過去一千多日子裏，留下甚麼"秀文"？留下甚麼"相思"？
你們在記憶裏 招手；
我在台北半月細雨陣後的春光思念校園中的羊蹄甲
會客廳的莊喆早已失蹤； 那隨手摘下往嘴送的杜鵑花
已化成真情
嘿嘿，3年前的文字：
Hanching Chung
2013年3月26日
2013.3.26 晨草草 (半答林康與阿標)
「一切慰藉的感覺來自於真摯。」
--- Gaston Bachelard 巴什拉在 【火的精神分析】(La psychanalyse du feu ,1938/ Psychoanalysis of Fire, 1964)，杜小真、顧嘉琛譯，北京：三聯，1992，頁57
“僧問：‘撥塵見佛時如何﹖’師曰：
‘莫眼華。’
”大早即起 見
老同學合攻昔日迷戀
可憐 喚不起熱情 想起
那老詩人說起三毛的十字手勢般求愛、
告別 只因
陰間最美麗的鬼魂 陽間的倦於交易
思華年
菁，韭華也。“華，榮也。”
大度山有情、友情
只因 他寶貴女兒 重入東海
紅塵 女兒 諸多夢谷 大道
何不一一壯遊
那些寒冷的聖誕夜
“年年今夜，月華如練，長是人千里。”
未央歌的摯情 有鳥待
啼明否
Philanthropy recently spoke to Mr. Grove about his work in vocational education.
PHILANTHROPY: Are people ever surprised that Andrew Grove—accomplished physicist, technological pioneer, leading corporate strategist—is involved with promoting vocational education?
MR. GROVE: If people were to think that way, they would be misunderstanding my biography. Expecting people to do their job without tools, training, and respect, and then expecting them to come up with meritorious results, is unfair and so wrong that it can be really annoying. I don’t think people are created equal, but everybody’s work intersects with other people’s work. For all of us to work, to produce, everybody has to be trained in their part and become competent in their part. Imposing upon the total workforce elitist considerations is just—to put it in engineering terms—terrible systems thinking.
PHILANTHROPY: Speaking of systems thinking, you were famous at Intel for your management philosophy that “only the paranoid survive.” By that, you meant that a business must always be hyper-attentive to possible threats and opportunities. Is such paranoia a helpful mindset for a philanthropist?
MR. GROVE: Yes, it is, in the following sense. It’s very hard to shape inanimate material into semiconductors or pharmaceuticals. Nature constantly wants to derail your experiment. The only thing that’s harder than shaping inanimate material is trying to shape animate material—and most difficult of all is trying to shape the activities of people. Then it is not just nature that is trying to derail you; people themselves do a pretty good job of it. If you feel strongly toward achieving something through philanthropy, I think what I call paranoia—a deep suspicion about all of the many things that can go wrong—is necessary.
PHILANTHROPY: Are you as paranoid about vocational education as you were about business?
MR. GROVE: The details are of course different, but in this way, they are very similar. Paranoia in management involves trying to anticipate who intentionally or unintentionally will slow you down, or who will derail you. Usually this attitude is not taught in school, which is why I wrote my book. Now, as for vocational education, do you recall the words of the presidential report on education [A Nation at Risk] from 1983? It started out by saying, “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.” Is this paranoia?
Well, the same thing applies to vocational education—only doubly so. Most people don’t even realize the need for more highly trained workers. The assumption remains that technical education is for less intelligent people. The first item cut from educational budgets is vocational education. People are required to be suitably trained for their work requirements, and yet the classes that are required for this are cut to the bone. In some instances, students are halfway through the course when funding is cut and then they are sent home. We create a damned obstacle course for people who want to work!
"Philanthropists tend to be so pleased with themselves that they are prone to self-congratulation. Rather, they should be angry—and let their anger guide their giving."
PHILANTHROPY: In Only the Paranoid Survive, you write that “nobody owes you a job.” You describe how sudden changes can “sweep through your industry and engulf the company you work for. Who knows if your job will even exist and, frankly, who will care besides you?” If vocational education is a form of deep training within a specific field, and if specific fields can disappear overnight, aren’t you better equipped for disruptive market forces with a traditional four-year liberal arts degree?
MR. GROVE: No. What you describe represents a generalized belief in the goodness of a liberal arts education. Its source is probably Plato. If you assess the usefulness of a liberal arts degree at Time Zero—graduation—what is it? You have taken one survey course in this subject and another survey course in that subject, and the topics covered probably could have been taught in high school. With a liberal arts degree you will not become obsolete—because there’s nothing for you to be obsolete from.
