In the curious custom of this venerable institution, I find myself standing before you expected to impart words of lasting wisdom. Here I am in a pulpit, dressed like a Puritan minister — an apparition that would have horrified many of my distinguished forebears and perhaps rededicated some of them to the extirpation of witches. This moment would have propelled Increase and Cotton into a true “Mather lather.” But here I am and there you are and it is the moment of and for Veritas.
按照这所古老大学的奇怪的传统，我应该是站在这儿，告诉你们那些永恒的智慧。我就站在这个讲坛上，穿得像个清教徒牧师一样——这个打扮也许已经吓到了我那些高贵的先人们，让他们以为是巫婆现身（校长是女的，译者注）。这会让英克利斯（Increase）和考特恩（Cotton）父子俩（他们反对清教，译者注）忍不住想审判我的。但是，我还是要站在这儿，跟你们聊聊。
You have been undergraduates for four years. I have been president for not quite one. You have known three presidents; I one senior class. Where then lies the voice of experience? Maybe you should be offering the wisdom. Perhaps our roles could be reversed and I could, in Harvard Law School style, do cold calls for the next hour or so.
你们已经上了四年的大学了，我当校长还不到一年；你们认识三任校长，我只认识大四一个年级的学生。那么，经验是什么？也许你们应该搞清楚。也许我们可以互换一下角色，我可能就会以哈佛法学院惯有的风格，在接下来的一个小时里自说自话。
We all do seem to have made it to this point — more or less in one piece. Though I recently learned that we have not provided you with dinner since May 22. I know we need to wean you from Harvard in a figurative sense. I never knew we took it quite so literally.
从这一点上说，我们似乎都做到了——不管程度多少。但我最近才知道，从5月22日开始你们就没有晚饭吃了。虽然我们会把你们比作已经从哈佛断奶的孩子们，但我从没想到会这么彻底。
But let’s return to that notion of cold calls for a moment. Let’s imagine this were a baccalaureate service in the form of Q & A, and you were asking the questions. “What is the meaning of life, President Faust? What were these four years at Harvard for? President Faust, you must have learned something since you graduated from college exactly 40 years ago?” (Forty years. I’ll say it out loud since every detail of my life — and certainly the year of my Bryn Mawr degree — now seems to be publicly available. But please remember I was young for my class.)
再让我们来说说那个“自说自话”吧。让我们把这个演讲看作是一个答疑式的毕业生服务，你们来提问题。“浮士德校长，生活的意义是什么？我们为什么要在哈佛读四年？校长，四十年前你从学校毕业的时候，肯定学到不少东西吧？”（四十年了。我可以大声地说出我当时生活的每个细节，和我获得布林莫尔学位的年份——现在大家都知道这个。但请注意，我在班里还算岁数小的。）
In a way, you have been engaging me in this Q & A for the past year. On just these questions, although you have phrased them a bit more narrowly. And I have been trying to figure out how I might answer and, perhaps more intriguingly, why you were asking.
其实，这个答疑环节你们早就从我这儿预定了。你们问的问题也大概就是这类的。我也一直在想该怎么回答，还在想：你们为什么为这么问。
Let me explain. It actually began when I met with the UC just after my appointment was announced in the winter of 2007. Then the questions continued when I had lunch at Kirkland House, dinner at Leverett, when I met with students in my office hours, even with some recent graduates I encountered abroad. The first thing you asked me about wasn’t the curriculum or advising or faculty contact or even student space. In fact, it wasn’t even alcohol policy. Instead, you repeatedly asked me: Why are so many of us going to Wall Street? Why are we going in such numbers from Harvard to finance, consulting, i-banking?
