Research Focus versus Emphasis on Undergrad Teaching

<p>We visited campus recently and I have to say I was quite surprised by remarks made by the dean of admissions. </p>

<p>I believe he said that "two masters cannot be served" so the institution's focus is on research rather than on undergraduate instruction. I was in a large roomful of potential undergrad applicants and their families. It seemed an odd thing to tell this audience but if true, I suppose it's admirable to be so truthful up front. </p>

<p>So, why would a parent encourage their offspring to attend a school where the quality of undergrad teaching is not the primary focus? Yes, it's enticing for a kid to "do research" starting in their first year, but at what price? </p>

<p>I absolutely loved everything else about this visit, as did my kid, but these remarks have stayed with me and I'm concerned. Maybe I'm just naive to expect liberal arts college-caliber instruction at a research university?</p>

<p>I’ve heard him give this talk and I’ve spoken to him about the topic. His point is that any research institution is focused on research and that creates an issue for teaching. He’s said in the past one choice would be to hire an entirely separate, redundant faculty for teaching and that some schools in fact do this by hiring tons of lecturers and part-timers who have no hope of advancement within the school. He then says UR can’t afford to do this and didn’t want to do it anyway so they looked at the problem and talked to professors and decided they could better address the problem through the curriculum. That is an explanation - surely not the only one - of the Rochester Curriculum, which dramatically reduces distribution requirements with the express goal of putting students in classes they want to take. The idea is that students who want to be there will put more into the class and that will better satisfy the professors who do the teaching. I think this is generally true as you go out of the lower level classes that you have to take to get anywhere in your major. As in, nothing makes intro Bio or Chem a ton of fun. </p>

<p>In other words, he mixes a bit of truth, that all research institutions, meaning any university or big college, are focused on research, with UR’s approach to the problem. He is 100% correct about the reality of teaching; you need to do research to get tenure and you need to do grants and you need to run labs or projects or whatever is appropriate to your field. The pressure to publish also exists at smaller schools, not as much but of course they also have smaller faculties so it’s hard to say what the net effect is from school to school. </p>

<p>His approach is to talk about the reality that schools usually try to cover up. Think about how you’re told the senior professors here teach and other stuff meant to convey that your kid’s undergrad experience will be great teaching by the best people. It can be true, mostly in higher level courses, of course, though also in some particular intro course. But they leave out the inconvenient facts: first, most of the classes will be taught by untenured people, possibly contract lecturers and part-timers, and second, research and writing come first overall.</p>

<p>Somewhat lost, I imagine, is that UR is a small university but a much larger research university. By that, I mean it is small in number of students but large in research dollars, all of which, btw, are spent at or around the actual campus. That’s a significant point: you have more opportunity to do quality research as an undergrad. One of my kids today mentioned to us that the research work she did at UR not only got her the job she has but prepared her extremely well. Why? Because the kids at UR do actual work in the real world of research and that translates. </p>

<p>At some point, btw, he may mention some figures about the number of double majors, multiple minors, etc. that kids do. That is absolutely true: without the usual distribution requirements, it’s easy to make minors and double majoring is common. I think that reflects a few things: the nature of student body and the interest of the kids in learning as well as the success of the curriculum design.</p>

<p>Regardless of what he said, my guy has really enjoyed the vast majority of his professors both in class and outside of it in office hours, etc. (We heard it too, but my guy was looking for research so was not turned off at all by it.)</p>

<p>Just because a prof does research it’s not automatic that they are a terrible teacher. Most also bring their research into their classes - really, really up to date stuff - far newer than any textbook.</p>

<p>If a student is not interested in research, UR might not be the school for them. If they are, it’s a terrific school with many options.</p>

<p>Thanks, Lergnom, for your clarifying remarks. I think that the dean did cover most of those points, but I was so blown away by what deviated so greatly from all the other messages we’ve heard at other schools that I missed the nuances. I’d be very happy if UR is my son’s choice.</p>

<p>I’ve met and spoken to the dean on several occasions. His (and UR’s) attitude toward the normal sales and admissions process is not mainstream. The first time we met, before my kid applied, we talked about the school’s reluctance to participate in the idiotic rankings surveys - though of course the school trumpets high rankings, which says volumes about the collision of ideals and reality. </p>

<p>I’ve met a number of the administrators at UR over the past years and have spent a fair amount of time talking with them in semi-social/semi-school situations. They have all been genuine, extremely in ideas to improve the school and, for those who are professors, very committed to undergrad teaching. </p>

<p>Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Caltech, etc,.etc, etc, are all research-focused as well. No one would call them unsuitable for their child. The alternate is to attend a liberal arts college, where the focus is on undergraduates, but then lacking in other areas.</p>

<p>+1 to Creekland’s comment that, “Just because a prof does research it’s not automatic that they are a terrible teacher. Most also bring their research into their classes - really, really up to date stuff - far newer than any textbook.” My student is a first semester freshman, and the introductory economics class he’s taking is FAR superior to anything I’ve seen before. The professor, a noted researcher, uses a variety of sources (academic journal articles, blog posts, tweets, you name it) to illustrate his points, and the course is my kid’s favorite class.</p>