Now, compare that training to the kind of skills that you teach to an EMT [emergency medical technician]. An EMT’s skills are unlikely to be obsolete as a general art, especially if he or she undertakes continuing education and keeps up with new technologies as a matter of routine. The same is true of nurses, of electricians, of firemen, and of radiology technicians.
PHILANTHROPY: Of course, some people would dispute the idea of a crisis in vocational education altogether. It’s not hard to imagine an economist saying, “If the supply of skilled labor gets too low, demand will be high and wages will adjust. As wages increase, we will see more carpenters or welders or nurses. This is a problem for which free markets provide a solution. It’s not a problem that philanthropy needs to address.” How would you reply to that?
MR. GROVE: I suspect that economists who think this way dropped out of their freshman physics class before they could master the complexities of dynamics. There is a time-dimension involved in the adjustment of one system to another. And by the time a supply-and-demand imbalance develops in one area of the economy, you can be very much out of phase with what is happening elsewhere. In physics, the equivalent would be unstable oscillations; in medicine, it would be heart palpitations. Economists don’t bother with that. They take one picture in a steady state, and another picture in a steady state, and somehow they think nature will smooth everything out. Often it does, but just as often it does not.
PHILANTHROPY: And how would you respond to someone making the opposite case, someone who says, “We need to create a government program to mediate this disequilibrium within the market.” Is that really an improvement?
MR. GROVE: Well, what you propose will never become a reality because enough people will wave their hands and shout, “Central planning! Managed economy! Communism!” That will derail the attempt to introduce a government solution. By the way, I do not disagree with that objection. In my book [Swimming Across], I tell the story of how under communism I could never buy the photographic paper that I needed in the summer until winter came, and vice versa. Central planning manufactured what it could produce efficiently at a given time—never mind the demand, even when it was relatively predictable. So I have a strong suspicion that a central agency cannot resolve this problem either. But that doesn’t mean that the free-market feedback mechanism that you described a moment ago works either.
PHILANTHROPY: I suppose that brings us to private philanthropy. Can you tell me about your efforts to make vocational or school-to-career education more available and more attractive?
MR. GROVE: We fund scholarships for students at community colleges and in other vocational programs. The value of the scholarships ranges from $500 to $5,000 per year, depending on the type of training and needs of the student. The people for whom we provide support are not those who intend to transfer to four-year universities. Rather, we are funding scholarships for those students who intend to enter a career immediately upon completion of their studies. Our program has changed over time but we have been giving these kinds of scholarships for more than a decade, and have typically given more than 100 scholarships per year.
PHILANTHROPY: What do you know today that you wish you had known 10 years ago, when you were getting started?
MR. GROVE: From the beginning, we realized that this was a serious problem; there was no question about that. But I completely underappreciated how deep the problem was. We therefore started up naïvely, believing that by funding this scholarship we would create enormous demand. We worked on the assumption that if we provided the money, people would come. They would want to be on their own two feet and they would quickly find their field of choice. In order to achieve that goal, the program initially focused on high school students who were planning to go on to community college or private vocational school. Eventually, we gave up on that particular population—high school students. Now we support some programs at community colleges, and some at nonprofits that are doing career training, principally among adult students.
PHILANTHROPY: Can I ask why you stopped offering scholarships to high school students?
MR. GROVE: As we progressed with high school students, we found that we could not get enough of the right candidates. One of the things I had a great deal of trouble with was finding ways to reach the people we wanted to reach. We could not attract the most qualified students, since virtually everybody who was deemed talented was pointed in the direction of a four-year college degree. So the students who would end up in the scholarship program often lacked other options and therefore not surprisingly had not very good completion rates. We were putting money and support systems into the scholarship program but its graduation rates were not significantly better than the unsatisfactory rates at community colleges in general. I felt like we were putting millions of dollars on the floor and people wouldn’t come pick them up.
PHILANTHROPY: Why is that?
MR. GROVE: I don’t think that I have a simple answer. In many ways, of course, it was a reflection of the cultural bias against vocational education. Eventually, after perhaps five years of trying different things, we said we can’t overcome all the things we’re up against in the high school setting. The students don’t think highly of it as a pathway; the educators don’t think highly of it as a pathway; the parents don’t think highly of it as a pathway. But there are community colleges and nonprofits out there that appreciate the value of vocational education. With some help and some scholarship money, they can get students on their way, so we help them to do that. Our program is now focused at a small number of community colleges and some nonprofits.
PHILANTHROPY: Were you working with regular public high schools?
MR. GROVE: Yes, characteristically large California high schools, in areas that were economically less wealthy.
PHILANTHROPY: Did you ever consider opening a charter school?
