<p>The findings of research become the material for classes in LACs and Unis. If nobody did that research there would be nothing to learn in college or else and science would not advance. That’s the only way we know more today that 20 years ago!</p>
<p>Also, parents and students pay for the salary of the professor (that in many cases is less or equal to an elementary school teacher, but they had to study for 5-10 years more getting little to no income), not for his or her research. Most research is funded through competitive grants (at least in the natural and social sciences). In the social sciences, imagine a professor wants to implement a national representative survey: the total cost would be MORE that his or her salary. but in many cases it will still provide important finding that will change some disciplines. So foundations give grants for it.</p>
<p>Since when? The smorgashboard approach of paying only for exactly what you personally use doesn’t apply to most large organizations, including universities. When you pay your state gasoline tax you pay to support the operation and maintenance of all roads in your state, not just the roads you personally drive on. When you pay your entrance fee at Disneyland you pay to support the running of the entire park, even if you ride only the Matterhorn while you are there. When you pay your tuition at a college you pay to support the entire mission of the school and not just the activities, departments, and courses you personally attend. That’s how the world works. </p>
<p>If you don’t like how the college (or Disneyland) is spending its revenues you are free to go elsewhere. If you don’t want to pay to attend universities that engage in research, don’t. Go to colleges that don’t conduct any. New online schools may be the way for you. No research. No football team. No weekend dances. Just you and your courses - pure and simple.</p>
Families seem to vote with their wallet for research universities over teaching universities: most states have regional public universities that don’t do much research. The cheaper alternative is right there. Yet we are paying a premium to attend the research universities. </p>
<p>I personally prefer to take classes from professors who have actively worked with the material before, whether in industry or research. They usually have a deeper much more nuanced understanding of the material than professors who only learned it from a book. I get frustrated when professors can’t answer basic questions (“why do we do this like this and not like that?”) or put material into a bigger context.</p>
<p>Uh, since when? Perhaps since now (or in the near future). Whether we like it or not, we are probably entering a period of lowered economic growth and constrained resources. It therefore behooves us to ask whether we are allocating our resources efficiently. </p>
<p>Frankly, it is precisely that sort of attitude that is probably going to result in the eventual defunding of universities entirely. As long as universities continue to demand that having to pay for research is simply ‘the way the world works’, the greater the incentives for students and taxpayers to vote to stop funding and providing tax exemptions for universities. Universities should be justifiably trying to demonstrate why their research is useful, not acting as if they are entitled to perform research. And indeed, several posters here have valiantly attempted to provide that justification. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it is fair to say that families are voting with their wallets for the prestige that is happens to be correlated, but not necessarily created by the research. I suspect that plenty of parents of Harvard students could not name even a single current research project being conducted at Harvard, nor would they really care. Rather, what they are paying for is the brand. </p>
<p>Now, it may well be true that research productivity serves to enhance a university’s brand. But then that raises questions regarding whether that link even exists at all and, if so, what is the mechanism of that link and even whether it should exist at all. As a case in point, Dartmouth and Brown perform relatively little research compared to many state university research powerhouses, yet Dartmouth and Brown enjoy strong prestige, perhaps as an ancillary benefit derived from belonging to the vaunted Ivy League.</p>
<p>If the WSJ has such good ideas about how to make higher education work so much better, then they should found their own colleges on these principles and let the market decide.</p>
<p>Interesting story. I once talked to a professor about his research and he said in a low tone “It’s mostly…crap” and then looked as if he had said too much.</p>
<p>Also, consider not only the research that students are subsidizing, but the world class gyms, football stadiums, and student centers, manicured lawns, and anything else the university deems important to its “mission”. Of course, if universities operated this way in a pure business environment, this would likely never happen. The real problem is the amount of subsidized grants and loans guaranteed and backed by the government.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously technology is one of the most, if not the most important element of society. What was being said was that the majority of current research in universities is totally useless and irrelevant.</p>
<p>I suspect that tuition at most universities doesn’t pay for any research–it’s my understanding that it doesn’t even pay for all of the student-related costs. That being said, I do think it’s possible to encounter professors who are more interested in their research than in being excellent teachers, and this is more likely to happen at a research university than at a LAC. But there is plenty of good teaching going on at research universities.</p>
Brown and Dartmouth don’t do research? When did they stop???</p>
<p>Few graduate students =!= no research. According to the Times Higher Education rankings, Dartmouth and Brown have more research impact (measured in citations) than UIUC, several of the UCs, or Penn State.</p>
<p>The entire educational complex has become a bloated, seething parasite. This is the kind of sophisticated, mumbo-jumbo technical jargon the article was talking about.</p>
<p>"AAC&U Member President Steven Knapp Speaks Out Against Three-Year Degrees
