異類之不一樣的成功啟示錄 第52期:所謂好學(xué)校的列表
要是看看獲得諾貝爾醫(yī)學(xué)獎(jiǎng)的25位美國(guó)人畢業(yè)的大學(xué)名單：
you'll be surprised at what you'd find.
你會(huì)因自己的發(fā)現(xiàn)大吃一驚
Some of them won to Yale and Columbia and MIT, but some of them also went to DePauw, Holy Cross, and Gettysburg College.
以上的高校有耶魯，有哥倫比亞，有麻省理工，但也有迪堡，有圣十字，有蓋茨堡。
It's a list of good schools, much the same thing holds true for the colleges of the Nobel Prize winners in chemistry.
這就是所謂好學(xué)校的列表。同樣的也包括下面的近年來(lái)摘得諾貝爾化學(xué)獎(jiǎng)桂冠的25個(gè)美國(guó)人畢業(yè)的高校。
Harvard's on the list with so a lot of schools that we don't think of as the best in the land.
我們并不認(rèn)為包括哈佛大學(xué)在內(nèi)的列表上的所有學(xué)校都是較好的培育人才之地。
To be a Nobel Prize winner, apparently, you have to be smart enough to get into a college
當(dāng)然，要想獲得諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)，你的聰明才智最少應(yīng)該能夠保證
that's at least as good as Notre Dame or the University of Illinois. That's all.
自己進(jìn)入圣母大學(xué)或者伊利諾伊大學(xué)這個(gè)層次的高校。除此之外，別無(wú)其他捷徑。
This is a radical idea, isn't it?
這種觀點(diǎn)是不是比較偏激？
Suppose that your teenage daughter found out that she'd been accepted at two universities, Harvard University and Georgetown University.
假如你十兒歲的女兒發(fā)現(xiàn)自己必須在兩所大學(xué)——哈佛大學(xué)和位于華盛頓特區(qū)的喬治敦大學(xué)之間做出選擇，
Where would you want her to go?
你會(huì)希望她進(jìn)入哪所大學(xué)？
I'm guessing Harvard, becasue Harvard is a "better" school.
我想你會(huì)選擇哈佛，因?yàn)楣鹗?ldquo;好”學(xué)校。
Its students score a good ten to fifteen percent higher on their SATs,
在美國(guó)大學(xué)本科標(biāo)準(zhǔn)入學(xué)考試(SAT)中，
the dressed up IQ test that virtually all American high school students have to take before applying to college.
只有分?jǐn)?shù)處于前面10%或者15%的學(xué)生才可能進(jìn)入哈佛。
But given what we are learning about intelligence, the idea that students can be ranked, like runners in a race, makes no sense.
但如果按照我們已知的智力方面的知識(shí)，像分出跑步運(yùn)動(dòng)員的名次一樣，對(duì)高校進(jìn)行排名，卻是毫無(wú)意義的。
Georgetown's students may not be as smart on an absolute scale as the students of Harvard.
從IQ的絕對(duì)分值來(lái)看，喬治敦大學(xué)的學(xué)生也許沒(méi)哈佛大學(xué)的學(xué)生聰明，
But they are all, clearly, smart enough, and future Nobel Prize winners come from schools like Georgetown as well as from schools like Harvard.
然而毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)的是，他們都是聰明的，跟哈佛的畢業(yè)生一樣將來(lái)獲得諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)。
The psychologists Barry Schwartz recently proposed that elite schools give up on their complex admission's process
近來(lái)，心理學(xué)家貝瑞.史瓦茲呼吁名牌高校放棄他們復(fù)雜的入學(xué)測(cè)試程序，
and simply hold a lottery for everyone above the threshold.
只要讓那些達(dá)到高校入學(xué)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的學(xué)生像抽獎(jiǎng)中彩票一樣隨機(jī)選擇高校就可以了。
"Put people into two categories, Schwartz says.
“可以把學(xué)生分成兩個(gè)群體，”
"Good enough and not good enough. The ones who are good enough get put into a hat. And those who are not good enough get rejected."
史瓦茲說(shuō)，“夠格的和不夠格的。夠格的人可以被接納，不夠格的人就要拒之門外。”
Schwartz conceits that his idea has virtually no chance of being accepted. But he's absolutely right.
雖然史瓦茲也承認(rèn)他的想法在現(xiàn)實(shí)當(dāng)中無(wú)法被人們接受，但他說(shuō)的絕對(duì)是正確的。
As Hudson writes (and keep in mind that he did his research at elite all-male English Boarding schools in the 1950s and 1960s),
正如哈德森寫的那樣（記得他在20世紀(jì)50年代和60年代之間，曾對(duì)英國(guó)頂尖的男生寄宿學(xué)校進(jìn)行了調(diào)査）：
"Knowledge of a boy's IQ is of little help if you are faced with a formful of clever boys."
“如果你遇到的了—個(gè)真正聰明的小孩，那就完全沒(méi)有必要知道他的IQ是多少。”
