何毓琦：麻省理工與哈佛博士教育之比較

編者按：現根據部分網民的要求，全文翻譯《麻省理工與哈佛博士教育之比較
》一文，希望對中國讀者有所幫助。

我成年後的整個生活幾乎都是在馬薩諸塞州的劍橋市渡過的。我從麻省理工獲得本科和碩士學位，從哈佛獲得博士學位，然後從1961年起一直在哈佛任教。這兩所學校相距不到兩英里（譯者註：3.2公里左右），學生們可以互相選課，在一所學校學習可以獲得另一學校的學分。在科學技術領域，兩所學校開辦了很多聯合學位方向，研究人員也經常合作。
然而，兩校在教育理念和教育傳統方面有諸多差異，很值得對比研究。
麻省理工的規模要大得多，學生人數和課程也多得多，他們努力確保其畢業生能夠達到一個比較高的平均水平。從麻省理工畢業的人，肯定擁有某個專業的知識和技能，而且能夠獨力學習新知識。麻省理工的每門課業都相當繁重，大小考試不斷。學生必須在這些考試測驗中表現優異才能獲得這門課的高分。我記得1955年離開麻省理工投身工業界的時候，我對電子學和伺服系統的最新進展知道得很多，可以立即着手研究這些領域的前沿問題。
然而我的第一任老闆也是個麻省理工博士，他派我去學習電子計算機，當時這是一個全新的領域。我對計算機一無所知，但是在麻省理工的訓練使我完全能夠自學。因此我後來在數字和電子控制方面取得了三項專利，還寫出了我在這方面的第一篇論文。實際上，1958年我決定重返校園的時候，那家公司專門成立了一個部門來將我的發明產業化。
相反，哈佛大學的教育理念就更自由化一些。儘管哈佛學生要讀的書也很多，考試測驗卻很少。常見的情況是，一門課的成績完全由一篇期末論文或者一次期末考試來決定，甚至連博士資格考試也主要依靠一次三個小時的口頭答辯，而不是像麻省理工那樣既要通過複雜的書面考試又要通過答辯。（作者註：因為各系有權規定本系的資格考試細節，我這裡講的是總的情況。）
簡而言之，麻省理工的教學目標是確保每個學生成為某個方面的專家，而哈佛採取了一種更“放任自流”的態度。如果某個學生有點小聰明又不太刻苦，只要選那些容易的課程，再找幾個不那麼嚴厲的導師，也能獲得博士學位，還有大把自由活動的時間供自己隨心所欲地支配。
因為我受中國傳統教育長大，又在麻省理工求學多年，我剛到哈佛的時候很不習慣，覺得他們的做法太古怪了，我經常奇怪這個或那個專業的學生怎麼連這個或那個都不懂，有時候我甚至質疑某個學生憑什麼得到哈佛的博士學位。
但是天長日久，我開始改變看法，我開始發現這兩種精英培養理念、教育思路都有其可取之處，必要之處。
麻省理工是批量生產，所以必須保證向社會輸出大批合格的畢業生。對學業的種種規定和嚴格的考試有助於確保其“產品”的質量。相比之下，哈佛的科學技術學科的規模要小得多，所以目標也不一樣。（作者註：哈佛的整個應用科學和工程學院只有麻省理工電子工程系三分之一那麼大。）
哈佛的教育理念更加開放自由，它不打算同麻省理工競爭，也不打算覆蓋所有應用科學和工程技術學科。它鼓勵學生廣泛涉獵其它領域，到其它系去選課，比方說經濟系和哲學系。從某種意義上說，它希望它的學生享有獨立探索的自由，而不是投機取巧。大致說來，麻省理工設下了較高的產品平均質量標準，而且質量水平比較均勻，而哈佛也設下了較高的平均標準，但是畢業生的水平參差不齊，有的遠遠高於平均水平，有的則遠遠低於平均水平。這一點可以從哈佛與麻省理工的畢業生獲得諾貝爾獎的人數和孕育的高科技公司的數量對比上得到部分驗證——儘管兩所學校在這兩方面都取得了傑出的成績，但是哈佛孕育了更多的諾貝爾獎獲得者，而麻省理工孕育了更多的高科技公司。
我這樣說，並不是為了證明其中一所學校的教育理念比另一所的更優越。這兩者都為偉大的國家所需要，而且這世上並沒有什麼所謂的最好的教育理念，只有一個共同的目標——那就是教育學生，從而使學生掌握獨立學習的能力，掌握提出問題而不僅僅是解決問題的能力。
另外一點值得注意的是，麻省理工和哈佛大學都是私立學校，因此他們不受政府法律法規的限制，在教學內容、教學方法、教學對象上擁有獨立自主權。早年我訪問中國的時候，常常抱怨中國教育和研究體制中條條框框太多，而且重數量不重質量。但是最近我開始意識到在發展中國家的過渡期，麻省理工的方法更有效，規章制度不嚴，就會天下大亂。當這個國家逐漸成熟，開始與世界接軌，向世界一流看齊的時候，將麻省理工與哈佛的理念結合在一起就很有必要了，當然這也要看各個學校的性質、規模和目標。（作者註：美國高等教育的質量參差不齊，從500美元一張的郵購博士畢業證到一流的以教學為主的學院，到頂尖的研究性公立和私立大學不等。）
（科學網 何姣譯）

