<p>
[quote]
Washington, DC—The American Council of Trustees and Alumni, in conjunction with Education Sector, today released a report that finds declining teaching loads among tenured and tenure-track faculty led to an average increased cost per student of $2,598 annually. Between 1988 and 2004, the average number of classes taught declined 25 percent—from 3.6 to 2.7 courses per term.
<p>I went through the article and it looks like poor scholarship to me.</p>
<p>The article shows statistics on tenured and tenure-track professors and the decline in the number of courses that they are teaching. It provides the reason for the decline and that’s research. It then draws the conclusion that college costs could be lower and teaching quality higher if professors focused more on teaching. It mentions that there may be societal and other costs to less research but that there would be benefits to students in terms of lower costs.</p>
<p>The main problem that I have with this work is that it doesn’t provide any statistics on the use of adjuncts. Nor does it provide statistics on the amount of money that research brings in. Research may be a net profit center for a department and doing more research can actually decrease student costs.</p>
<p>Tenured and tenure-track faculty at research universities used to have much heavier teaching loads. In my own family the teaching loads were more than twice as much in the 60’s as they were by the 90’s, even in a social science field. (Science and engineering loads have declined even more.)</p>
<p>Research is not a moneymaker for colleges when you consider the cost of buildings, operations of buildings/labs, staffing for buildings/labs,… – a few may make money, but the vast majority do not, especially when the total costs (including pensions & other employee benefits and payroll taxes) are considered. </p>
<p>Research is a prestige-maker for universities, and helps them attract top faculty – but they’re tripping all over each other in offering more and more opportunities for these faculty members to not teach – and especially, not to teach lower level undergraduate courses, or to teach only one or two courses in total a year that are real courses. (“Independent Study” supervision is not the same as a real course, imo.)</p>
<p>Faculty in the 1950’s and 1960’s had graduate students with whom they worked closely, did research of great merit, and also had responsibility for teaching substantive course loads. </p>
<p>Today we are still paying those tenured and tenure-track faculty members – but they teach much, much less, and we then turn around and hire adjuncts who receive miserably low pay and virtually no benefits to do a good deal of the teaching in a lot of colleges. </p>
<p>I can’t wrap my mind around the notion that this has not contributed to the cost of a college education.</p>
<p>I looked at my son’s school and my determination was that the professors in his department worked their tails off - teaching, advising and working on research. The most important hiring metric there was the ability to bring in grants and research was clearly more important than teaching.</p>
<p>The building for the department was built at least 50 years ago and it looks like something that you’d see in Eastern Europe. It’s kind of held together with duct tape.</p>
<p>No question that they’re working hard, BCEagle – but they worked hard back in the sixties, too. It is just that their hard work in the sixties was a lot more oriented around teaching, and they were a lot more selective on the number of students admitted to graduate programs.</p>
<p>One thing to keep in mind is that research requirements in terms of quantity and quality have skyrocketed since the '50’s and '60s. One consequence of that is that Professors…especially new faculty on the tenure track are heavily pressured by their institutions to emphasize their research over teaching or else fall victim to “publish or perish” when they come up for tenure and end up being denied and effectively forced to find other opportunities. </p>
<p>This problem is worse at research I universities, but is also not limited to them. A few friends who attended a NE LAC were upset and protested their college’s decision to deny tenure for a favored literature Professor they’ve had. Unfortunately, it seemed the main reason they denied her despite her receiving glowing teaching reviews and even some awards is…she didn’t publish enough. Yes…even top LAC faculty have publishing requirements. </p>
<p>Despite those requirements being less than their research I counterparts, it is more than counterbalanced by a much heavier teaching load even for senior faculty. It’s a factor in why many Professors avoid teaching at top LACs if they have options with research I universities.</p>
<p>Why not do the same study and show that the marked increase in the hiring of non-teaching faculty is the cause of the cost increase? Like the ginormous increase in
Deans and counseling staff; the incredible increase in administrative personnel in every department?</p>
<p>Universities don’t lend themselves to cost accounting where you can track every expense to every outcome- you’re not manufacturing light bulbs here. The cost structure of running a university has changed dramatically in the last 30 years- why blame the teaching faculty? Why not blame our litigious society which requires a team of risk management experts (lawyers, insurance, communications, etc.) to keep the U from getting sued every time there’s a student suicide or a kid falls off a balcony after drinking 10 jello shots?</p>
