最常见的英文写作问题 ――源自200多篇由中国科技类研究生撰写的英文论文 作者:Felicia Brittman 本文目的 中国学者的英文科技论文写作中,最常见的写作问题:语法错误、口语化、格式组织问题(大多数情况下,格式的不当组织妨碍了作者意思的清晰表达)。本文仅作为一个指南服务于中国作者编辑其科技论文。 本文结构 分两节:第一节列举一些在我看来最需注意的问题;第二节列举一些其次要注意的问题,这些问题对于了解一些英文表达的细微差别非常有用。 第一节 “ a , an, the” 最常见的错误是漏写。 使用错误包括:1)该用的时候漏写,2)不需要的时候却出现或画蛇添足,3)正确的冠词用在错误的地方。 冠词,又称限定词或名词标记,包括a, an 和the。 冠词的出现指示一个名词将尾随其后,或者,在冠词及所修饰名词之间还有其他修饰语。a,an修饰一个泛指的名词,the修饰一个特指的名词,名词之前的the,表示该名词是一个已知的、特定的名称。 过长的句子 很长的句子在中国人的英文写作中特别常见,这是中文直译为英文的后果。把几个说明性内容写在一个句子中以表示它们(内容)之间的关系,这在中文写作中是可以接受的,但是,在英文里,每一个主要意思通常都由一个单独的、只包含一个支持性内容的句子来表达。 人们意识到一个句子太长,通常是因为它的长度――60个单词甚至更多,但是,较短长度的句子也可能“太长”,如果它包含了多重陈述并使主要意思模糊不清。怎样避免长句呢?可以把每个句子限定为一个或两个主题。如果作者确实想用一个句子来强调几个主题之间的关系,这时应该使用分号。 另一种类型的超长句子也经常出现在科技论文中,那就是列举。作者给出了大量的数据(通常是各种参数值)并把它们安排在一个句子里,这就制造了一个长句――足足与一个段落长度相当的长句。然而,表达这一类包含大量信息的句子的最好方式却是表格化――用平行排列的着重号或字母开头来列举这些信息。 在一个句子中,先写目的、地点或原因,再写主题 中国作者在引出主题之前,习惯于首先陈述目的、地点、原因、例子或条件(在句子中用作先行状语)。这样做的效果却是,降低了主题思想的重要性,并使读者认为作者喜欢兜圈子。正确的做法是,把主题放在句子的开始,然后说明地点、原因等等。 习惯于把指示时间的词组放在句子的开始 把最重要的主语放在句子的开始以示强调 (即使研究了原文中的2个例子,仍不十分明了作者的意思――译者注) “which / that” 指代不明,引起混淆 “respectively”and “respective” 通常用在句末 “in this paper”,”in this study” 两个错误。首先是使用过多。在一些中国人的文章中,这些短语甚至在一页中出现2次。而母语为英语的作者的文章中,这些短语的使用主要限定于2处: 1. 用在引言和总结中强调文章的内容; 2. 在正文部分出现的in this paper / study,是在提及他人的工作(发表在其他期刊或出版物上的论文)之后。 所以,如果一篇文章中如果3次出现这些短语,它的使用是有问题的。实际上,读者明白文章所展示的工作是由作者完成的(除非作者是另类),所以,没理由重复这些短语。 “study”指作者所完成的工作,而“paper”指这一工作用文字所展示出来的形式,是读者正手持的或阅读的实体。记住,作者还可以用其他短语,比如“in this research”,“this paper presents”,来表达同样的意思。 数字和等式 两个非常常见的错误是有关阿拉伯数字和等式的出现形式。中国作者通常用阿拉伯数字取代其英文拼写。尽管阿拉伯数字本身的使用没有错误,但它们绝不应该出现在句首。 另外,阿拉伯数字往往被过多使用。阿拉伯数字应该用在科技类文章中提供数据,而不应该用来表示一般的数目信息。 这类错误的出现,可能源自普通话是一种符号语言而不是字母语言。因此,中国作者习惯选择写简单的数字符号而不是字母拼写。特别是同时又有等式占据文字位置的情况下,错误使用阿拉伯数字的问题更加严重,英文为母语的人是不会把等式写在文字位置上的。 格式1. 段落 所有的英文段落的第一行都缩进约1英寸,或2个段落之间空1行,后者在商务写作中更常见。 中国学生经常为段落的分合而困惑,他们可能会犯2个错误。其一,他们未能把2个段落区分开来。尽管新的段落以新的一行开始,但新的一行没有缩进。其二,一个新的段落之前有单一的句子独占一行(该行有缩进)(不懂原文意思,作者是想说,一个短句不能单独作为一个段落?――译者注) 格式2. “Figure”和“Table” 二者的缩写分别是Fig和Tbl。但是,Table的缩写很少见于正文。你可以用Figure,也可以把Figure简写为Fig,但在一篇文章中,你应该始终保持一致。你不应该在Figure,figure,Fig 或fig之中随意变来变去。另外,缩写不能用在句首,单词或其缩写与数字之间应有一空格。 格式3. 变量符号 变量符号,特别是那些英文字母的变量符号,在科技类文章中应该用斜体,以区别于英文单词。当然,这取决于一个杂志所规定的风格。 格式3. 大写 注意大写不能出现在句子中间。 “such as”和”etc.” 二者经常被中国作者误用。Such as意思是“例如”并提示其后有一个不完全的列举;etc.意思是“等等”,用在列举的最后以表示那个列举是不完全的。所以,同时用such as和etc.就重复了。 Such as的出现意味着其后将有一个不完全的列举,所以当给出了全部的列举时,就不能用such as了。 第二节 1)一些单词的单复数形式相同,所以不需要再加s把它们变为复数形式,例如:literatue, equipment, staff, faculty. 2) 避免重复。下列短语形式经常在中国作者的英文中出现: Research work,(要么用research, 要么用work,下同――译者注) Limit condition Knowledge memory Sketch map Arrangement plan Output performance Simulation results Knowledge information Calculation results Application results 3) 一些单词修饰的名词需要改为复数。这些修饰单词包括:different, various, 数字单词 different nodes 而不是different node various methods 而不是various method two advantages而不是two advantage 4) 绝对不要以单词的缩写形式(如Fig.)或阿拉伯数字(如8)开头写英文句子 5) 不要写“by this way”,取而代之的应该是“by doing this” 或“using this method”。 