In der Dissertation habe ich versucht eine Theorie der globalen Gerechtigkeit darzustellen. Diese Theorie hat als ihre Basis das Denken von John Rawls. Rawls hat sich in seinem letzten Buch „Das Recht der Völker“ zu dem Thema geäußert. Ich erläutere seine Gedanken und zugleich kritisiere ich sie. Meine Kritikpunkte an Rawls: 1. Keine detaillierte Erläuterung der Aufteilung in ideale und nichtideale Theorie 2. Unvollkommenheit der Prinzipien für die ideale Theorie der globalen Gerechtigkeit Ich verweise auf die mögliche Verbesserung des Rawlschen Standpunktes über globale Gerechtigkeit durch: 1. eine Unterscheidung der normativen und deskriptiven idealen bzw. nichtidealen Theorie (damit wird die Struktur von Rawls‘s Arguments klarer) 2. Durch die Darstellung von drei Prinzipien die Rawlssche Prinzipien hätten sein könnten (damit bekommt seine Theorie inhaltlich mehr Wert) 3. Durch die Erläuterung des Prinzips der Solidarität als das, was an Rawls‘s Theorie besonders gewesen sein könnte. / In my disertation I have tried to present a theory of global justice. This theory has for its basis the thought of John Rawls. Rawls expressed his thaughts about the topic in his last book „The Law of Peoples.“ On the one hand I explain his theory while on the other I criticize it. My critique on Rawls goes accoring the following lines: 1. No elaborated disitiniction betwen the ideal and nonideal theory 2. Unfinished principles for the ideal theory of global justice I point to the possible amelioration of Rawls´ theory of global justice through: 1. Differentiation of the normative and descriptive ideal and nonideal theory (through this disticition is the stucture of Rawls´ argument clearer) 2. Introduction of three prinicples that should have been Rawls´s (through these three principles the content of his theory becomes more valuable) 3. Eplaning the principle of solidarity as the principle that could have been the specific for Rawls´ theory

This thesis presents three empirical analyses in the economics of Higher Education within the United Kingdom. The first analysis evaluates the impact of student funding reforms on participation and course choice, through the use of a difference-in-differences strategy with heterogeneous treatment effects. The results show that students who received the largest increase in study costs were less likely to move further away and also more likely to study a subject with lower graduate wage premia due to the significant reduction in the risk of investing in higher education. Students who received the largest increase in up-front financial support were more likely to attend a university further away. The second question addresses whether undergraduate subject choice is affected by changes in the expected benefits and opportunity costs of investing in HE through variation in the labour market. Students who reside in areas of high unemployment are found to be less likely to choose subjects with the largest graduate wage and employment premia. This suggests that students may be afraid of failure in challenging labour markets and instead choose to study subjects with a greater chance of success. However, lower socioeconomic status students are more likely to study subjects with the highest graduate wage and employment premia. This suggests that the students who may be the most aware of the costs, are also the most aware of the benefits. Finally, the third analysis investigates whether students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged incur a further penalty in terms of degree attainment. The results show that the most disadvantaged students outperform their advantaged counterparts. This may be due to pre-university attainment being an imperfect measure of ability in the most disadvantaged students, or that students who have had to overcome the most challenges to attend university are better-equipped and more determined to succeed.