MR. GROVE: At the time we started this, we wanted it to become a viable option in a mainstream educational context. Siphoning it off to a special place would not have accomplished that.
PHILANTHROPY: So now you work with community colleges?
MR. GROVE: Yes. Even here it is quite frustrating. In California’s community colleges, only one in four students gets the degree or certification they are seeking within six years. The reason is not that people are dragging their feet. First of all, they need to work while they are in school. Second, many of them need remedial education. Third, they can’t get the required classes and counseling they need—and that was before the budgetary cuts of the current year. Partly for this reason, we also fund scholarships for private vocational training institutes.
A related issue is the capacity of a community college to take recent high school graduates and get them through the program. Students need help navigating their way. So for high school students entering community college, we directed 20 to 30 percent of our funding to support systems. I don’t know whether the system is overly complicated as compared to what it might be, or whether the students—even the ones who have earned a scholarship—are less able to stand on their own two feet than they should be. In either event, they need a lot of handholding when they get there so they don’t get lost. And when we started working on this initiative, I was very reluctant to go into the handholding business. I did not want to spend money that otherwise would have gone to the scholarships. I was obnoxious—righteously obnoxious—saying that it’s a school problem and they should solve it.
PHILANTHROPY: Do you have plans to expand the program?
MR. GROVE: Originally, yes. This was the theory: When we are demonstrably efficacious with this program, we’ll let the world know, and they’ll come and replicate it throughout the United States. Then we took the first step and fell on our face. People didn’t come. The capacity of the schools to run the program was not there. We could not marshal others’ efforts with a program that wasn’t successful. Several times, I wanted to give up the whole thing.
Actually, we did have two replications—one in Sonoma and one in Oregon, both started by colleagues of mine. The Sonoma project shut down after a few years but the Oregon replication is still running. I was so excited about two replications that I began to dream up plans for national franchising and putting together how-tos and this and that. Then I almost fell out of bed.
By 2005, however, we were considering a plan to shrink and possibly terminate the program. Ultimately we decided that we would hang in there, but we have given up on the idea that it’s going to be picked up and replicated—at least for now.
Paranoia in management involves trying to anticipate who intentionally or unintentionally will slow you down, or who will derail you.
PHILANTHROPY: Did you find that it was a lack of interest among other philanthropists, a lack of interest among educators, or a lack of interest among students—or was it all of the above?
MR. GROVE: All of the above. When we started the programs, the lack of interest among other philanthropists was almost 100 percent, although that has since changed somewhat. As for the schools, community colleges are measured by how many students transfer to four-year universities. And the students who came to the program were not the ones we were trying to reach. Can I add one more thought about our decision to fix the scholarship program instead of getting rid of it?
PHILANTHROPY: Of course.
MR. GROVE: It turned out to be somewhat right. In actuality, the program is better than it has ever been. But it’s still not what we dreamt it would be when we started. We had a notion that we would be successful and therefore people would come to us, imitate us, and pour their resources into programs like ours. That has not happened. The previous several decades have driven a value system into colleges. It is like a headwind, and it’s very hard to go against the headwind. With enough resources, I suppose it might be possible to ignore this value system, but it would take massive amounts of money. The status quo is very strong. Almost nobody appreciates the importance of the problem. Do you know who recognizes it?
PHILANTHROPY: Who?
MR. GROVE: The previous Governor of California.
PHILANTHROPY: Yes. I seem to recall that Gov. Schwarzenegger endorsed a number of the vocational training initiatives in California public schools.
MR. GROVE: In a word, yes. But he got caught in an economic downdraft and failed to change things significantly. But it was interesting to have an immigrant Governor—one who comes out of the European and specifically the Germanic tradition of skilled apprenticeships, which is similar to vocational training—so he got it. I am unaware of anyone else who would be willing to press the issue with, say, President Obama.
PHILANTHROPY: Is that what success would look like to you—getting the issue in front of policymakers? What do you think is a maximal realistic goal, given your resources?
MR. GROVE: Funding 100 scholarships annually is achievable. If I were to dream, I could envision a series of circumstances that would make a well-established program like this attractive to others. If that were to happen, we would gladly cooperate with them, but I have lost my expectations for achieving anything much larger than our current program. I don’t think our approach is anywhere near becoming a dominant philosophy.
PHILANTHROPY: Is there anything that you’ve learned in your experiences working with vocational education that you’ve been able to apply to your giving elsewhere?