6)千万不要在句子的开头写“how to ……”(也不要这样讲) 7)要这样写:“the results are shown in Figure 2”,而不是“the results are showed as Figure 2”。 8)在正文中变量符号要用斜体,以示它们与单词的区别。当变量符号是英文字母时,斜体尤其重要。要写“The graph shows t (斜体), a (斜体), and C (斜体) as a function of time”. 不要写 “The graph shows t, a, and C as a function of time”。 9)在科技类论文中,单词obviously要避免如下例子中的使用: 错误:Obviously, detecting regimes by means of PMH maps is a novel method. 正确:Detecting regimes by means of PMH maps is a novel method. 10) 国际出版物中的论文不应该使用诸如“at home”,“abroad”,“here”,“our country”等指定不确定的地方性术语,因为读者很可能不是中国人或并不生活在中国。取而代之的应该是“in China”。 11)避免过多使用短语“that is to say”和“namely”. 取而代之的是,要尽量把你的意思用一句话来表达。 12)不要在句末用“too”,特别是在科技类论文中尤其要避免在句末用“too”。 文章转载自科学网董仕勇博客 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-62049-47853.html
寻正 方舟子“写”科普以剽为主,掩盖为辅,其母校密歇根州立大学教授卢-伯恩斯顿(后简称RB)公开指责方舟子剽窃,方舟子蒙骗RB不成功,狡辩召至更多的斥责,于是乎方舟子回到所有针对他的剽窃指控的惯常招式上,做了缩头乌龟,不再针对自己严重的剽窃问题回应,一慨以别人造谣的新衣掩饰。除此之外,就是把对方泼上一身污水,要么痛骂对方报复,是造假被英武神明的方大帅打假,于是乎反打方舟子的假——肖传国就被这么被赖上的;要么从其它角度入手,贬低对方的价值,从而证明自己即使抄的,对方价值不高,也属于该抄之列——印度不少地方风行较正性强奸,大概就是那么回事;最不济,方舟子也可以把检举揭发的人打成方学家、方黑,或者赠送一顶职业方黑的帽子,对方于是乎完全丧失了发言权,方舟子不回应是享受正当权利,回应则是开恩。 曾几何时,方舟子偷窃别人作品拉入新语丝,原作者多次抗议,方舟子心不甘情不愿地交回赃文,然后对针原作者与原文一番炮轰,骂别人的文章为垃圾——以方舟子的智力,似乎永远意识不到自己连垃圾都偷盗的习惯是多么恶劣不堪,这样的傻子,他当过多次。 方舟子被美国教授公开指责剽窃,而自己妻子刘菊花同志论文全剽,与方是民同志结婚后继续在薪发射狂剽,这些大丑闻被爆光之后,方舟子狼狈不堪,开始了针对名人的狂咬以转移注意力,然而,不是很有效,最直接的证据就是,方舟子占据中国媒体的一大据点,中国青年报的《冰点周刊》专栏被砍。方舟子败走麦城之际,只好求告上级帮助,终于传出“你办事,我放心”的吉言,由暗转明,被钦点为传媒“好同志”,与中国最大五毛司马南做了双胞胎,方才稳住阵脚。 方舟子虽然移住了阵脚,但是来自美国教授的压力未断,网络上揭发之声不绝,导致了方舟子经常吐血,无比郁闷。郁闷之余,方舟子加大了攀咬力度,哪里有可能目标,他就出现在哪里,以期望从丑闻中脱身——他这一招还是有效的,因为只要被他咬上了的,都顾及颜面,不习惯于裸奔,无法做到拒不回应,于是乎方舟子终于从一系列丑闻中顺利脱身。韩寒成了倒霉的垫脚石。 方舟子顺利脱身,就意味着揭发他的人要倒霉,不是被揭发,就是被挂上伪科学的牌子,这两样都不行,那就做职业方黑了。方舟子揭发RB很有些难度,以其翻译白天人与黑夜人的英文水平,即使RB有什么破绽,他也没有本事发现。于是乎,RB就成了搞伪科学的了——不能不赞叹方舟子的智力:你TM以传播科学为已任,抄书抄到伪科学家身上去了,好有逻辑。 针对中国来的牛皮糖,RB无奈苦笑,这么无耻下贱,我没有更多招数了。以下是RB针对方舟子最近的无耻攻击的回复: Dear Shi Liu,亲爱的刘实, Thank you for writing. I am aware of Dr. Fang's attack on me. If it is any indication of the effort he puts into his attacks on the people he accuses of fraud, it is quite pitiful. He seems to be drawing all his information from a website called www.virusmyth.com, with which I have no affiliation, and which is full of misinformation. Dr. Fang seems to think that I deny that HIV causes AIDS. In fact, what my many peer-reviewed and published articles argue is that HIV is necessary but not sufficient to cause AIDS -- which happens to be the same position that Dr. Luc Montagnier has maintained since 1990. Montagnier is, of course, the discoverer of HIV and received the Nobel Prize for his discovery. So if Fang want's to accuse me of pseudoscience for holding the same position as the man who discovered HIV, that's fine with me. I wish him good luck in making the same charge stick on Dr. Montagnier!感谢您的告之,我知道方博士针对我的攻击。如果这就是所谓他针对其揭发的造假者的攻击招式,那就很可怜了。他看起来是重复一个叫病毒之迷(www.virusmyth.com)的网站提供的信息,我跟此网站没有关系,该网站上充满错误信息。