我國自1996年起開始試辦綜合高中，迄今已有十餘年。試辦綜合高中的目的在於促使我國後期中等教育能在高中、高職之外，提供另一條不同的選擇進路，俾使學生得以適性發展，學得多方面的知識，達到適性教育的目標。過去國內關於綜合高中分流政策的研究，大都集中在探討綜合高中的辦學績效和實施困難，而非該政策對學生學習成就的影響之探討。有鑑於此，本研究進一步探討：（1）哪些因素會影響國中畢業生選擇就讀普通高中和綜合高中學術導向組；（2）就讀綜合高中的學生，其學生學習成就是否優於就讀一般高中或高職；（3）綜合高中的課程分流政策是否能減少教育階層化的產生。 原始資料取自臺灣教育長期追蹤資料庫（Taiwan Education Panel Survey）公開使用版中的第一波到第四波國中追蹤樣本資料，並使用傾向分數配對法（Propensity Score Matching）探討上述三個研究目的。研究結果發現：(1)控制其它相關因素之後，過去學習成就和家庭社經背景愈佳者，愈有可能就讀普通高中及綜合高中學術導向組；(2)在學生學習成就表現上，就讀綜合高中的學生並不比就讀一般高中或高職的學生來得好；(3)綜合高中分流政策和制度性分流一樣，都會產生教育階層化現象。最後，本研究說明本研究結果對綜合高中分流政策的意涵，及提出研究建議供後續研究之用。 / Since 1996, Taiwan government launched the policy of Comprehensive High School (CHS) to relax the traditional system of curriculum tracking at the level of the senior secondary education. A number of studies and on-site evaluation reports on CHS have been made. So far, these studies and reports focused on exploring the performance of comprehensive high schools and difficulties in implementation of the policy. No evaluation of the impacts of the CHS policy on student achievement has yet been done. The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of the CHS policy on students’ achievement in the upper secondary education in Taiwan. This study attempts to answer the following research questions: (1) What factors influence junior-high school graduates’ decision on attending general high schools, and the academic track in comprehensive high schools? (2) Do students enrolling in comprehensive high schools perform better academically than those enrolling in general or vocational high schools? (3) Do curriculum tracking in comprehensive high schools enhance or reduce inequality in educational achievement? Using the data from the public released core panel data of the Taiwan Education Panel Survey (TEPS) in 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007, this study employs the method of propensity score matching (PSM) to estimate the average treatment effect of CHS policy on student achievement. All results of PSM analysis indicate that (1) all else being equal, students with higher prior student achievement and better socio-economic backgrounds have more opportunities to enroll in an academic track, including senior high schools and the academic track in comprehensive high schools, than those with lower level of prior achievement or socio-economic backgrounds; (2) for those enrolled in comprehensive high schools, there is virtually no gain in student achievement from the CHS policy; and (3) tracking in comprehensive high schools produce inequality in educational achievement, which is similar to tracking between general and vocational high schools. Finally, the present study discusses the implications of the CHS policy and suggests directions for future research.

This dissertation is the application of counterfactual criticism to Shakespearean tragedy—supposing we are to ask, for example, “what if” Hamlet had done the deed, or, “what if” we could somehow disinherit our knowledge of Lear’s madness before reading King Lear. Such readings, mirroring critical practices in history, will loosely be called “counterfactual” readings. The key question to ask is not why tragedies are no longer being written (by writers), but why tragedies are no longer being felt (by readers). Tragedy entails a certain urgency in wanting to imagine an outcome different from the one we are given. Since we cannot change events as they stand, we feel a critical helplessness in dealing with feelings of tragic loss; the critical imperative that follows usually accounts for how the tragedy unfolded. Fleshing out a cause is one way to deal with the trauma of tragedy. But such explanation, in a sense, merely explains tragedy away. The fact that everything turns out so poorly in tragedy suggests that the tragic protagonist was somehow doomed, that he (in the case of Shakespearean tragedy) was the victim of some “tragic flaw,” as though tragedy and necessity go hand in hand. Only by allowing ourselves to imagine other possibilities can we regain the tragic effect, which is to remind ourselves that other outcomes are indeed possible. Tragedy, then, is more readily understood, or felt, as the playing out of contingency. It takes some effort to convince others, even ourselves, that the tragic effect resonates best when accompanied by an understanding that the characters on the page are free individuals. No amount of foreknowledge, on our part or theirs, can save us (or them) from tragedy’s horror.

This dissertation is the application of counterfactual criticism to Shakespearean tragedy—supposing we are to ask, for example, “what if” Hamlet had done the deed, or, “what if” we could somehow disinherit our knowledge of Lear’s madness before reading King Lear. Such readings, mirroring critical practices in history, will loosely be called “counterfactual” readings. The key question to ask is not why tragedies are no longer being written (by writers), but why tragedies are no longer being felt (by readers). Tragedy entails a certain urgency in wanting to imagine an outcome different from the one we are given. Since we cannot change events as they stand, we feel a critical helplessness in dealing with feelings of tragic loss; the critical imperative that follows usually accounts for how the tragedy unfolded. Fleshing out a cause is one way to deal with the trauma of tragedy. But such explanation, in a sense, merely explains tragedy away. The fact that everything turns out so poorly in tragedy suggests that the tragic protagonist was somehow doomed, that he (in the case of Shakespearean tragedy) was the victim of some “tragic flaw,” as though tragedy and necessity go hand in hand. Only by allowing ourselves to imagine other possibilities can we regain the tragic effect, which is to remind ourselves that other outcomes are indeed possible. Tragedy, then, is more readily understood, or felt, as the playing out of contingency. It takes some effort to convince others, even ourselves, that the tragic effect resonates best when accompanied by an understanding that the characters on the page are free individuals. No amount of foreknowledge, on our part or theirs, can save us (or them) from tragedy’s horror.