MR. GROVE: Yes. The learning goes to the philosophical underpinnings of philanthropy in America. I don’t think we should take on a program unless it is in an area that the government does not serve or unless we can clearly do a better job than the government. The government gives me a relief from my taxes in order to encourage me to spend it on philanthropy. I am spending money that the government allows me to keep, which means that I have a responsibility to use the money more effectively than the government would. The alternative is for me to pay my taxes and let the government allocate the money in whatever manner it chooses. So philanthropists must do a better job than the government, given a realistic assessment of the government’s performance, either in the choice or in the execution of their programs. The government is not doing a good job in vocational education. We can expect ourselves to do better.
PHILANTHROPY: You mention the philosophical underpinnings of American philanthropy, which raises an interesting point. You arrived in America as a young man, a refugee who escaped from behind the Iron Curtain during the Hungarian Revolution. Was there ever a moment when you first recognized American philanthropy and appreciated how different it was from the communist regime under which you had been living in Hungary?
MR. GROVE: I did not think of issues like that for the next 40 years. To give you an example, when I first arrived in America, the IRC [International Rescue Committee] spent a fair amount of money on me. The organization had sponsored my visa and arranged for my transportation to America, and after I arrived, it provided me with vouchers for a dental examination, new eyeglasses, and a hearing aid. In Hungary, I had tried several Russian-made hearing aids, but they were ugly, bulky, and didn’t work. In America, the IRC paid over $300 in 1956 [roughly $2,400 in 2011] to buy me a new model. I found this very remarkable. So I started supporting the IRC from the time I first went to work. But I didn’t think about the larger picture until decades afterwards. It wasn’t profound thinking followed by activity. Rather, for a long time, it was activity—first receiving, later giving—without much profound thinking.
PHILANTHROPY: It sounds like you instinctively took to a number of American practices without any kind of theoretical framework.
MR. GROVE: Yes. There is something to that. And actually, to this day, I grumble about various aspects of philanthropy without having a larger theoretical framework.
PHILANTHROPY: What sort of thing do you grumble about?
MR. GROVE: Philanthropists tend to be so pleased with themselves that they are prone to self-congratulation. Rather, they should be angry—and let their anger guide their giving.
PHILANTHROPY: It’s not often that you hear calls for “angrier” philanthropy.
MR. GROVE: This is actually a corollary of my earlier point. Consider the following. Even if the government has large programs with many decades of experience in these areas, its programs are not usually run by people who are passionate about the work. That’s where private funding can be different—it can provide that extra amount to make something successful. But this can only happen if we funders devote our personal energy to the causes we are pursuing. If we have accumulated the means to do this in the first place, we have presumably been successful in some area of enterprise—and if we have been successful in one area, we may be able to bring those skills to another area. But we are only likely to do that if we are sufficiently irate, upset, devoted, passionate, and emotionally committed to the subject. And I don’t think that is what’s happening.
PHILANTHROPY: How so?
MR. GROVE: The large, established foundations are run by 20-plus-person boards. They are consensus-minded caretakers. Gray, low-profile, competent, not passionate—that is how they appear to me. This is a broad generalization, of course. But in my view, there are no causes to which these foundations are committed with a passion, in a way that I would describe as angry. They’re unlikely to go against the grain, they’re unlikely to go after orphan projects—they’re just not likely to do anything like that.
For example, in a large fundraising campaign for a university or a medical center, it is always easier to get money for a building than for a project. There’s no controversy about the value of a building. But there’s often controversy about projects. There are setbacks, there are complications, there is frustration. People shy away from that. “Life is too short,” they say to themselves. I prefer to do something that needs to be done. And I invest as much of myself as I can. Sometimes I contribute one way, sometimes another way, and if I don’t succeed, it wasn’t because I didn’t try.
PHILANTHROPY: Given the level of personal involvement you’re describing, how would you like people to remember you in, say, 100 years?
MR. GROVE: [laughs] I don’t care.
PHILANTHROPY: I take it you don’t intend to create a perpetual foundation.
MR. GROVE: We will be out of business 25 years after my wife and I are dead.
PHILANTHROPY: What do you wish for your foundation in the future?
MR. GROVE: I want the surviving management and board to be passionate, committed—and angry.
慈善最近採訪了格魯夫先生關於他在職業教育工作。
慈善事業：人們是否曾經驚訝的是，安德魯·格魯夫，實現物理學家，科技先鋒，領先的企業戰略家，是參與推動職業教育？
先生。GROVE：如果人們那樣認為，他們將被誤會我的傳記。期待的人做他們的工作，無需工具，培訓和尊重，然後希望他們拿出功勳的結果，是不公平的錯，這可真煩人。我不覺得人都是平等的，但每個人的工作與其他人的工作相交。對於我們所有的工作，生產，每個人都有自己的部分進行培訓，成為他們的一部分勝任。堂堂在勞動力總量精英的考慮是剛剛把它在工程方面，可怕的系統思考。
PHILANTHROPY: Speaking of systems thinking, you were famous at Intel for your management philosophy that “only the paranoid survive.” By that, you meant that a business must always be hyper-attentive to possible threats and opportunities. Is such paranoia a helpful mindset for a philanthropist?