方博士似乎认为我拒绝承认人免疫缺陷病毒引起爱滋病。实际上,我的许多经同行评议的发表文章强调的是爱滋病的必要而不充分的原因——这恰好也是卢克*蒙塔尼耶博士自1990年以后的立场。而蒙塔尼耶就是人免疫缺陷病毒的发现者,因之获得了诺贝尔奖。因此,如果方想抨击我的立场——也就是人免疫陷病毒发现者的立场——是伪科学,我不在乎。在他同样地抨击蒙塔尼耶博士的立场时,我祝他好运。 I have, however, as you suggest, kept a copy of the video should I ever want or need to sue Dr. Fang for libel. Very sad that he feels he has to stoop to such underhanded methods.正如您所建议,我已经将该影像做了备份,以备将来假如我想或者有必要起诉方博士的诽谤时用。对他觉得自己需要如此无耻下贱地行事,我感到非常失望。 By the way, in case you are interested, I've attached below files that provide evidence about my case against Dr. Fang and some of the other frauds he may have perpetrated.如果您有兴趣,我顺便提供一些关于我指控方博士以及他的其它欺诈的证据的文件。 Many thanks,非常感谢 Bob Root-Bernstein罗伯特*卢-伯恩斯顿 For a detailed review of this case, please visit 更细致的回顾请看: http://www.2250s.com/read.php?53-689-689 A panel review is also available at http://www.2250s.com/list.php?64 这是一个多人合议 Further, my open letter for Dr. Fang and its Chinese translations, please visit http://www.2250s.com/read.php?2-12601-12601 我的给方博士的公开信及其中文版 Please also note that Dr. Fang not only plagiarized my work but also infringed on the publisher's (Oxford University Press) copyright. The above mentioned review focused on the plagiary aspect. The copyright infringement is a separate form of misconduct. This combination of plagiarism-with-copyright infringement is typical in when people borrow material from one language and translate it into another.请注意方博士不剽窃了我的作品,也侵犯了出版商(牛津大学出版社)的版权。上面的评议主要关注剽窃。侵犯版权是另一种性质的独立的不端行为。这种同时侵权的剽窃在人们借用其它语言材料译为本地语言的案例中很常见。 Please also note that Dr. Fang's 1995 essay was officially published by www.oursci.org as an online encyclopedia entry. This official publication in 1995 made no mention of Dr. Root-Bernstein's work. Dr. Fang altered this version in October 2010 only AFTER he was informed of being accused of plagiarism and copyright infringement. Please note that adding the reference to my original article does not mitigate either the plagiarism or the copyright infringement. For the archived version, please see http://web.archive.org/web/20070417032833/www.oursci.org/ency/phil/011.htm 还请注意方博士在1995的文章被三思网站收集并正式公示。这份在1995年正式出版的版本中从未提及我的作品。方博士在2010年10修改了该文,是发生在他被指控剽窃与侵权之后。请注意在原文中后来加入的文献信息并不改变剽窃侵权程度。有关备份,请见(网址见前,略)。 You may also contact Christopher Gan for further information about Dr. Fang?s other forms of alleged misconduct:您也可以联系Christopher Gan,以进一步了解方博士的其它被指控的不端行为 Christopher Gan christopher_gan2000@yahoo.com 有网友怀疑RB信件的真实性,请致信RB查询: rootber3@msu.edu
