燕雀鸿鹄各有志, 长江放眼大风流

mba3000

宁静以致远

——
            由“庞加莱猜想风波”所想到的

长江商学院教授
            项兵
            

07.04. 04

去年，国际数学界引人关注。

6月，哈佛大学教授、中国籍数学家丘成桐宣布，中山大学朱熹平和美国利哈伊大学曹怀东两位华人教授完全破解数学世纪难题之“庞加莱猜想”，国内媒体竞相报道，各界为之兴奋不已。然而，狂欢未能维持多久，关于究竟谁破解了“庞加莱猜想”却让丘成桐、朱熹平和曹怀东三位学者成为关注的对象。美国权威杂志《科学》在去年底一篇题为“2006年度十大科学进展”中，为“庞加莱猜想”做了盖棺定论。文中指出，“俄罗斯人佩雷尔曼给出的庞加莱猜想证明至少是10年内最大的突破。而其他人却花了这10年中相当多的时间来证明他的结论。佩雷尔曼解决了数学界最令人肃然起敬的问题之一。但是猜想的解决却触发了一场充满争议和戏剧性的风波，几乎令这一辉煌的工作，黯然失色。”

我对数学界这场争论兴趣不大，此篇感想也并非针对争议中的中国数学家。随感源于读到美国杂志《纽约客》对佩雷尔曼访谈，有一些感想，想说一说。佩雷尔曼在接受《纽约客》专访中表示，他决定从数学界隐退，原因是数学界同行在“道德标准”上莫名的下降使他感到失望。不久，在8月22日国际数学家大会开幕上，国际数学家联盟主席宣布，佩雷尔曼谢绝领取象征国际数学界最高奖项的菲尔兹奖。

“庞加莱猜想风波”让中国学者在国际数学界的声誉受到不小影响。国外媒体甚至以“历年来罕见的一场学术界非常事件”、“乐极生悲（Anticlimax）”等词语形容中国学者的表现；而国内媒体事后的评论似乎更加了解“中国国情”，“数学江湖”一词恰如其分道出中国学术界中的潜规则。

中国学者对菲尔兹奖的渴望，以及中国媒体的“热炒（我们现在好像什么都要炒一炒，就连数学学术问题也不能幸免），佩雷尔曼的态度值得我们认真反思。这位被外界称之为“数学隐修士”的俄罗斯人，给同行最深刻的印象是潜心研究、淡泊名利、来去无踪。去年8月，美国《纽约时报》曾刊登一篇报道，开篇就是“佩雷尔曼，你在哪里？”据了解，美国数学界对这位天才极其佩服，但佩雷尔曼谢绝了斯坦福大学、普林斯顿高等研究院等著名学府的聘请，而偏爱“在圣彼得堡附近的森林里找蘑菇”。佩雷尔曼说：“我知道经常有人热衷于自我推销，如果有人喜欢，那么我祝他好运，但是我不认为这是一件积极的事情”。

佩雷尔曼对成就、声誉和金钱的淡泊令人敬佩，取舍之间所表现的是对精神的坚守，对功利的漠视。这也使我想到，为什么莫斯科大学会有11位诺贝尔奖得主？俄罗斯为什么会成为科学和技术的大国？为什么俄罗斯能产生伟大的文学家、音乐家和一代又一代世界顶级芭蕾舞演员？个中原因种种，包括历史、文化、社会等诸方面。但在我看来，诚如佩雷尔曼那种淡泊功利的精神，用“心”做事的态度，也许是诸多俄罗斯籍学者、艺术家、文学家享誉世界的一个不可忽视的重要原因。这也不由让我联想起，不久前在莫斯科的一些所见所闻。在著名的莫斯科红场及周边街道，我步行很久都没有看到一家咖啡厅，商业氛围也很淡薄，俄罗斯人对赚钱显得似乎有点漫不经心。大众对诸如看芭蕾舞，看画展，听音乐会倒是充满了发自内心的热情。