慈善事業：說到系統思考，你是在英特爾公司以“只有偏執狂才能生存” 管理理念出名。你的意思是，一個企業必須始終對可能的威脅和機遇超細心和敏感。這樣的"偏執"想法和心態，對慈善家是否有幫助？
GROVE先生：在下面的意義上，是有幫助的。在半導體或藥品中，要讓無生命的材料塑造成形是非常困難的。大自然會不斷地破壞你的實驗。唯一比上述讓無生命材料塑造成形更難的事情，就是努力試圖去塑造人的活動，因為這時除了大自然與你作對之外，人們本身更是破壞它的高手。如果您強烈地想在慈善事業有成，我覺得我這就是我所說的偏執狂，即你會深深地懷疑很多事情可能會出錯。
MR. GROVE: Yes, it is, in the following sense. It’s very hard to shape inanimate material into semiconductors or pharmaceuticals. Nature constantly wants to derail your experiment. The only thing that’s harder than shaping inanimate material is trying to shape animate material—and most difficult of all is trying to shape the activities of people. Then it is not just nature that is trying to derail you; people themselves do a pretty good job of it. If you feel strongly toward achieving something through philanthropy, I think what I call paranoia—a deep suspicion about all of the many things that can go wrong—is necessary.
PHILANTHROPY: Are you as paranoid about vocational education as you were about business?
慈善事業：你在職業教育是否同你對公司一樣偏執？
先生。格羅夫：這兩件事的細節當然不同，但從偏執之方式上說它們非常相似。管理上的偏執涉及試圖去預測誰會有意或無意間讓你放慢腳步，或者誰都會讓你敗事。這種態度通常學校是不會教的，所以我會去寫那本書。。現在，談到職業教育，你記不記得總統在1983年的教育報告[處於危險中的國家]中 的話，它開頭這樣說：“如果一個不友善的外國勢力今天企圖讓美國的教育成績平庸的話，我們很可能會視其為戰爭行為。” 這是偏執心態嗎？
可以說，同樣的道理也適用於職業教育，甚至加倍適用。大多數人甚至不知道我們需求更多的訓練有素的工人。大家的假設仍然是：技術教育是適合較不聰明的人。削減教育預算先從削減職業教育著手。人們需要具備他們的工作要求的適當培訓，但此類的要求已經被刪減到見骨了。在某些情況下，學生在就學中途時資金被切斷而被送回家去。我們對想要工作的人設下一個該死的障礙！
“慈善家往往是非常滿意自己，他們很容易沾沾自喜，相反，他們應該是憤怒，並讓自己的憤怒指導他們的付出。”
慈善事業：在只有偏執狂才能生存，你寫的，“沒有人欠你一份工作。”你描述的變化是如何突然可以“通過你的行業和掃吞沒你工作的公司。誰知道你的工作，甚至會存在，坦率地說，誰再說你在乎嗎？“如果職業教育是一個特定領域內的深訓練的一種形式，如果具體領域可以在一夜之間消失，是不是你更好的裝備破壞性市場力量與傳統的四年制 文科學位？
先生。GROVE：第 你描述的代表在文科教育的善良廣義信念。它的來源可能是柏拉圖。如果您在時間評估一個文科學位的用處零畢業，是什麼呢？你已經採取了一項調查課程這個問題，並在該主題的另一項調查過程中，也可能包含的主題本來在高中被教導。隨著文科學位，你會不會過時，因為沒有什麼讓你從過時。
現在，比較培訓的那種，你教給EMT [緊急醫療技術員]技能。一個EMT的技能是不可能過時，因為一般的藝術，尤其是如果他或她進行繼續教育和新技術作為例行公事最多保留。同樣是真正的護士，電工，消防員，以及放射技師。