美国伯恩斯坦教授回复方舟子狡辩:方舟子为赚钱抄袭我文章90% 【肖传国翻译】 From : rootbern@msu.edu To : To: Aimee Cluo aimeecluo@gmail.com Cc : smfang@yahoo.com , svl8epa@gmail.com , burton@msu.edu , 日期: 2011 年 8 月 10 日,在下午 5 : 20 主题:回复:你有获得版权或许可吗? 亲爱的艾米, 现在我们开始谈正事! 请解释 为什么你认为方博士使用我的文章竟然属于 “ 合理使用 ” ?如果他影印,翻译,或总结我的文章供他个人参阅学习是属于“合理使用”。但不论在任何情况下,复制、翻译、或复述受版权保护的作品并散布给其他人,则根本不属于受法律保护的“合理使用”,而这恰恰是方博士对我的作品所做的事情:他把我的作品粘贴到他的网站上,并在他的书中出版。更为重要的是:我知道方博士靠经营网站和当作家著书为生,因此,他使用我的文章不是为了公益或教育,而是以营利为目的。 其次,尽管各机构,如美国国家科学院,对何种行为将会构成科学欺诈均有自己的规则,但是,它们都不可能替代或凌驾于版权法之上。不管怎么说,我并不指控方博士科学欺诈,我指控他抄袭并侵权版权,这与你提到的美国国家科学院的科学欺诈规定扯不上任何关系。 三,事实上,使用他人文章内容的单词量在什么范畴内是合理合法的至少在出版业是有既定准则的。我写过很多书评,每次编辑们都反复提醒,引用书内内容要有严格限制,不得超过一定数量。这也是美国编辑们不论是在发表科普文章,或出版学术专著时都反复审核把关的问题。这是出版业的行规。人们都知道版权法中不得超过 200 个单词的那条规定,但往往不清楚同一条法规中还有关于按百分比限制引用他人文章内容的规定。 鉴于方博士的文章绝大多数内容都是直接从我的文章获取的,我指控方博士的文章 90 %左右是抄袭自我的著作。 最后,我不是一个美国宪法律师,但我怀疑你对相关宪法条文的理解是完全错误的,否则任何学者都不能对其作品申请版权保护(或执行版权)。请仔细想想你要争辩的论点是什么?按照你的逻辑,你认为任何可被用于教育或者对公众有用的作品都不能享有版权。这就意味着任何人都可以复制我写的任何东西并宣布是自己的作品而其无需承担任何法律或道义上的责任。这真的是你想要争辩的事情? 伯恩斯坦 【肖传国翻译】 Please explain to me how Dr. Fang's use of my work is "fair"? Under fair use, he has the right to photocopy, translate, or summarize my article for his personal use; I know of no case in which it is considered legitimate "fair use" to reproduce a copyrighted work, translate it, or summarize it for the use of other people, which is precisely what Dr. Fang has done with my work by posting it on his website and reproducing the essay in his books. In addition, it is my understanding that Dr. Fang makes his living from his website and books and therefore that he is not using my material for a non-profit or educational purpose, but for profit. Second, while it is true that various organizations such as the National Academy, have provided their own versions of what constitute scientific fraud, none of these directives replace or override copyright law. In any case, I have not charged Dr. Fang with scientific fraud; I have charged him with plagiarism and copyright infringement . I don't see how the National Academy guidelines are relevant. Third, there are, in fact, guidelines, at least in the publishing industry, about how many words may be used. I have written many book reviews and have been warned many times by editors not to quote more than a certain amount of a text. This is also something that editors in the US check when one publishes a popular article in a magazine; and it is something that editors check when editing scholarly books. Whether it is law or not, it is common practice. In any case, I'm tired of the issue of 200 words -- everyone who has addressed this issue has failed to address the rest of the paragraph which is about limiting the percentage of material utilized. Since all but a handful of examples of Dr. Fang's essay are directly from my article, I am charging that Dr. Fang's article is essentially 90% (or somewhere around that percentage) my work Finally, I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I sincerely doubt that your reading of the clause in the constitution can possibly be correct or it would be impossible for any academic to ever copyright (or to enforce copyright) on any of his or her work. Please think carefully about what you are arguing here, because the logical conclusion is that you do not believe in copyrighting anything that might be of educational value or which might be used for the pubic good. That would mean anyone could copy anything I write and claim it as their own without any legal or moral protections. Is this really what you want to argue? Root-BernStein
