问答题 Americans are much more likely than citizens of other nations to believe that they live in a meritocracy. But this self-image is a fantasy: as a report in The Times last week pointed out, America actually stands out as the advanced country in which it matters most who your parents were, the country in which those born on one of society"s lower rungs have the least chance of climbing to the top or even to the middle.
And if you ask why America is more class-bound in practice than the rest of the western world, a large part of the reason is that our government falls down on the job of creating equal opportunity.
The failure starts early: in America, the holes in the social safety net mean that both low-income mothers and their children are all too likely to suffer from poor nutrition and receive inadequate health care. It continues once children reach school age, where they encounter a system in which the affluent send their kids to good, well-financed public schools or, if they choose, to private schools, while less-advantaged children get a far worse education.
Once they reach college age, those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds are far less likely to go to college—and vastly less likely to go to a top-tier school—than those luckier in their parentage. At the most selective, "tier 1" schools. 74 percent of the entering class comes from the quarter of households that have the highest "socioeconomic status"; only 3 percent comes from the bottom quarter.
And if children from our society"s lower rungs do manage to make it into a good college, the lack of financial support makes them far more likely to drop out than the children of the affluent, even if they have as much or more native ability. One long-term study by the department of education found that students with high test scores but low-income parents were less likely to complete college than students with low scores but affluent parents—loosely speaking, that smart poor kids are less likely than dumb rich kids to get a degree.
It"s no wonder, then, that Horatio Alger stories, tales of poor kids who make good, are much less common in reality than they are in legend—and much less common in America than they are in Canada or Europe. Which brings me back to those who claim to believe in equality of opportunity. Where is the evidence for that claim?
Think about it: someone who really wanted equal opportunity would be very concerned about the inequality of our current system. He would support more nutritional aid for low-income mothers-to-be and young children. He would try to improve the quality of public schools. He would support aid to low-income college students. And he would support what every other advanced country has, a universal health care system, so that nobody need worry about untreated illness or crushing medical bills.
【正确答案】
【答案解析】美国人比其他国家的民众更有可能相信自己生活在精英管理的社会里。但是,这种自期是一种虚妄的想象:正如《泰晤士报》上周的一篇报道所指出的那样,美国实际上是这样一个先进国家,在那里出生门第至为重要,在这个国家,出生于社会下层的人要爬到上层或者哪怕是中层,其机会微乎其微。
若要问比起西方世界其他国家,在美国为什么人们实际上更受制于阶级出生,大部分原因在于我们的政府未能履行好创造平等机会的职责。
政府的失职很早就显现了:在美国,社会安全网中的诸多漏洞意味着低收入的母亲及其子女都极有可能出现营养不良,而且得不到足够的医疗保健。等孩子到了上学的年龄,问题依然如故,他们所面临的体制是:富人把自己的子女送进教学质量好、资金充裕的公立学校,或者他们愿意的话,送进私立学校;而穷人家的孩子所接受的教育则差得远了。
等到了上大学的年龄,来自贫寒家庭的人比起家境较好的子女,进大学的几率要低得多,进顶级大学的可能性就更小。在录取要求最严格的一流大学里,有百分之七十四的新生来自“社会经济地位”最高的家庭,出生底层家庭的只占百分之三。
就算我们社会下层人家的孩子最终得以进入好的大学,但由于缺乏财力支持,他们辍学的可能性比富家子弟高得多,即使他们具有同样的或高于富家子弟的天资。教育部的一项长期研究显示,考分高但父母收入低的学生比考分低但父母富裕的学生读完大学的可能性来得低,大体说来,聪明的穷孩子获得学位的可能性比愚笨的富家子弟要小。
这就难怪霍雷肖·阿尔杰的小说所写的穷小子发大财的故事,在现实中远不如传说的那样常见,在美国远不如在加拿大或欧洲那样常见。说到这里,又让我想起那些宣称相信在美国人人机会平等的人。他们说“机会平等”,证据在哪儿?
想象一下:真正想要平等机会的人会非常关注我们现行制度中的不平等现象。他会支持为低收入的孕妇和小孩子提供更多的营养食物。他会努力改进公立学校的质量。他会支持给低收入的大学生提供资助。而且,他还会支持其他每一个先进国家都有的全民医疗保健体系,从而不会有人为生病得不到医治或高昂的医疗费而发愁。