慈善事業：當然，有的人乾脆將爭端職業教育危機的想法。不難想像，一個經濟學家說，“如果熟練勞動力的供給太低，需求會很高，工資將調整。隨著工資的增長，我們將看到更多的木匠或焊工或護士。這對於自由市場提供解決方案的一個問題。這不是一個問題，慈善事業需要解決的問題。“你會怎麼回答呢？
先生。GROVE：我懷疑誰認為這樣的經濟學家退學了他們的新生物理課，他們能掌握動態的複雜性了。有涉及在一個系統中的調整到另一個時間維。並通過供給與需求不平衡的經濟的一個區域發展的時候，你可以很離譜相什麼其他地方發生的事情。在物理學中，相當於將是不穩定的振盪; 在醫學上，這將是心臟心悸。經濟學家不打擾。他們採取在穩定狀態下一張圖片，並在一個穩定的狀態另一張照片，不知何故，他們認為自然也一切順利進行。通常情況下確實如此，但很多時候它沒有。
慈善事業：你會如何回應別人做相反的情況下，誰的人說，“我們需要建立一個政府計劃調解在市場中這種不平衡”是一個真正的進步？
先生。GROVE：嗯，你提出什麼將永遠不會成為現實，因為足夠多的人會揮動雙手，大聲喊，“中央計劃！管理經濟！共產主義！“那會破壞試圖引進一個政府的解決方案。順便說一句，我不與異議不同意。在我的書[在整個游泳]，我告訴下怎麼共產主義我從來不買，我需要在夏天相紙，直到冬天來了，反之亦然的故事。中央計劃生產它可以在給定的時間，心中永遠的需求高效率地生產，即使是相對可預測的。所以我有一個強烈的懷疑有一個中央機構也不能解決這一問題。但是，這並不意味著你剛才描述的自由市場反饋機制的作品無論是。
慈善事業：我想這給我們帶來了私人慈善機構。你能告訴我你的努力，使職業或學校到職業教育更容易獲得和更吸引人？
先生。GROVE：我們資助的學生在社區學院和其他職業培訓獎學金。獎學金的取值範圍從$ 500到$ 5000元每年，這取決於培訓和學生的需求類型。對他們來說，我們提供支持的人是不是那些誰打算轉學到四年制 大學。相反，我們是為那些誰打算學業完成後馬上進入了職業生涯的學生資助獎學金。我們的計劃隨時間的變化，但我們一直給這類獎學金超過十年，並給予一般每年超過100個獎學金。
慈善事業：那你知道今天你願意，你10年前已知的，當你開始使用？
先生。GROVE：從一開始，我們意識到這是一個嚴重的問題; 沒有任何疑問的。但是，我完全低估有多深的問題了。因此，我們啟動了天真，相信通過資助這個獎學金，我們將創造出巨大的需求。我們曾假設，如果我們提供的資金，人會來。他們想成為他們自己的兩隻腳，他們將迅速找到他們所選擇的領域。為了實現這一目標，該計劃最初集中在誰是打算去社區學院或私立職業學校高中學生。最終，我們放棄了在那個特定人群的高中學生。現在，我們支持在社區學院的一些方案，一些非營利組織處正在做職業培訓，其中主要是成人學生。
慈善事業：我可以問你為什麼停止提供獎學金的高中生？
先生。GROVE：隨著我們的高中生推移，我們發現，我們無法獲得足夠的正確人選。其中一件事我有帶來很大的麻煩與被設法達到我們想要達到的人。我們無法吸引最合格的學生，因為幾乎每個人都誰被認為有天賦指出在四年制 大學學位的方向。那麼，誰將在獎學金計劃結束了，學生們經常缺乏其他選擇，因此毫不奇怪了不是很好的完成率。我們把錢和支持系統進獎學金計劃，但其畢業率並不比一般的社區學院的不滿意率顯著更好。我覺得我們把地板上的數百萬美元，人不會來接他們回家。
慈善事業：這是為什麼？
先生。GROVE：我不認為我有一個簡單的答案。在許多方面，當然，這是對職業教育的文化偏見的反映。最終，經過也許五年嘗試不同的東西，我們說，我們不能戰勝一切，我們遇上了在高中設置的東西。學生不高的它看成是一個途徑; 教育工作者不高的它看成是一個途徑; 家長不高的它看成是一個途徑。但也有社區學院和非營利組織，在那裡，欣賞職業教育的價值。隨著一些幫助和部分獎學金的錢，他們可以在他們的方式讓學生，讓我們幫助他們做到這一點。我們的計劃是現在聚焦在少數社區學院和一些非營利組織。
慈善事業：是你與普通公立高中的工作？
先生。GROVE：是的，典型的大加利福尼亞州高中，在為經濟欠富裕地區。
慈善事業：你有沒有考慮開一所特許學校？