Fornew readers and those who request to be “ 好友 good friends” please read my 公告 栏 first. Life of an Academic in the US (2) (Notes added below 6/30/09 on getting research funding) An article “ 也说美国的教授上课 ” by blogger 朱金颖 talked about the general concerns of a professor in the US. I thought I add some more of my experience and observations since a large number of Chinese scholars are in the process of climbing the US academic ladders and more Chinese students aspire to such opportunities. Tenure – In Chinese this means 终身职 or 铁饭碗 . In the US, this means unless your academic department is totally abolished or you have committed serious crimes, you have a job for life regardless of your political belief or social opinions. If you have modest goals and just want to be an average teacher for the rest of your life, then you can simply do your job adequately or more derogatorily “retire or go to sleep” after you get tenure. A minor but significant portion of professors in a significant fraction of US universities belong in the category. There is nothing particularly wrong with this. We cannot all be word famous. However, in a first tier university or a university aspires to be first tier, deans and/or department head will not tolerate such a mode of existence. You are given tenure because the school expects that in the next few decades, you will contribute beyond your regular teaching. You are expected to get outside research funding and support several graduate students, or publish papers/books that add luster to the department, or be an innovative teacher to large number of students in university wide courses, or do various administrative duties of a university with skill and devotion. If not, there are numerous informal ways by the academic administration to make your life uncomfortable so that you will resign your tenured job out of self-respect. Now let me explain further the alternatives mentioned above. Getting research funding – In my 40+ years of experience, compete for funding is a reasonably fair undertaking. Well known researchers can get rejected just as easily as less famous colleagues due to poor writing and planning. Great majority of funding are done through “peer review”. Program officers in agencies such as the National Science Foundation are competent technocrats with advanced training , or academic scholars serving in temporary capacity during sabbatical leaves, or former academics who decided to do government service. Program officers from the Department of Defense have more latitude on awards but they still use peer review to help support their decisions. Their existence