peaking Measures of Academic Excellence

---

editorially /peaking Measures of Academic Excellence The current conventional wisdom holds that academic excellence is measured by publications and grants. While some might imagine that such measures are limited to a relatively few "research institutions", ample evidence to the contram exists. For example. several fundineagencies have programs specifically de'sihed to enhance the research capabilitv and competence of faculty in smaller institutions orionsoriia of m a i l institutions. -Hesearch" is becoming a simllicant factor in the ev;iluat~onofsuch institutions and t h i faculty of those institutions. The healthy tension that some serious thinkers on the subject insist must exist between rescarch and teaching has hecn allowed to dcvelop in ways that aredestructivc: this isccrtainlv thecaseat the compEehensive institutions and is becoming increasingly evident at others. The realization that new scientific discoveries are not only useful but are necessary to fuel the needs of our modern society has prompted society to invest in the educational process that includes a research as well as a teaching component. The result is that the system of education that has historically produced most of the useful scientific discoveries has become hostage - to the (understandable) tyranny of democracy, viz., the people have a right to decide how their tax money is being used. And, the educational system has willinglyilayed &to the hands. Modern research in most science disciplines has becomc exceedinglv -. expensive. Thus, both the Federal government (or other funding agency) and the universities are seemin& wise in attempting to protect their substantial investment in young facuky. The granting agency allocates funds for supporting assistants, equipment, and supplies; the university provides a personnel line position for the principal investigator, usually in the teaching budget because only in ra; instances-are there suffic&t resources to suppon a budgeted faculty line explicitly designated for research. Indeed, moht institutions seem not to want to proclaim their research prowess separate from their teaching function. What rational would not agree with the need to protect an investment of such magnitude, and, indeed. with the need to attemnt to arranee ~~, ,. conditions to assure success? Accordingly, universities lifihtrn tcachlng loads for faculty doing research. In fact. lightened teaching loads have become the medium ofexchange in the bidding ~ is resrrved wars for facultv. The ultimate reward t , facultv for those who &ing in large grants; they neverhave to face undergraduate students in the classroom! Unfortunately, the number of undergraduates to be taught doesn't change, which means the department must either increase the size of classes or increase the teaching A

~

~

load--sometimes both--of facultv who do not enwee in funded research. Increased teachkg loads are often&& as a ~unishmentfor not doing funded research. Most facultv dosome kind of research if&y to satisfy their curiosity & some minor points in a subject. However, the "perks" are reserved for-those involved with the funded p;ojects because the institution is allowed to skim the grant (often at the level of 50% and sometimes a t 100%)for its overhead account. Thus, the sequence of events that began with the recognition that research-the method by which science changes, and which should he an internal part of teaching science students-has produced a situation-where researcfi and teaching are driven not together, but farther apart. With the expected faculty shortages in the 1990's, many academic institutions are discovering that the best way to attract and retain able faculty is not so much with money as with ''light teaching loads". When faculty teach less, students Dav the rice. Classes are larger. there is less flexibility;n"class shection, and more facuk,ykust be hired. The latter often requires an increase in tuition or fees. Faculty, often rightly, maintain that time is necessary to orepare for classes, es~eciallvin the sciences where details bftLe subject are ukd&goingchange. Some administrators appear to believe thatfaculty learned all they need to know in graduate school and never include time for curriculum or professional development when they define faculty work loads. Perhaps administrators realize that the research imperative is so deeply installed in young faculty that any development time provided would simply be co-opted by research. Since most oftheir time is already co-optedin this way, there is little to be gained by formalizing the procedure. Indeed, allowing development time might lead to an overall loss because even fewer faculty wourd be actually teaching. Nevertheless, faculty do need time to prepare for their classes. While it is true that some "preparation" time comes from research participation, the net result in many institutions is that tenure track faculty, in aggregate, are spending less and less time doing what people believe they are paid to de-teach undergraduates. Is it, then, surprisingthat the systemof higher education is looked at with a jaundiced eye by "outsiders"? We--everyone concerned with the educational proceseare now reaping the crop that was carelessly allowed to be sown in the past. In agriculture, often the only way to clear a field of undesired mowth is to burn it. let i t lie fallow. and then start anew. the case of science education, some would arrme that with care and diligence it should be possible to ro& out all transgressing on an individual basis. Whatever the solution, the "cure" demands a leadership that has not been identified. JJL

Volume 68 Number 3 March 1991

181