先生。GROVE：在我們開始的時候，我們希望它成為主流的教育背景下的可行選擇。吸掉其關閉，以一個特殊的地方也不會做到了這一點。
慈善事業：所以現在你與社區學院合作？
先生。GROVE：是的。即使在這裡是很令人沮喪。在加利福尼亞州的社區學院，只有四分之一的學生獲取學位或證書他們六年內尋找。究其原因，不是人們拖著自己的腳。首先，他們需要工作，而他們在學校。其次，許多人需要矯正教育。第三，他們無法獲得所需的類和輔導，他們需要-這是本年度的預算削減之前。部分由於這個原因，我們也資助了民辦職業培訓機構的獎學金。
一個相關的問題是社區學院，採取最近的高中畢業生，並通過該計劃讓他們的能力。學生需要幫助他們的導航方式。所以對於高中學生進入社區學院，我們指示20給我們的資金，以支持系統的30％。我不知道這個系統是相對於它可能是學生，甚至誰也賺了的那些，還是獎學金，不太能夠站在他們自己的兩隻腳比他們應該為過於複雜。在這兩種情況下，他們，當他們到達那裡，使他們不迷路需要大量的手把手的指導的。而當我們開始對這一倡議的工作，我很不願意進入牽手業務。我不想花錢，否則將去了獎學金。我是厭惡，厭惡理直氣壯，說這是一所學校的問題，就應該解決這個問題。
慈善事業：你有計劃擴大該計劃？
先生。GROVE：原來，是的。這是理論：當我們demonstrably有效使用這個程序，我們將讓世界知道，他們會來複製它在美國各地。然後，我們邁出了第一步，並落到了我們的臉。人沒來。學校的運行程序的能力是不存在。我們不能名帥別人的一個程序，它並不成功的努力。有好幾次，我都想放棄了整個事情。
其實，我們也有兩個重複一索諾瑪，一個在俄勒岡州，這兩個地雷的同事們開始了。索諾瑪項目關閉之後的幾年，但俄勒岡複製仍在運行。我是如此興奮，重複兩次，我開始夢想為國家特許經營和組建入門指南，這和計劃。然後，我差點從床上摔下來。
到2005年，但是，我們正在考慮一項計劃，以縮小並可能終止程序。最終我們決定，我們將掛在那裡，但我們都已經放棄了，這是怎麼回事被拾起和複製，至少現在是這樣的想法。
偏執的管理涉及試圖預測誰有意無意會讓你放慢腳步，或者誰都會干擾你。
慈善事業：你有沒有發現，這是其他慈善家中缺乏興趣，教育工作者缺乏興趣，或缺乏的興趣的學生，抑或是以上所有？
先生。GROVE：以上所有。當我們啟動的程序，缺乏其他慈善家的興趣幾乎是100％，儘管已自有所改變。至於學校，社區學院是由有多少學生轉移到四年制 大學測量。又是誰來到節目，學生們不是我們試圖達到的。我可以添加關於我們的決定來解決獎學金計劃，而不是擺脫它的一個更多的思考？
慈善事業：當然。
先生。GROVE：原來是有點權。實際上，該方案比以往任何時候。但它仍然不是我們夢想的是，當我們開始。我們有一個概念，我們會成功，因此人們會來找我們，模仿我們，然後倒入他們的資源投入到像我們這樣的計劃。這並沒有發生。以前的幾十年裡推動的價值體系進高校。它就像一個逆風，並且它很難去對抗逆風。有了足夠的資源，我想這也許可以忽略這個價值體系，但還需要大量的錢。現狀是非常強的。幾乎沒有人讚賞問題的重要性。你知道誰認識呢？
慈善事業：誰？
先生。GROVE：加州州長以前。
慈善事業：是的。我似乎記得，州長施瓦辛格批准了一些在加州公立學校的職業培訓計劃。
先生。GROVE：總之，是的。但他被抓住了在經濟下沉，未能顯著改變的事情。但有趣的是，有一個移民總督一個誰出來的歐洲，特別熟練學徒的日耳曼傳統，這是類似的職業培訓，讓他得到了。我不知道其他人誰願意按壓，比方說，奧巴馬總統的問題。
慈善事業：難道這就是成功會是什麼樣子給你，讓問題在決策者的面前？你認為什麼是最大的現實的目標，因為你的資源？
先生。GROVE：每年資助100個名額是可以實現的。如果我的夢想，我可以設想了一系列的情況，這將使這樣的吸引力給他人一個完善的計劃。如果發生這種情況，我們會很樂意與他們合作，但我已經失去了我實現什麼比我們目前的計劃更大的期望。我不認為我們的做法是接近成為一個主導理念的任何地方。
慈善事業：有什麼事情，你已經在你的經驗與職業教育工作得知你已經能夠應用到你的其他地方給？