also helps to correct some of the shortcomings of “peer review”. The famed “Kalman filter (2008 Draper prize recipient, see http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=14253 )” probably would not have survived “peer review” in the late 1950s and was instead supported by an Air Force contract. For years afterwards, the US Air Force used this as an argument for more basic research dollars. It is also possible to get large funding for more targeted and specific problem -oriented research involving large number of personnel. But this often creates conflict of interests with the academic and teaching purpose of a university. While an up-and-coming university may temporarily tolerate the involvement with a large project, most established institution will worry about the problem of “the tail wagging the dog”. They will typically spin off the project to a separate entity related but not integral part of the university. Professors can serve as consultant or part time researcher at such institutions but not as directors or part of the management. The prime example of this is the Lincoln Laboratory of MIT which started by handling many real defense problems of the Cool War. Industrial funding of university researches are possible but represents smaller part of the whole picture. One reason is often the insistence by industry for secrecy or exclusiveness while university advocates openness and freedom to publish. Another problem universities frown upon is the mingling of financial interest between a researcher and private industry. While a professor can serve as consultant with pay to industry on one day per week basis, there are usually rules against professors serving as part of the management of a company. Generally speaking, at place like Harvard, a professor is expected to behave as “Caesar’s wife”, i.e., above reproach and without any appearance of possible conflict of interest. The integrity and reputation of a university is always of paramount importance. For that matter, so is the case for a scholar. ( Notes added 6/30/09. It is possible to influence the announcement of Call for Proposals (CFPs) by program officers of funding agency by giving well reasoned talk, presentations, and sometime sending him unsolicited position paper on important research topics. This way the CFP will be targeted to the special area of your expertise and you gain an advantage in the competition for funds. Of course, this process can be abused resulting in what is known as an “inside job” or “pre-wired research grant”. But such occurrences are rare in my experience and represent mostly complaints and imagined unfairness by unsuccessful applicants). Supporting graduate students and department expense - At least in ST, almost all graduate students in the US are supported by individual professors. The cost can total (with overhead) some 50 to 60 