(单词翻译:单击)
听力文本
U.S. presidential candidates are talking about the problem of high costs in higher education.
From 2002 until 2012, tuition increased by around 39 percent, on average, among public or government-funded universities. Among private universities, it rose around 16 percent on average.
The presidential candidates agree that the cost of education is a problem, but they disagree about what to do about it.
What do the Democrats propose?
The two main Democratic contenders are Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. They both have plans for addressing the high cost of education.
Hillary Clinton's plan is called the New College Compact.
The plan calls for giving grants to states. Grants are money given to states from the federal government. They help boost other financial aid to students, and help pay for living costs and tuition.
Under Clinton's plan, community colleges would be tuition-free.
She also proposes reducing interest rates on student loans, giving support to private colleges, and basing loan repayment on a graduate's income.
Clinton says her plan will be paid for by limiting tax spending on wealthy taxpayers. She estimates the cost of the plan would be around $350 billion over 10 years.
Bernie Sanders offers a plan with six steps. The first step is to make tuition free at public colleges and universities. The second step is to stop the federal government from profiting on the interest on student loans.
Other steps include reducing interest rates students pay to borrow money and allowing students to refinance student loans. Sanders also favors need-based financial aid and work study programs.
Sanders proposes paying for this plan by making 'Wall Street speculators' pay a tax. Sanders estimates the cost of the program to be around $75 billion a year.
"We have a crisis in higher education today. Too many of our young people cannot afford a college education, and many of those who are leaving school are faced with crushing debt."
What do the Republican candidates propose?
There are three front-runners in the Republican Party: Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump.
Rubio is the only one who has officially shown a plan for dealing with high costs.
Rubio says he does not think tax money should support the current higher education system. He also says that universities raise fees too often, and too quickly.
"The higher ed cartel pushes skyrocketing tuition and degrees that don't lead to jobs. Yesterday's leaders want to raise taxes and dump more money into this broken system."
Rubio's plan proposes that students apply for "Student Investment Plans." These plans would link students to private investors. In return for funding from investors, students would pay back part of their income to those investors for a set number of years.
Unlike loans, students would not have to pay back the full amount that they borrow from private investors. However, they would still have to pay a percentage of their income for the amount of time that they agreed to.
Repayment based on income after graduation would become standard for student loans, says Rubio's website.
Rubio says higher education in the U.S. needs to fit the economy. He recommends increasing access to career and vocational education, encouraging apprenticeships and on-the-job training, and easing access community and state colleges.
Rubio also says he wants to make statistics -- such as graduation rates, average student debt, and the likelihood of employment after graduating -- available to students and families.
What about the candidates who don't have official plans?
Neither Donald Trump nor Ted Cruz has officially released plans for dealing with high costs in education. However, both men have spoken about dealing with high costs.
In an interview with the Hill, Donald Trump criticized the federal government for making a profit on student loans. He suggests that the government should not make money from student loans. In his words:
"That's probably one of the only things the government shouldn't make money off — I think it's terrible that one of the only profit centers we have is student loans."
In 2012, Ted Cruz suggested that financial aid be given by states, not the federal government. In Cruz's words:
"We should take the funding, give it to the states and put the states in the position to make the decisions how to have the greatest impact in their communities."
Which plans would have the greatest success?
Some experts, such as N. Gregory Mankiw, a professor at Harvard, do not think that the plans of the presidential candidates will work well.
The problem with Sanders' plan, writes Mankiw, is that it doesn't make college free. It forces taxpayers to pay for the college education of others.
Mankiw says that the government faces long-term budget problems. It must pay for Social Security and other government programs. He says it is not a good idea to add another new, costly government program.
Mankiw suggests that Rubio's plan suffers from a different problem: it is not clear that private investors would support students. Even if investors support students, they may only choose to support certain types of students.
Beth Akers, an expert at the Brookings Institute, criticized Clinton's plan. Akers suggested that Clinton's plan wastes money.
Clinton's plan calls for allowing students to refinance their loans. However, the households with the largest loan debts also tend to be wealthy households. This means, writes Akers, that Clinton's plan is helping wealthy families more than poor families. In other words, Clinton's plan does not give relief to the borrowers who need it the most.
Akers also says that the $350 billion dollar cost of the program is probably low. She thinks Clinton's program would cost much more than that.
The debate over what to do about the problem of expensive higher education is likely to continue for some time.
I'm John Russell.
And I'm Jill Robbins.
词汇解释
1.repayment n. 偿还；[金融] 付还
He failed to meet last Friday's deadline for repayment of a $114 million loan.
他在上周五的最后期限内未能偿还$1.14亿的贷款。
2.skyrocketing n. 价格飞涨；突涨，飞升 v. 火箭式地上升；鲁莽行事（skyrocket的ing形式）
Production has dropped while prices and unemployment have skyrocketed.
在物价和失业人数猛增的同时，生产却下降了。
3.apprenticeship n. 学徒期；学徒身分
After serving his apprenticeship as a toolmaker, he became a manager.
在完成了工具匠的学徒期之后，他当上了经理。
4.refinance vt. 再供…资金；再为…筹钱
A loan was arranged to refinance existing debt.