<p>Professors who don’t want to be at the vanguard of research and furthering knowledge in their disciplines end up at LAC’s where the focus is on teaching. Professor’s who are pushing the envelope on knowledge, new thinking, etc. end up at research universities. Why is this a bad thing?</p>
<p>Since top LACs also have a research requirement on top of a teaching load heavier than peer research I universities, the lines between them in terms of publish or perish has blurred a bit. </p>
<p>Moreover, there are plenty of LAC Professors who somehow succeed at balancing the act to the point they are considered “pushing the envelope on knowledge, new thinking, etc” among colleagues in their field. </p>
<p>Moreover, what’s considered as such is somewhat influenced by academic & national politics. It’s a reason why some Profs I know who are “are pushing the envelope on knowledge, new thinking, etc” aren’t considered as doing that much here in the US…but are highly respected as such overseas…including faculty at places like Oxbridge.</p>
<p>There also doesn’t appear to be any consideration given to independent studies, supervising undergraduate research assistants, time for developing other innovative teaching/research/travel opportunities, etc. I have a 3/3 load, but when you count all the individual work I do, I probably teach a 4.5/4.5 a year. If I had a 3/4 or a 4/4, that would come at the cost of a lot of innovative, engaging, exceptional opportunities for my students.</p>
<p>Regarding research, could the difficulty of research have changed, resulting in different levels of time commitment by faculty and PhD students engaged in research?</p>
<p>On one hand, some aspects are easier, with computers and information technology that make literature searches, statistical analysis, and editing so much easier and faster than before.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the frontiers of research in any given subject get pushed out further, so that someone has to go further past established results (which may involve more time understanding and analyzing previous research results and tackling more complex problems than before) to discover some interesting new result.</p>
<p>Not considering the explosion of non-tenure track people teaching many classes for less pay really throws out that entire analysis. It may be far more cost efficient for the TT profs to concentrate more on research with the profit from that work funding far more adjuncts to teach more smaller classes than otherwise might be available.</p>
<p>It’s mostly the latter…especially considering every Prof. I’ve talked with who started their careers in the '50s and '60s and is aware of changing tenure requirements have said if they were coming up for tenure today with the quantity/quality of research they presented back in the 50’s/60’s, they’d have no chance to secure tenure. </p>
<p>In fact, at some places, they’d have been strongly counseled about increasing their research productivity in both quantity and pushing the complexity/boundaries further. Especially if the research topics/areas are hot enough to get grant money from various public and private agencies/foundations. </p>
<p>I’ve also read in the Chronicle and Inside Higher-Ed that at many universities, awards for excellence in teaching is not only ignored…but often viewed by tenure track faculty as a “kiss of death” for tenure hopes. </p>
<p>It seems being “too popular” with undergrads is regarded dimly by some tenure evaluators as it shows the new faculty member is “not serious enough” about research and does not have his/her priorities straight.</p>
<p>Where is Capitaine Renault when we need him! </p>
<p>Duh, what a surprise! Isn’t the purpose of tenure to pave a path towards even LOWER teaching duties and even LESS significant research? Obviously, some still cling to the notion that removing all competitive pressures and accountability is really good for the “consumers” of the education industry. And that our future hinges on fewer classes taught by our elite professors and more arcane drivel published in the obscure journals that are only read by the same peer groups. </p>
<p>Yeah, let’s not hide our surprise that protecting the academic divas comes at a financial price!</p>
<p>It is only a bad thing when the assumption is false. And, it is also a bad thing when the attraction to many undergraduate students to research universities is based on the faulty expectation that the researchers who are at the “vanguard” will be available or … even on campus.</p>
<p>Research is important, but so is to clearly establish what role it might play in the education of the masses of undergraduates. A better model would be to clearly separate the researchers, let them spend their life chasing the funding, let them operate in the vacuum of their ivory towers, and stop pretending that their mission is beneficial to the scope of what is important to seventeen years old and their parents who will pay the bills.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that one of the main factors in making US Universities…especially elite research ones as renowned and highly ranked in the world…especially after WWII was their research output from faculty* and grad students. It wasn’t the undergraduate teaching as much…as unfortunate as that happens to be. </p>
<p>If undergraduate teaching garnered more of the prestige/institutional reputation, most prestigehound parents would be top LAC or bust…not Ivy/elite university or bust. </p>