thousand dollars a year. University will sometimes help support a student with scholarship or teaching assistantship for the first couple of years. But a professor is expected to carry all the burden after the first two years. In addition, the overhead dollar the department/university collects from the professor pays for general office supplies, telephone, secretarial services, etc. Thus even if you do not have any research students, then indirectly you are carrying your share of the department burden in terms of general expenses (I know of cases where a professor has to buy his own chalk). Service Teaching and textbook writing – You can survive in a first class university without research by being a great teacher and textbook writer (see. http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=1808 ). Paul Samuelson, the second Nobel Prize winner for economics, reputedly wrote the most popular introductory textbook ever in publishing history. Supposedly only the Bible has more copies in print. The book has gone through numerous editions and in fact successor co-authors when Samuelson himself is too old to bother updating it. In fact, he had to set up a trust to handle the royalty income for this text book for tax purposes. That is a successful author! At the risk of being immodest, I myself was the co-author (in 1969 after my tenure decision) of the best selling textbook and Science Citation Classic in my field. 40 years after publication and without a new edition it still sells a few hundred copies a year and un know number of Chinese and Russian translation copies. Go into administration – Although everyone is his/her own boss in a US university, an institution still needs administrators for smooth functioning. Unlike in commerce or government where authorities are clearly defined, university professor with tenure cannot be fired. Nor will they listen to an administrator not coming from their own ranks. Thus, another possible route for advancement in a university after tenure is the administration route where the ultimate job is the university presidency. Having been a professor and a published scholar yourself means you understand the “games professor play”. Your words carry more persuasive power. Finally, any institution is a collection of people. You still need people skill to get things done. Just like brain power such skill are always prized and rewarded . In short, getting tenure is but the first step in a scholarly career. The pressure is always on until you finally retire and even afterwards. If nothing else but our self-respect will keep you striving. After all nobody wants to be labeled a “has been”. The joke is “ you are only as good as your last paper ” or “ it is a greasy pole. You have to keep on climbing just to stay in place. Many others want to pull you down so that they can get ahead ”. Life of a moderately successful scholar/professor is not a bed of roses 美国的教授日子没有那么舒服. 