不久前第79届奥斯卡颁奖之前，国人寄予厚望的《满城尽带黄金甲》能否决胜最佳服装设计奖时，奥斯卡评委却对此并无兴趣。结果，真金制作的服装最终只晃悠了投资商眼睛，却没有为中国换回一座含金量不高的小金人。这对于中国“大片”来说近乎是一种嘲弄。自从《卧虎藏龙》获奖后，几年来中国“大片”就亦步亦趋地用古装和武侠向奥斯卡狂奔，它们为奥斯卡量身订做着影片，最终的结局却好像是“你越追，它越远”。倒是本届奥斯卡奖上，杨紫烨执导的纪录片《颍州的孩子》在角逐最佳纪录短片的时候异军突起，历史性地获得了一项国际大奖。这件事也许能告诉我们点什么。目标不是不重要，如果研究成果能获诺贝尔奖，电影能拿奥斯卡，当然很好。但我以为这个关系应该是：我们研究某一个问题，是因为这个问题重要或者因为这个问题有趣。而不是因为研究这个问题有可能获奖；写小说拍电影，是因为内心有冲动，一定要写，一定要拍，而不是因为奥斯卡。

过去二十多年，中国经济快速发展，物质财富极大丰富起来。但在很多方面，我们也许过于急功近利，功利目标似乎在主导我们许多方面的发展。做研究是为了得诺贝尔奖，拍电影是为了奥斯卡，读书为了考试，办学为了排名，搞学术为了赚钱，经营企业目标是为了进500强……。急功近利的做事方式短期内也许会带来大大小小的实惠，但我以为，从长计议来审视，这种风气一旦堆砌为一种文化，很有可能会对我们的发展和进步带来潜在隐患，甚至可能削弱我们作为一个大国和平崛起的力量。

现在，也许我们可以稍微慢下脚步，找回一些可以令内心心潮澎湃的精神世界。我们要更多地用“心”去做一个“事业”，而不是仅仅为了眼前的利益和某一个功利的目标。学术界要用“心”做事，企业界需要用“心”做事，文化界要用心做事……社会各界都需要整体性用“心”思考。我们需要大力弘扬“宁静以致远”的内在精神。淡泊名利，超越做秀，超越形备而实不致的复制，以此推动中国社会做出一些可以撼动世界的“大风流”之事，是为真正的财富。

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-4-13 1:58:49编辑过]

davidli8888

This is a good reflection on the society. It reflects some vision about CK long-term pursuit?

foever

这也是长江不参加排名的原因之一，长江有长江的战略

davidli8888

What is wrong with Ranking? If CK wants to increase its popularity and change its image of a local and second tier bschools, in its efforts to attract more high quality students to apply, it may have to participate in some key rankings.

When prospective applicants have to choose the short-listed bschools, how do you expect him/her to do? Ranking is one of the most important base for his/her decisions. I do not believe CK can avoid the head-on-head competition, or has no courage/confidence to meet the basic measures of the ranking and set itself apart in the tough fight for a better place in the ranking.

No bschools can enjoy free-of-competition in the attracting high quality applicant pool. Be realistic...

foever

You can refer to the following. Wish give some ideas.

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=16&ID=234036&page=1

长江为什么不参加排名
            

        关于排名，大家比较关心。我参加过和项兵院长的座谈，也听过他和申请者的解释，在这里和大家分享一下吧。
            

        长江的思路大概是这样的：先重点搞EDP、EMBA，比如和沃顿、INSEAD、哥伦比亚合作就非常成功（我如果说最好又会受到攻击了），这样可以先招些“牛学生”，让牛校认识，然后再进一步谈MBA的合作就容易了。我们坦然，MBA学生质量很难和TOP10相比，但EDP是没问题的，看看学生名单就知道了（牛根生、马云、施正荣等）。
       当然，有些合作现在也可以，比如03和沃顿就有交换，但那是有求如人，由长江出钱的单项交换，不是平等合作。和INSEAD，
            哥伦比亚的交换好像也在谈，等消息了。
       同时在招牛教授，今年力度很大，哥伦比亚的院长来长江，看了教授名单，他说有6个教授认识，好，我们来谈合作，所以今年就合作了，哈佛积极在与长江谈合作。项兵说他们选合作对象第一是看教授不是排名，牛教授之间互相都认识，不需要其他的证明。
　　项兵认为开始牛校、牛教授、牛学生的认可比排名要重要，所以不参加排名，排名过两年是水到渠成的事。他可能觉得时机不成熟，如同IPO，时机不好，价格差异会很大。

davidli8888

My question: CK seems not interested in Ranking, but it says that it wants to get into top 10 in the world. By what standard when you talk about the top 10?