一笔贷款被安排来偿还已有的债务。
内容解析
1.Yesterday's leaders want to raise taxes and dump more money into this broken system.
dump into 把…倾倒入…；向…倾销
Western countries often dumped surplus goods into Third World countries.
西方国家常向第三世界国家倾销剩余货物。
The company dumped to toxic wastes into this canal.
这家公司把有毒废物倾倒入这条支流。
2.In other words, Clinton's plan does not give relief to the borrowers who need it the most.
give relief to 救济
Sugar gives quick relief to hunger but provides no lasting nourishment.
糖能快速缓解饥饿感，但不能提供持久的营养。
Give relief to the unemployed.
救济失业
参考译文
美国总统候选人们在谈论高校的高学费问题。
2002到2012年，公立大学的学费增长了大约39%，私立大学的学费平均增长了16%。
总统候选人们认为高学费是个问题，但在如何解决这个问题上他们存有分歧。
民主党人是怎么提议的呢？
民主党的两位主要候选人是希拉里·克林顿和伯尼·桑德斯，两人都有解决学费高昂的方案。
希拉里·克林顿的计划叫做“新大学合约”。
该方案呼吁给各州提供补助金，补助金是联邦政府拨给各州的资金，可以帮助推动给学生其他财政支持，帮助他们支付生活成本和学费。
根据克林顿的方案，社会大学应该完全免费。
她还提议减低学生贷款利率，给私立大学提供支持，根据毕业生收入制定还款计划。
克林顿说可以通过限制给高收入纳税者提供税收开支来筹资，她估计该计划10年内需大约3500亿美元的资金。
伯尼·桑德斯提出了六步走计划，第一步是实现公立学院和大学免费，第二步是联邦政府停止从学生贷款利息中获利。
其他步骤包括，降低学生贷款利率，允许学生对学生贷款进行再融资，桑德斯还支持根据需要提供金融支持和勤工俭学项目。
桑德斯提出通过让“华尔街投机者”纳税来为该方案融资，桑德斯估计该方案每年需要大约750亿美元。
“今天我们在高等教育方面遇到危机，太多的年轻人支付不起大学学费，很多毕业生面临沉重债务负担。”
共和党候选人是如何提议的呢？
共和党有三名领先者：马克罗·鲁比奥、泰德·科鲁兹和唐纳德·特朗普。
鲁比奥是唯一一位正式提出解决高学费方案的候选人。
鲁比奥说他认为纳税者的钱不应该用来支持目前的高等教育体系，他说大学涨学费频繁。
“高等教育卡特尔集团将学费和学位推到天价高，结果却找不到工作，昨天的领导人们希望增税，把更多钱补在这个糟糕的体系上。”
鲁比奥的方案建议学生申请“学生投资计划”，该计划将学生与私人投资者联系起来，学生得到投资者提供的资金后，可以在若干年内把部分收入还给投资者。
与贷款不同的是，学生无需偿还从私人投资者那里借到的全额资金，而是在协议时间内把自己一定比例的收入还给投资者。
鲁比奥的网站上表示，根据毕业生收入制定的还款计划将成为学生贷款的标准。
鲁比奥说美国的高等教育需要与经济相匹配，他建议推出更多职业培训，鼓励学徒制和在岗培训，让更多人能上社区大学和州立大学学习。
鲁比奥还说他希望给学生和学生家人提供一些统计数据，比如毕业率、学生平均贷款量、毕业后的就业率等。
那些没有提出正式方案的候选人呢？
唐纳德·特朗普和泰德·科鲁兹都没有正式发布解决高学费问题的方案，但两人都谈到要解决高学费问题。
在接受《国会山报》的采访时，唐纳德·特朗普批评联邦政府从学生贷款中获利，他建议政府不要这么做，他是这么说的：
“这可能是政府唯一不应该挣钱的地方，学生贷款是能让政府盈利的地方之一，这一点很可怕。”
2012年，泰德·科鲁兹建议财政援助应该由各州提供，而不是联邦政府，科鲁兹是这么说的：
“我们应该让各州提供资金，让各州自己决定如何给社区产生最大的影响。”
哪个方案能取得最大的成功呢？
哈佛大学的N·格里高利·曼昆等专家认为总统候选人的这些方案都不会很有效。
曼昆撰文称，桑德斯的方案在于它未能让大学免费，而是迫使纳税人为别人支付学费。
曼昆说政府面临长期的预算问题，必须为社会保障等政府项目买单，他说增加其他高成本的政府新项目不是个好主意。
曼昆称鲁比奥的方案会面临另一个不同的问题，并不清楚私人投资者会支持学生，即使有投资者愿意，他们可能也只会帮助一定类型的学生。
布鲁克林研究所的专家贝斯·埃克斯批评了克林顿的方案，他说克林顿的方案是在浪费钱。
克林顿的方案要求允许学生对贷款进行再融资，然而，那些借款最多的家庭也往往是富裕家庭，这意味着克林顿的方案是在更多地帮助富有家庭而不是穷人，也就是说，克林顿的方案并没有帮助到最需要帮助的贷款者。
埃克斯说3500亿美元的资金对于克林顿的项目来说可能少了，她说该项目所需资金不止这么多。
有关如何解决高学费问题的辩论可能还将继续一段时间。
我是约翰·拉塞尔。
我是吉尔·鲁宾斯。
