If spending is a measure of what matters, then the people of the developing world place a high value on brains. While private spending on education has not changed much in the rich world in the past ten years, in China and India it has more than doubled. Since brainpower is the primary generator of progress, this burst of enthusiasm for investing in private education is excellent news for the world. But not everybody is delighted. Because private education increases inequality, some governments are trying to stop its advance. That’s wrong: they should welcome it, and spread its benefits more widely.

① Education used to be provided by religious institutions or entrepreneurs. But when governments, starting in Prussia in the 18th century, got into the business of nation-building, they realized they could use education to shape young minds. As state systems grew, private schooling was left to the elite and the pious(虔诚的). Now it is enjoying popularity again, for several reasons. Incomes are rising, especially among the better off, at the same time as birth rates are falling. In China the former one-child policy means that six people---two parents and four grandparents---can pour money into educating a single child.

② All over the developing world, people want more or better education than governments provide. Where cities are growing at unmanageable speed, the private education is taking up the slack. In India the private education now educates nearly half of all children, in Pakistan more than a third, and in both countries the state education is shrinking. Even where the state does pretty well, as in East Asia, richer people still want better schooling for their children than the masses get. Thus, Vietnam, which has an outstanding state-school system for a poor country, measured by its performance in the OECD’s PISA test, also has the fastest-growing private education.

③ In most ways, this is an excellent thing, because the world is getting more and better schooling.

In rich countries, once the background and ability of the children who attend private schools are taken into account, their exams results are about the same as those in the state education. But in developing countries private schools are better---and much more efficient. A study of eight Indian states found that, in terms of learning outcomes per rupee, private schools were between 1.5 times and 29 times more cost-effective than state schools.

④ They tend to sort children by income, herding richer ones towards better schools that will enhance their already superior life chances. That is one reason why many governments are troubled by their rise.

Governments are right to worry about private education’s contribution to inequality, but they are wrong to discourage its growth. Governments should instead focus on improving the public education by mimicking(模仿) the private education’s virtues. Freedom from independent management is at the root of its superior performance and greater efficiency. Governments should therefore do their best to give school principals more freedom to innovate and to fire underperforming teachers.

To spread the benefit of private schools more widely, governments should work with them, paying for education through vouchers(代金券) which children can spend in private schools. And vouchers should be limited to students in non-selective schools that do not charge top-up fees; otherwise governments will find themselves helping the better off and increasing inequality.

The world faces plenty of problems. Governments should stop behaving as though private education were one of them. It will, rather, increase the chances of finding solutions.

9 . Abraham Lincoln turns 200 this year, and he’s beginning to show his age. When his birthday arrives, on February 12, Congress will hold a special joint session in the Capitol’s National Statuary Hall, a wreath (花环) will be laid at the great memorial in Washington, and a webcast will link school classrooms for a "teach-in" honoring his memory.

Admirable as they are, though, the events will strike many of us Lincoln fans as inadequate, even halfhearted — and another sign that our appreciation for the 16th president and his towering achievements is slipping away. And you don’t have to be a Lincoln enthusiast to believe that this is something we can’t afford to lose.

Compare this year’s celebration with the Lincoln centennial, in 1909. That year, Lincoln’s likeness made its debut on the penny, thanks to approval from the U. S. Secretary of the Treasury. Communities. and civic associations in every comer of the country erupted in parades, concerts, balls, lectures, and military displays. We still feel the effects today: The momentum unloosed in 1909 led to the Lincoln Memorial, opened in 1922, and the Lincoln Highway, the first paved transcontinental thoroughfare (大道) .

The celebrants in 1909 had a few inspirations we lack today. Lincoln’s presidency was still a living memory for countless Americans. In 2009 we are farther in time from the end of the Second World War than they were from the Civil War; families still felt the loss of loved ones from that awful national trauma (创伤) .

But Americans in 1909 had something more: an unembarrassed appreciation for heroes and an acute sense of the way that even long-dead historical figures press in on the present and make us who we are.