CK also says that it takes aggressive efforts to attract best faculty from top 10. Again, why do you use top 10 when it thinks ranking means nothing for CK?

Just put your feet in CK's students' shoes -they love to see the goodwill with CK MBA rising all the way, evidenced by something -Ranking is a very important measure. CK alumni would be glad to see both CK and CEIBS advance in the ranking palces on FT.

I cannot completely reject ranking just because of something not perfect in its compilation. Again, informed applicants do refer to the ranking when they make decisions for their applications. Just go and have a reality check with your current students or the prospective ones. Can we be more realistic?

Bergkamp

I share David's points. The importance of ranking should not be exaggerated, but you can never underestimate its impact as well.

My interpretation of CK's rationale is as following: Ranking is important but for sure not the ultimate goal. You will get a reasonable ranking down the road if you make great effort to build a world-class b-school. It's not wise to put too much energy on ranking while compromising the long-term interest of CK.

It could also be a maketing tactic to avoid directly confronting CEIBS on ranking. CK is actually not eligible for FT ranking now. FT ranking is based on the data of the MBA class graduated 4 years prior to the survey. The founding class of CKMBA graduated in 2004.

I might be biased cuz I am a CK graduate. Just for your reference...

foever

长江不是不看重ranking,只是没按照通常的思路走，我前边的帖子已经说明了，我们几届校友不久前刚和项院长有过交流，基本上还是有一定共识的，我们作为长江的毕业生肯定对长江的前景很关心。长江在这方面做过深入研究，也专门有这方面的人员，而且很资深，只是有时机等问题，再等两年看看吧。

davidli8888

That sums up and makes sense. Thanks.

mba3000

I believe Dean Xiang wants to lead CKGSB to become a better business school and build that based on what practitioners, students, and academicians need in China. He wants people to think in the big picture, in the long term. That is why he stresses doing your job using your mind, heart, and soul.

Ranking could be misleading and misguide the energy of the deans of business schools. Take FT for example, they put 20% of the weight on faculty strength. out of this 20%, 10% of the weight is on internationalization, 5% on teaching and another 5% on faculty research. CKGSB wants to build a research school and hire faculty whose research is highly respected. If CKGSB pursues FT ranking as a goal, then it has to change its strategg, which is not what Dean Xiang wants. Using the same rationale, Harvard, Wharton have pulled out of participating in Business Week ranking or refuse to provide data to them.

The utlimate goal is to build CKGSB to become a top business school in people's mind. Ranking is secondary and a derivative of that. If participation in ranking sidestep CKGSB from its main focus, then CKGSB should not participate. On the other hand, if participation in ranking helps, then CKGSB should. It is a judgement call. Right now, ranking does not help CKGSB based on the following views according to Dean Xiang.

1. CKGSB is making an impact in important business issues and practices. Firms such as Lenovo, Huawei, Qingdao constantly ask CKGSB to provide advices and training services.

2. CKGSB attracts the best facult to come to China. Many of the faculties had offers from competing schools such as HKUST, NUS or CEIBS but they all choose to come to CK

3. CKGSB has got the best student body in China in both the executive level and the mba level. at the executive level, think about ma yun, shi zheng long, shen nanpeng, guo guangchang, fu chuanyu, niu gengsheng, jiang nanchun, liu yonghao. At the mba level, CKGSB graduates are doing very well in their placement as evidenced by the 112% jump of their salary after graduation. Moreover, their academic performances in exchange schools such as UNC Chapel Hill, Wharton, Darden and Carlson are above average, suggesting that CKGSB MBA student's quality are on par with the top school MBAs

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-4-11 20:40:25编辑过]