一个美国教授的生活(二) 科学网博主朱金颖在其博文《也说美国的教授上课》中谈到了美国教授普遍关注的几个问题( http://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/user_content.aspx?id=239198 )。我想就我的经验和体会补充一些,因为很多中国学者正在努力攀登美国的学术金字塔,而更多的中国学生渴望得到这样的机会。 终身教授 。在中国这意味着终身职位或者铁饭碗。在美国,这意味着无论你持何种政见,无论你对各种社会问题持何种态度,除非你所在的院系被解散,或者你犯下重罪,否则你将终身不会被解聘。如果你胸无大志,只想在余生(被评上终身教授后)当一个普通的老师,那么你也可以仅仅满足于完成工作任务,或者像被人轻蔑地说成的那样,“退休或者睡大觉了”。有相当一部分美国大学里的一小部分教授属于这一类。这样做也无可非议,因为毕竟不可能每个人都成为世界著名科学家。但是,在一流大学或者渴望进入一流行列的大学中,院长和(或)系主任是无法容忍这种现象存在的。你被评为终身教授的原因在于,学校希望在接下来的几十年里你所做的贡献远超过常规的教学工作。学校期待你能申请到外部科研经费资助几个研究生,或者发表论文、出版专著为系里增光,或者开设全校范围的通选课,成为一名极富创造力的教师,或者擅长并热爱大学的行政工作。如果这几点你全都做不到,那么教务处有许多非正式的手段让你的日子不好过,最后为了自尊你不得不辞职。 申请科研基金经费 ——以我40年的经验而言,申请基金的竞争是相当公平的。如果申请书写得不够吸引人,研究计划不够严谨,“大牛”与无名小卒一样会轻易地被拒掉。绝大多数项目评审都须经过“同行评议”。国家科学基金会(NSF)等机构里的项目官员要么是受过高级训练的出色的技术专家,要么是学术休假期间临时服务的科学家,或是决心加入政府的前科学家。国防部的项目官员对基金审批有更多的自主权,尽管如此,他们做决定时也会参考同行评议的意见。他们的存在同样也帮助纠正了同行评议的一些错误。如果不是他们,著名的“卡尔曼滤波器”(德雷珀奖获得者,见 http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=14253 )在1950年代末恐怕就会被“同行评议”毙掉了,最后它其实是受到美国空军的资助。在以后的很多年里,美国空军一直拿这个例子作为证据,要求获得更多经费支持基础研究。 还有些研究项目需大量人员集体协作,针对性和导向性都很强,这样的研究有可能获得大笔基金资助。但是这经常会引发与大学的教学研究宗旨之间的冲突。尽管一个正在发展中的大学可能会暂时容忍与大项目的冲突,但是大部分名校则会担心这样一来本末倒置了。他们的典型做法是,另外成立相关但是单独的实体专做这个项目,而不让其成为学校整体的一部分。大学里的教授们可以担任该研究所的顾问或者兼职研究员,但不能担任所长或者进入管理层。麻省理工学院的林肯实验室就是这方面最好的例子,它是冷战时期为了应对跟国防有关的需求而设立的。 大学教授的学术研究也可能获得工业界的资助,但是这类资助仅占大学经费的一小部分。原因之一是工业界非常重视保守研究机密,排他性较强,而大学则提倡学术开放和出版自由。令大学头疼的另一个问题就是研究者和私有企业之间经济利益的纠葛。因此,尽管教授可以有偿担任企业顾问,按照每周一天的标准为企业工作,然而,学校通常规定教授不能担任企业管理层的职位。大体上来说,在像哈佛这样的大学,教授的行为应该像“凯撒的妻子”一样,无懈可击,远离任何可能的利益纠纷。清白的名声和声誉对于一所大学而言是至关重要的,对教授也是如此。 (2009年6月30日加注:大学教授有可能通过游说学术资助机构的项目官员、出色的学术讲座以及主动提供关于重要研究课题的意见书等方式影响项目指南(CFPs)的内容。通过这种办法,项目指南有可能向你所在的专业领域倾斜,从而使你在经费申请中享有先发优势。当然,这个途径可能被滥用,导致所谓的“内线”或者“内定的”项目审批。但是就我的经验而言,这种现象发生的概率极小,大多只是申请人失败后抱怨和想象的结果。) 支付研究生和院系开支的费用 ——美国几乎所有研究生的费用都是教授们支付的,至少科技领域是如此。每个研究生每年至少要花费大约5万到6万美元,有时在学生入学头两年,学校会设立奖学金或者助教岗位来资助学生。但是两年之后,教授需要挑起所有的担子。此外,院系还另外向教授们征收人头费来支付一般办公用品、电话费、秘书工资等等。因此,即使你没有带研究生,你也需要间接承担系里的一般费用(我知道一些教授必须自己买粉笔的例子) 。 教学工作和教科书的编写 ——如果你极擅长教学,又能写出优秀的教科书,那么即使不做研究,你也能在一所一流的大学生存下去(见 http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=1808 )。保罗•萨缪尔森,诺贝尔经济学奖的第二位获得者,以撰写了出版史上最受欢迎的教科书而闻名,据称该书的印刷量仅次于《圣经》。该书历经无数次再版,事实上,当萨缪尔森已经老得懒得再更新的时候,就由继任者更新再版。为了交所得税,萨缪尔森还得专门成立一个信托机构来处理这本教科书带来的版税,多么成功的作者啊!冒着自吹自擂的风险,我想说其实我也是系统控制科学领域最佳畅销书的合著者(1969年我拿到终身教授职位后)。40年来,尽管该书没有再版,仍然每年都能卖掉几百册,中文版和俄文版的销售量则不详。 担任行政职位 ——美国大学里尽管每个人都是她/他自己的老板,但是研究机构仍然需要行政管理以保证平稳运行。与职权明晰的商业及政府机构的不同之处在于,大学教授都是终身制的,不会被开除。他们也不听不是教授出身的行政领导的指挥。因而,在大学里被聘为终身教授之后的另一条升迁之路就是走向行政岗位,这条道路的尽头是最终成为大学校长。出身是教授,发表过论文,就意味着你懂得“教授的游戏规则”。你的话会更有说服力。最后,任何组织都是由人组成的,良好的社交能有助于做成事情。跟拥有聪明的头脑一样,擅长这类管理技能的人也很受欢迎,会受到学校鼓励。 简而言之,得到终身教授的职位仅仅是学者生涯的第一步。而压力则会一直与你相伴,直到退休,甚至退休之后。即使没有别的压力,仅仅你的自尊心就足以鞭策你奋斗不止。毕竟,没有人想被贴上“好汉不提当年勇”的标签。学术界流行的笑话是这么说的,“你的最高水平就是最近一篇论文”, “像爬抹了油的竹竿一样,为了待在原位你必须不停地往上爬,许多人都想拉你下来,因为他们都想要超过你。”普通大学教授的日子绝对不是玫瑰花铺就的。美国教授的日子没有想象中的那么舒坦。 (科学网 陈丹译 何姣校)