<p>You’re also assuming most undergrads…even ones at elite university are that engaged with their education. That’s not something I’ve observed at several campuses firsthand…or Prof/TA friends have observed at their respective institutions. </p>
<p>Most undergrads…especially at large universities are more interested in getting the fun parts of the college experience, graduating with their sheepskin, and start their life trying to be the next masters of the universe. :)</p>
<ul>
<li>Many of whom were refugees fleeing war-torn Europe and Asia.</li>
</ul>
<p>The impression that I get from my son is that the vast majority of undergraduate students at his public research university aren’t interested in research. They may not even really know what research is. A lot of those students are there because of the low sticker price and local scholarships that are available. So there are a fair number of complaints about the teaching quality. If you are a student interested in research, though, and you can learn well on your own, then it can be a great value.</p>
<p>Cobrat, you are simply explaining why “they” are getting away with it, or at least were getting away with it without much fanfare or protests. </p>
<p>And, yes, in the past decades, prestige in the automobile sector was all about the Ferrari and Lamborghini. People looked at them fully knowing that they will never sit in one, let alone own it. All the while flocking to the cheap Toyota or Asian imports. </p>
<p>The issue here is one of relevance. We are told that a college degree is essential to everyone’s future in the New America. And you are correct that the students are mostly disengaged and see college as the best 4 (or 5 or 6) years of their life, with a mimimum of academic pressure, plenty of Greek life, and plenty of parties or sporting events. That would be fine if it did not come at such a cost in the form of parental sacrifices or mountains of debt saddled on students who hardly understand the ramifications of piling up the financial aid. The biggest fraud, however, remains to sell the notion that the academic publishing superstars will play a role in the undergraduate education beyond the “teaching by proxy” via the army of indentured servants and low-cost adjuncts. </p>
<p>Yes, the schools live on the prestige of yesterday and also operate with the same model of yesterday when our country was rich and resistant to rapid increases in costs. After decades of imbalance between the inflation in academic costs and salary increases, we are hoping that families can afford a 200,000 education even when their income has remained stable (if you want to call it that) for the longest time. </p>
<p>There used to be a time when a Pell grant could make a substantial dent in the COA most schools. Now, it is almost an afterthought. </p>
<p>You can’t spend as druken sailors forever and a day; even if there are plenty of people who are oblivious to what they are “buying” and paying for.</p>
<p>Hmmm, from what I remember, teaching quality seemed to be independent of research reputation of faculty. Some of the top faculty in terms of research reputation were also very good at teaching (but there were also some who were not very good).</p>
<p>Also, would the type of course matter in teaching quality? Seems like teaching a large frosh-level course filled with less-than-enthusiastic students who mostly just need it as a requirement for their major would be different from teaching a small graduate-level course that functions in large part to recruit interested graduate students (and the most advanced and motivated undergraduates) into research projects. The frosh might also complain more if the tests and assignments are “hard”, even if “curved” grading neutralizes the effect of the difficulty differences between different instructors’ tests and assignments.</p>
<p>My main point in that paragraph was that the incentives currently in place for tenure track faculty at research I universities…especially elite ones is that in practice…research quality/quantity/ability to get research grants trumps good teaching 99/100. </p>
<p>Not only that…but that’s the best case as at the worst…Profs at some universities who are “too good” at teaching are regarded with suspicion and disdain by those with the power to grant/deny tenure. </p>
<p>In practice, this means that if one happens to be exceedingly tippy-top at academic research in terms of quality/quantity…especially if the research attracts mucho grant dollars and/or he doesn’t run afoul too much of academic/university politics…so long as the Prof on tenure track isn’t exceedingly terrible in the undergrad classroom…he/she has a great chance at getting tenure.</p>
<p>Most liberal arts profs get very little research funding and do not spend most of their time doing research–even at big R-1 schools. Most research funding goes to medical schools which have zero impact on undergrads and the hard sciences which can but is also an area where getting research exposure as an undergrad is important. Engineering, education, business, the arts etc etc are not doing tons of research at most schools. Your history or French or poli sci prof is not burning tjhe midnight oil doing research work-did you see how tiny that amount that was cut by the Senate for Poli sci research was?? It was nothing. So don’t try to paint the issue with too broad a brush. A majority of faculty even at research heavy schools are not slaves to large research grants. They feel lucky to get some money to travel over the summer to work on their next book or paper.</p>