One story will illustrate what I’m talking about.

In 2003 a group of local citizens arranged to place a statue of Lincoln in Richmond, Virginia, former capital of the Confederacy (南方联邦). The idea touched off a firestorm of controversy. The Sons of Confederate Veterans held a public conference of carefully selected scholars to “reassess” the legacy of Lincoln. The verdict — no surprise — was negative: Lincoln was labeled everything from a racist totalitarian to a teller of dirty jokes.

I covered the conference as a reporter, but what really unnerved me was a counter-conference of scholars to refute the earlier one. These scholars drew a picture of Lincoln that only our touchy-feely age could recall. The man who oversaw the most savage war in our history was described — by his admirers, remember — as “nonjudgmental,” “unmoralistic,” “comfortable with ambiguity (模棱两可) .”

I felt the way a friend of mine felt as we later watched the unveiling of the Richmond statue in a subdued (征服) ceremony: “But he’s so small!”

The statue in Richmond was indeed small; like nearly every Lincoln statue put up in the past half century, it was life-size and was placed at ground level, a conscious rejection of the heroic — approachable and human, yes, but not something to look up to.

The Richmond episode taught me that Americans have lost the language to explain Lincoln’s greatness even to ourselves. Earlier generations said they wanted their children to be like Lincoln: principled, kind, compassionate, resolute. Today we want Lincoln to be like us.

“This helps to explain the long string of recent books in which writers have presented a Lincoln made after their own image. We’ve had Lincoln as humorist and Lincoln as manic-depressive, Lincoln the business sage, the conservative Lincoln and the liberal Lincoln, the emancipator and the racist, the stoic philosopher, the Christian, the atheist (无神论者) — Lincoln over easy (两面煎的) and Lincoln scrambled (把…搅乱) .

What’s often missing, though, is the timeless Lincoln, the Lincoln whom all generations, our own no less than that of 1909, can lay claim to. Lucky for us, those memorializers from a century ago — and, through them, Lincoln himself — have left us a hint of where to find him. The Lincoln Memorial is the most visited of our presidential monuments. Here is where we find the Lincoln who endures: in the words he left us, defining the country we’ve inherited. Here is the Lincoln who can be endlessly renewed and who, 200 years after his birth, retains the power to renew us.

10 . Last year, I was speaking at a gathering of wealthy male investors. The organizers posted the ____of a survey showing that only a small percentage of wealthy men believed their wives spent too much.

“What?” ____one participant, “Those guys have to be lying.”

There is no reliable ____of who spends more among the rich: men or women. Both will say the other is the ____spender.

A recent survey by Wilmington Trust, Campden Research and Relative Solutions proves the ____. The companies polled 40 women (I know, that is more like a show of hands than “survey”), each with a net worth of $25 million or more.

About half the respondents（受调查者） inherited（继承） their ___, a quarter ___ it from their husbands and the other quarter earned it __. That is roughly in line with other surveys of __ women and the source of their money. One interesting note: among the self-made women, 90% got their money from owning a business, rather than ____ a salary.

As for ____, almost all the women (90%) described their spending habits as “below their means.” The report on the survey said that is possibly ____ they do not view their extreme wealth as defining their success.

“Women tend not to spend as much as ____and splash（泼洒得使到处是） their names all over the place,” said one woman in the survey, describing her spending as conservative and her lifestyle as “below the radar.”

Many women also worried about wealth having ____ effects on their children and didn’t want to spend lavishly（挥霍） to ____ a bad example.

At the same time, 70% of the women said they “buy nice things when ____.” And 93.5% of the women said they were responsible for making ____ on major purchases, which ____ that they do a lot of the big spending.

Of course, for truly major purchases a house in Aspen, Colo., a Gulfstream, a Feadship the couple probably makes the decision _____.

But what about other ____ ? Do you think men or women do most of the high-end spending?