On Ph.D Education and Research (4)- MIT vs. Harvard

I spent almost my entire adult life (9/1950-2/1955, 2/1958-date) in Cambridge, MA and

received my B.S. and M.S. from MIT, and Ph.D from Harvard and taught at the latter

since 1961. The two schools are separated by less than two miles from each other.

Students from each school can take course from the other school and receive credit for

work done in the other school. In science and technology, the two schools have many

cooperative degree programs and colleagues often work together (NOTE: in the medical

science and technology they have a joint Ph.D and M.D. program and its most illustrious

graduate is David Ho, 何大一, the inventor of AIDS cocktail medicine, and foreign

member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering).

However, the two schools follow rather different educational philosophy and tradition

which are worth comparing.

MIT, being much larger in the number of students and courses, strives for guaranteeing

the high average quality of her graduates. You can be sure that a MIT graduate possesses

certain knowledge and skill and the ability to learn on his/her own. In each course, there

was always much home work, examinations and tests. You must do well on them in order

to receive a good grade. I remember when I left MIT for an industrial research job in

industry in 1955, I was well equipped with the latest in electronics and servomechanism

and was ready to tackle problems in those areas. My first boss, also an MIT Ph.D, instead

assigned me to learn all about the then nascent area of digital computers. I did not know

anything about digital computers. But MIT has prepared me well to learn on my own. As

a result, I received three patents on numerical and digital control and wrote my first paper

on the subject. The company actually established a division to commercialize the

inventions in 1958 when I decided to return to school.

Harvard, on the other hand, has a more liberal educational philosophy. While there are

heavy reading assignments, examination and tests are few. Often the entire course grade

is based on one term paper or one final exam. Ph.D qualifying examination are based on

one three hour oral examination as opposed to both extensive written and oral

examinations in the case of MIT (Note: detail regulations for qualifying exams are

determined by individual departments and many vary. I am only talking about general

principles here). Thus, in short, MIT wants to make sure that you KNOW certain things

while Harvard takes a more "lassie faire" attitude. A smart but lazy student can get

through Harvard by taking easy courses, work with not-so-strict advisers, and generally

have a lot of free time to do as s/he pleases. Given my Chinese upbringing and the MIT

training, I first found the Harvard approach rather un-nerving and un-settling. I often

wonder how can a student in this and that area not know such-and-such topic. Sometimes,

I even question how can this student qualify to receive a Ph.D degree from Harvard. But

over the years, I began to change my mind and see the wisdom and necessity of both

approaches to education and excellence. Being a volume producer, MIT has the

responsibility of graduating a large number of qualified students for society. Rigorous

testing and regulations on what students need to know are necessary to guarantee the

standard of her product. Harvard has a much smaller effort can aim differently (Note: the

entire school of applied science and engineering at Harvard is only one third the size of

the electrical engineering department of MIT). Harvard takes a more liberal attitude, does

not attempt to compete with MIT and cover every subject in applied science and

engineering. She encourages her students to range widely and take courses in other

departments, such as economics and philosophy. In a sense, she wants her good students

free to explore on their own and not to take the easiest way out. To put it very roughly,

MIT aims for high average and a narrow variance for her products while Harvard also

aims for a high average but permit more variance in hers. One partial evidence of this can

be seen in the number of Nobel prizes and high tech companies nurtured by Harvard vs.MIT

respectively – both have excellent records but Harvard is ahead in one category while

MIT in the other. By this I do not mean one approach is better than the other. A great country needs both. And there

is no one best educational philosophy but one common endeavor

– to educate you so that you can learn on your own and to be able to pose

problems rather than just solve problems. It is also worth noting both

MIT and Harvard are private institutions which means they are not subject

government regulations on what to teach, how to teach, and whom to teach.

In my earlier days of visiting China, I often complain about the excessive regulation and

quantitative vs qualitative measure in the Chinese educational and research system. But

more lately, I realize that in a developing country, the MIT approach perhaps is more

needed during the transitional phase. Without regulations and strict control, chaos and

abuse can prevail (天下大亂). As she matures and begins to ahere to the world standard

for quality, a combination of the MIT and Harvard approach can be then implemented.

This will also depends on the nature, size, and goal of the school involved (Note:

the range of quality of American higher education covers a wide spectrum ranging

from mail-order $500 ph.d. diploma mill to first rank teaching colleges to top

research public and private universities.).
本文引用地址：http://www.sciencetimes.com.cn/blog/user_content.aspx?id=2768