听我的回答。2007年冬天，助理就告诉我要有这么一个演讲。当我在Kirkland吃中午饭的时候，在Leverett吃晚饭的时候，当我在我上班时和同学们见面的时候，甚至当我在国外碰见我们刚毕业的学生的时候，同学们都会问我一些问题。你们问我的第一个问题，不是问课程计划，不是提建议，也不是问老师的联系方式或者学生的空间问题。实际上，也不是酒精限制政策。你们不停地问我的问题是：“为什么我们的学生很多都去了华尔街？为什么我们哈佛的学生中，有那么多人到金融、咨询和电子银行领域去？”
There are a number of ways to think about this question and how to answer it. There is the Willie Sutton approach. You may know that when he was asked why he robbed banks, he replied, “Because that’s where the money is.” Professors Claudia Goldin and Larry Katz, whom many of you have encountered in your economics concentration, offer a not dissimilar answer based on their study of student career choices since the seventies. They find it notable that, given the very high pecuniary rewards in finance, many students nonetheless still choose to do something else. Indeed, 37 of you have signed on with Teach for America; one of you will dance tango and work in dance therapy in Argentina; another will be engaged in agricultural development in Kenya; another, with an honors degree in math, will study poetry; another will train as a pilot with the USAF; another will work to combat breast cancer. Numbers of you will go to law school, medical school, and graduate school. But, consistent with the pattern Goldin and Katz have documented, a considerable number of you are selecting finance and consulting. The Crimson’s survey of last year’s class reported that 58 percent of men and 43 percent of women entering the workforce made this choice. This year, even in challenging economic times, the figure is 39 percent.
这个问题可以从好几个方面来回答，我要用的是威利萨顿（一个美国银行大盗，译者注）的回答。你们可能知道，当他被问到为什么要抢银行时，他说“因为那儿有钱”。我想，你们在上经济学课的时候，都见过克劳迪亚·戈丁和拉里·凯兹两位教授，他们根据七十年代以来他们所教学生的职业选择，提出了不同的看法。他们发现，虽然金融行业在金钱方面有很高回报，但还是有学生选择了其它的工作。实际上，你们中有37个人选择做教师，有一个会跳探戈的人要去阿根廷的舞蹈诊疗所上班，另一个拿了数学荣誉学位的人要去学诗歌，有一个要在美国空军受训作一名飞行员，还有一个要去作一名治疗乳房癌症的医生。你们中有很多人会去学法学、学医学、读研究生。但是，根据戈丁和凯兹的记录，更多的人去了金融和咨询行业。Crimson对去年的毕业生作了调查，参加工作的人中，58%的男生和43％的女生去了这两个行业。虽然今年的经济不景气，这个数字还是到了39%。
High salaries, the all but irresistible recruiting juggernaut, the reassurance for many of you that you will be in New York working and living and enjoying life alongside your friends, the promise of interesting work — there are lots of ways to explain these choices. For some of you, it is a commitment for only a year or two in any case. Others believe they will best be able to do good by first doing well. Yet, you ask me why you are following this path.
高薪、不可抗拒的招聘的冲击、到纽约和你的朋友一起工作的保证、承诺工作很有趣——这样的选择可以有很多种理由。对于你们中的一些人，也许只会在其中做一到两年。其他人也都相信这是他们可以做到最好的一份工作。但，还是有人会问：为什么要这样选择。
I find myself in some ways less interested in answering your question than in figuring out why you are posing it. If Professors Goldin and Katz have it right; if finance is indeed the “rational choice,” why do you keep raising this issue with me? Why does this seemingly rational choice strike a number of you as not understandable, as not entirely rational, as in some sense less a free choice than a compulsion or necessity? Why does this seem to be troubling so many of you?
其实，比起回答你们的问题来，我更喜欢思考你们为什么会问。戈丁和凯兹教授的研究是不是正确的；到金融行业是不是就是“理性的选择”；你们为什么会不停地问我这个问题？为什么这个看似理性的选择，却会让你们许多人无法理解、觉得不尽理性，甚至有的会觉得是被迫作出的必要的选择？为什么这个问题会困扰这么多人呢？
You are asking me, I think, about the meaning of life, though you have posed your question in code — in terms of the observable and measurable phenomenon of senior career choice rather than the abstract, unfathomable and almost embarrassing realm of metaphysics. The Meaning of Life — capital M, capital L — is a cliché — easier to deal with as the ironic title of a Monty Python movie or the subject of a Simpsons episode than as a matter about which one would dare admit to harboring serious concern.
我认为，你们问我生活的意义的时候，是带着指向性的——你们把它看成是高级职业选择中可见、可量度的现象，而不是一种抽象而深不可测的、形而上学的尴尬境地。所谓“生活的意义”已经被说滥了——它就像是蒙提·派森（Monty Python）电影里可笑的标题，或者说是《辛普森一家》里的那些鸡零狗碎的话题一样，已经没有任何严肃的涵义了。