先生。GROVE：是的。學習去慈善事業在美國的哲學基礎。我不認為我們應該採取一個程序，除非它是在一個地區，政府不提供或者除非我們可以清楚地做得比政府做得更好。政府給了我從我的稅收救濟，以鼓勵我把錢花在慈善事業。我花的錢，政府可以讓我繼續，這意味著我有責任比政府將更加有效地使用這筆錢。另一種方法是為我付出我的稅，讓政府在分配給它選擇的任何方式的錢。所以，慈善家必須做的比政府做得更好，考慮到政府績效的現實評估，無論是在選擇或在其方案的執行。政府是不是做職業教育搞好。我們可以預期，自己做的更好。
慈善事業：你提到美國的慈善事業，它提出了一個有趣點的哲學基礎。您在抵達美國作為一個年輕人，誰匈牙利革命期間從鐵幕後面逃出難民。當時有過一個時刻，當你首次承認美國的慈善事業和讚賞它是如何的不同來自共產主義制度下，你一直生活在匈牙利的？
先生。GROVE：我沒想到這樣的問題，在接下來的40年。給你舉個例子，當我第一次抵達美國，在IRC [國際救援委員會]花了我一大筆錢。該組織主辦了我的簽證，並為我安排了運輸到美國，和我到達後，它為我提供了憑單牙科檢查，新的眼鏡和助聽器。在匈牙利，我試過幾個俄製助聽器，但他們醜陋，笨重，而且沒有工作。在美國，IRC支付了300 $ 1956 [$大約2,400 2011]給我買的新模式。我發現這非常了不起。於是我開始從我第一次去上班的時候支持IRC。但我沒有想到更大的照片，直到十年之後。這不是深刻的思考之後的活動。相反，很長一段時間，這是活動的第一接收，後來放棄，沒有太多深刻的思考。
慈善事業：這聽起來像你本能地採取了一些美國的做法沒有任何一種理論框架。
先生。GROVE：是的。也有一些是這一點。而實際上，為了這一天，我抱怨，而不具有較大的理論框架慈善事業的各個方面。
慈善事業：你抱怨什麼樣的事情呢？
先生。GROVE：慈善家往往是非常滿意自己，他們很容易沾沾自喜。相反，它們應該是憤怒，並讓自己的憤怒指導他們的付出。
慈善事業：這不是經常，你聽到了“憤怒”慈善事業的電話。
先生。GROVE：這其實是我之前的觀點的必然結果。考慮以下。即使政府有幾十年來，這些地區經歷大的程序，其程序通常不被人們誰是熱衷於工作的運行。這就是私人資金可以是不同的，它可以提供額外的量，使一些成功。但是，如果我們的資助者把我們個人的精力，我們追求的原因，這只能發生。如果我們積累的手段來做到這一點首先，我們大概已經成功的一些領域的企業，如果我們在一個地區取得了成功，我們或許可以把這些技能到另一個區域。但是，我們只可能這樣做，如果我們有足夠的憤怒，心煩，敬業，激情，和情感承諾的主題。而且我不認為這是發生了什麼事。
慈善事業：怎麼會這樣？
先生。GROVE：大，成立基金會是由20加人板運行。他們是一致的態度照顧。灰色，低調，幹練，充滿激情的不是，這是他們如何在我看來。當然，這是一個廣泛的概括。但在我看來，沒有導致這些基礎正在與激情犯，因為我會形容為憤怒的一種方式。他們是不太可能反其道而行，他們不太可能孤兒項目-它們只是不可能做這樣的事情以後去。
例如，在一所大學或醫療中心的大型籌款活動，它總是更容易獲得資金的建築物比一個項目。有沒有關於建築的價值爭議。但往往是關於項目的爭議。有挫折，有並發症，有無奈。人們迴避的路程。“人生苦短”，他們對自己說。我更願意做一些事情，需要做的事情。我投資高達自己，我可以。有時候，我貢獻的一種方式，有時是另一種方式，如果我沒有成功，這不是因為我沒有嘗試。
慈善事業：鑑於你描述的個人參與的程度，你會怎麼喜歡的人在記住你，比如說，是100年？
先生。GROVE： [笑]我不在乎。
慈善事業：我想你不打算創建一個永久的基礎。
先生。GROVE：我們將歇業我的妻子後25年，我都死了。
慈善事業：你所希望在未來的基礎做？
先生。GROVE：我希望倖存的管理層和董事會是熱情，承諾和憤怒。
深夜讀這篇提倡：熱情地去幹政府做不到或比慈善單位更無效率的事業，譬如說，青年或成年人的技能訓練.....了不起Interview with Andrew Grove
The Angry Philanthropist
Interview from Spring 2011 issue of Philanthropy magazine
The Angry Philanthropist
Interview from Spring 2011 issue of Philanthropy magazine
沒有留言:
張貼留言