<p>As more students question rising college costs, professors defend useless research and their lack of teaching.</p>
<p>By NAOMI SCHAEFER RILEY</p>
<p>'Crisis of Confidence Threatens College." So went a headline in the Chronicle of Higher Education this spring, describing a recent survey of the American public. "Public anxiety over college costs is at an all-time high," the report concluded. "And low-income college graduates or those burdened by student-loan debt are questioning the value of their degrees."</p>
<p>In the face of such anxiety, one might expect college faculty to re-examine the financial priorities of universities, or at least put up a reasonable front of listening and responding to their critics. Instead, academics have circled the wagons, viciously attacking any outsider who dares to disagree with them, and insisting that reformers are not sophisticated enough to understand the system.</p>
<p>In a book published last month, "The Faculty Lounges . . . And Other Reasons Why You Won't Get the College Education You Paid For," I argue that our system of higher education is focused too much on research and not enough on teaching. In fact, one 2005 study in the Journal of Higher Education suggests an inverse relationship between the amount of time spent in the classroom and a professor's salary. It would seem that professors who spend their time writing are the ones most valued by our universities.</p>
<p>I can’t access the full article, but the excerpt provided is not very convincing that most academic research is “useless.” There are two examples of useless research, the first being a book on the significance of the commercialization of Indian relics, and the second a sex toys demonstration example. The latter isn’t an example of scholarly research, so it doesn’t have any relevance except to suggest that professors don’t have any sense of what is appropriate. The first example seems like it could be valid research.</p>
<p>This woman is an idiot, and the article is flagrant anti-academic reserach propaganda. Moreover, the article clearly displays specifically chosen quotes that were taken out of context to further her point, creating a terribly unbalanced article. The article neither offers a single point on the vast benefits that academic research brings nor does it mention the fact that some academic professors are paid in part, or in whole, by grants or other external funds. Simply put, the author seems to be writing an article for the sole purpose of angrily influencing others, rather than even ATTEMPTING to write a balanced article. Also, the article utilizes ad hominem arguments to appeal emotion, instead of appealing to logic.</p>
<p>p.s. No, I am not an academic professor and am not in any way particularly biased.</p>
<p>I think the fundamental problem with affordability today is that jobs in many areas with high concentrations do not pay enough to cover education costs. That is not really an issue with the professors. There are enough kids who want to study these subjects, so there is no subsidizing going on. the issue is that the kids are not made aware of economic realities when they choose their majors. Which is also fine, as long as parents are paying for college. But if the kids are themselves taking out loans but not considering the ability to pay back the loans, then we have a problem.</p>
<p>Intellectual/scientific progress aside, academic research means the employment of tens of thousands of Americans: from librarians and lab technicians, to publishers and book sellers, from convention centers employees who organize academic conferences to the hotels and caterers who serve them. Not to mention the builders who build labs, the technicians who fill them with high tech equipment developed as result of someone else’s “pointless” research. And of course we know, that there are absolutely no universities that generated enormous wealth for their communities just by virtue of being there. </p>
<p>Nope. No benefits to academic research. Zip. Zero. Nada.</p>
<p>I like how Dr. Richard Feynman puts it: “Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that’s not why we do it.” There is just the joy in finding things out.</p>
<p>Scientific and technical research confers obvious material benefits to society, in terms of jobs created by new technology, medicine, and increased quality-of-living. </p>
<p>Arguing for scholarship in humanities and the arts is less obvious, but still can be done.</p>
<p>Studies of other cultures become important when we as a nation need to make policy to deal with those cultures, whether we are at war with them or are trying to negotiate economic policy. </p>
<p>I think historical analysis tells us how challenges were met in the past so that we can look at current situations with more perspective.</p>
<p>More importantly, the central point of a liberal arts education is that you are supposed to develop your critical thinking, not to just learn stuff. If professors don’t engage in critical thinking themselves in order to create new insights, I have to believe that attitude would filter down to the students. So the profs would just impart knowledge and the students would become passive receptacles of facts, because trying to find new insights was no longer valued. </p>
<p>Also, while scholarly research can take you away from teaching, it is also can make your teaching stronger. At least in science, in class you often give oversimplifications of what is on the cutting edge. If you are doing research on the cutting edge, you can nuance your lectures so that they are precise and also field questions. I would believe the same is true for Shakespeare. One of the author’s implicit assumptions seems to be that there is nothing new to be said about Shakespeare. The central axiom in academia is that there is always something new, waiting to be uncovered by a skilled academic.</p>
<p>Well, do understand that the author never claimed this to be a ‘balanced’ article, but rather an op-ed, and I have never once encountered a truly balanced op-ed before in my life. Op-eds by their very nature serve to illustrate a particular point of view.</p>
<p>Well, then, by that very same argument, any enterprise that happens to provide employment to numerous people is, by definition, useful. Heck, one could say that even criminals are some of the most ‘productive’ members of society, for their activities spurs the employment of hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers, lawyers, judges, prison guards, and other members of the criminal justice system, not to mention the billions of dollars of revenue generated the home security and insurance industries. Let’s not also forget the contribution of criminals as a core plot element to some of the most critically acclaimed movies and TV shows in history: The Godfather, Goodfellas, The Sopranos, The Wire, Boardwalk Empire, On the Waterfront, Bonnie and Clyde, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid being just a short list of examples. And it is surely true that criminals were instrumental in the early development and fostering of the Las Vegas gambling industry. </p>
<p>But even despite all of that, I think it is hard to argue that the activity of criminals provides a net positive social value to society. Society pays billions for law enforcement and criminal justice systems to protect ourselves from the activities of criminals, and as artistically brilliant The Godfather and The Sopranos were, the country would still surely be better off if the Mafia had never existed.</p>
<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. Some of the most influential educators in my life were my high school teachers. None of them engaged in research or even held PhD’s at all. Yet they were still able to inculcate an attitude towards critical thinking and love of learning into their students nonetheless. Surely plenty of other CC posters can think of some K-12 teachers who did the same for them. How is that possible if those teachers don’t engage in research - and by extension, do not engage in critical thinking - themselves? </p>
<p>The same could be said for the profs at the elite LAC’s, who while engaging in some research, certainly do not concentrate upon research to the same intensity as profs at the top research universities. Yet one of the main selling points of the top LAC’s is their excellent educational environments, such that many students turn down admittance to research universities for LAC’s. If research was inherently necessary to provide an educational and teaching experience, then why do the LAC’s exist at all?</p>
<p>Actually, the driving force of the op-ed doesn’t seem to be specifically about whether research is ‘useless’, but rather why students (and their parents) should have to be the ones to pay for that research. If profs want to engage in research - whether useful or useless - that’s one thing, but students should have to pay for that research only if they actually derive benefits from that research. The real question then is, do they actually derive such benefits?</p>