sloan wrote:ghmerrill wrote:
I personally don't like this approach since I continue to harbor the old-fashioned and unrealistic view that the primary role of the university is to teach
Can you cite any competent authority for this quaint idea?
I'm not sure this was *ever* the "primary role of the university".
My apologies, but I feel the need for a brief lecture.
It would take me some time to delve into the history of the university and "cite competent authority", depending on what you would find acceptable. However it's really not up for debate that the university began (if we start with the generally recognized point for that) in the early middle ages (Paris, Oxford, Cambridge, etc.) as schools founded largely by religious orders to retain and transmit knowledge, and as schools of higher education. The
primary role was instruction (i.e., teaching), and research (to the degree it was done at all) was done in its service. Indeed, if you look at the "research literature" of that time (and for several hundred years), the focus was on exegesis and analysis (of, for example, Aristotle and other "great thinkers"). While some significant original contributions were made, "research" was focused on understanding what had previously been done and perhaps how it could be applied, and lectures were typically confined to the subject matter and approaches of the likes of Aristotle, Hippocrates, the Roman scholars, etc. Hence "scholasticism".
Time marched on, but the focus of the university remained on the teaching and training of "young men" (often in religious orders or otherwise of the nobility) and not on what today we would think of as "research". One's role as a professor was to profess. And universities were repositories of knowledge where one could come to get it. (Ya gotta remember: these schools [And what do schools do? Teach?] weren't started by highly independent forward-looking thinkers. They were started and/or staffed by the Church -- if only because those were the only guys who could
read.)
This went on into the early modern period and really began to change only with development of modern science in the late middle ages, but more significantly in the Renaissance. At that point, what we would recognize as "scientific research" began to appear in the university, but the primary focus was still teaching.
More time passed and things changed a bit more. With the loosening of the grip of religion on the university and the rise of empirical science, more of what we think of as "research" was being done, but the emphasis and core of the university was still on "higher education". In the U.S., the term 'university' has come to have at least some connotation of "a research institution", but that really began to arise only in the 19-th century and with regard to the science departments (which at that point were splitting off from "natural philosophy").
So I really think it's pretty clear that the primary role of the university throughout most of its history (700 years? Say about 1150-1850) was teaching. That's why people (called "students") went there, that's where the preponderance of the money came from (or where it was to be used), that's why the faculty were called "professors", and that's where by far most of the man-hours of the faculty was devoted.
It's only within the 20-th century (and I would say the mid to late 20-th century) that such a massive shift from teaching to research has occurred -- and this has occurred in large part because of the availability of research funding from various sources (not the least of these, national governments). However, I know that it used to be the case (say 30 years ago) and may still be the case that, for example, Harvard University (or at least the Philosophy Department) required all of its faculty (including the most senior professors) to teach undergraduate and introductory classes. Teaching was regarded as that important. And universities (somewhat cynically and duplicitously, I'll grant) continue to "justify" the time their faculty spend on research by arguing that this is necessary for quality teaching -- indicating that they feel (or would like to give the impression) that it is teaching that is of primary importance.
I can pretty much guarantee you that if you ask a Dean, a Vice-Provost, a Provost, or a Chancellor what the primary role of his/her institution is he/she will say "Education". And if you ask what he/she means by that, you will get "Teaching students". If you don't get that answer, try asking it in front of a news crew or in a group of parents.
Now, whether they're being honest is another matter.
I will grant you also that from the perspective of a "young discipline" like computer science, "ever" probably reaches back ... how far? ... maybe 40 years. With that understanding of "ever", I'd be more inclined to see your point of view.
. In general, though not universally, humanities departments are better at educating their graduate students to teach. There is a longer tradition there.