In response to a recent Washington Post editorial, Steven Knapp, president of George Washington University, in a letter to the Post editor, argues that, “as knowledge expands across all fields, it takes more, not less, time to master any subject.” He notes further that “packing nearly four years of credits into three years would deprive students of the time for internships, service learning and study-abroad programs that help prepare them for productive citizenship in our complex and globalized society.” "</p>
<p>$1Billion. That is the reason schools like profs that bring in the research projects because most come with funding that keeps the place going. Wisconsin for one takes around $300 Million off the top to support other programs from the Billion it gets a year. That’s like adding $6 Billion or so to the endowment. They also use the rent charged for research space to fund great new science buildings–a couple $Billion worth over the last 10 years. Research at the top levels can be a money machine for the university. But very little goes to things like studying NAs.</p>
<p>And the students pay for none of it and get better research opps. Profs still teach the same amount they did 30 years ago.</p>
<p>The problem with research is that it is nearly impossible to determine what is useless beforehand. You get 100% hindsight on it, but that doesn’t help. </p>
<p>I am not big on research universities for most undergraduates, however, I strongly feel that there is a need for research in universities. A lot of research is being moved to private enterprise which I feel is not a good departure as that leads to a greater chance of loss of integrity in the results. Yes, universities and academia are not lacking in lack of integrity in research by no means, but when you move things completely into the realms of capitalism and self interest, it skews things greatly.</p>
<p>You mean that they started wasting our money 30 years ago? It has probably started earlier. Milking the system does not need big brains. But big brains help to milk more.</p>
<p>In my son’s department, research appears to provide for some portion
of the professors’ salaries. The project that he’s working on right
now funds the salaries of 1/4 of the salaries for three professors for
the summer. I assume that they are running three other research
projects too. Some of the grant amounts that I see professors bringing
in are eye-popping - much more than their stated salaries.</p>
<p>In job postings that I’ve seen, the most important qualification is
the ability to bring in grant money. Teaching ability is way down on
the list. The teaching reflects that too. If you want a lot of hand-
holding in courses, then pick another university.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well said.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>STEM research can also spin off small startups in the local area that
hire students as interns and graduates for permanent positions.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>This is important for students that take the initiative to go after
these opportunities.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Companies have cut way back on pure research which leaves research
universities to do it. I think that we need to continue doing research
to provide the base for future economic growth. China is putting a lot
of effort into research and apparently wants to be the world leader in
research. I’d hate to see the US left in the dust.</p>
<p>Speaking from a STEM perspective, the high school teachers with a bachelor’s in the subject they are teaching tend to be better than those with a general education degree. Selection bias notwithstanding (those with stronger talent and background tend to major in said subject), it helps to have gone beyond the material you are teaching. By analogy, someone teaching college should have a PhD. How are they going to get a PhD if no one is doing academic research? And profs at LAC’s, even small ones, usually do research and have PhDs. </p>
<p>And, as people have said before, research is funded by grants. In fact, I think the department actually takes some money from the grants to use for other stuff. I don’t know exactly. Of course, tax payers do indirectly pay for these grants.</p>
<p>Finally, in STEM it is very common for students to do research while they are undergrads.</p>
<p>An example that comes to mind are high-school teachers teaching AP
Computer Science where a lot of programming is taught. My guess is
that most teachers with CS and Math degrees don’t take a course in
compilers. What do you do if a student asks the teacher to explain
how a compiler turns source code into a program that can run?</p>
<p>Saying that it’s magic might not satisfy the student.</p>
<p>I worked as a programmer and consultant for many years before I
learned how compilers work - it was essentially magic to me until I
found out that it was math at work. Same thing with hardware - it was
all magic to me until I took a course in digital circuits.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Some of the grants. NSF provides a lot of funding for STEM areas. I
think that the REUs are great - they often provide students with
exposure to other schools and the chance to work in research areas in
a concrete way. There are private industry grants too. At my son’s
school, they have a program where the school subcontracts student
labor to local companies, with project management by professors.</p>
<p>So students who attend junior college or the Cal States — where scholarship is not required and who serve (‘teach’) the vast majority of college students in California – are wasting their money/time?</p>
<p>A little confused by BCEagle91’s post #37. Our CS students have to write a compiler in one of their courses. A math major wouldn’t necessarily take this course, and the K-12 schools often have to enlist teachers with peripheral qualifications (and the certificate) to teach things–so it could happen that an AP Comp Sci teacher would not have a good understanding of compilers. But a CS major should have a reasonable idea about them.</p>
<p>From a taxes point of view, STEM research uses a lot more taxpayer money than humanities research (maybe not the M part so much). Externally funded usually means your federal taxes/deficit rather than your state taxes. This is even more the case at private colleges.</p>
<p>On a different point, basic research by private enterprise has shrunk enormously over the past few decades. For example, Google Labs has recently been eliminated with the researchers moved to different product areas.</p>