<p>“I’m just thinking that if you want the most bang for your buck as an institution, why are your top researchers teaching undergrads?”</p>
<p>A. so that the people teaching are upto date with the latest in their field. I understand thats possible for folks specializing in teaching and not doing research, but Im giving you the theory behind it. </p>
<p>B. because the top people can have insights no one else can have. I had Daniel Bell as a lecturer in college. Its an experience I will never forget. Im not sure if he was actively doing "research’ at that point - this was AFTER he published “Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism” </p>
<p>What I mostly regret is that I did not take full advantage of his open office hours. The day I did, to discuss a paper topic, he got very involved with what I was addressing, pulled books off the shelf, and directed me in a different direction. He was apparently a wonderful man to talk anything intellectual with.</p>
<p>C. Another advantage of having them together is to share research facilities, libraries, and to give the undergrads research opportunities.</p>
<ol>
<li>Top researchers are not working in most liberal arts, journalism, comm arts, business, and probably 100 other majors that I am not mentioning. The ones that bring in the $$$ and thus count the most are in medicine–not even an undergrad area for the most part (and why UC-SF is #4), hard sciences, and engineering. The rest are not much more than trivial.</li>
</ol>
<p>I think your point B is the best reason. It would be a shame to not give undergrads a chance at that. It that is one of the key differences that make research schools a special place. </p>
<p>I don’t believe A at all although I understand the theory.</p>
<p>Chicago State is not the issue either but it is one of the many. It is one of probably several 100 schools that get lots of our good money and do not deliver value for the investment. In case you live under a rock WE ARE BROKE. When you are broke you start cutting the dead wood. Most companies do that by pruning out the bottom 10% of their staff. The government needs to prune the bottom 10% of anything they support and that includes colleges as a big ticket item in most states plus the Fed loans that prop them up. Now if you do not think the US and the states are in deep crap than fine. You are also deluded. Close 10% of the parks, cut defense by 10% and cut colleges by 10% too. But by pruning the bad ones–not the stupid accross the board cuts make them all a little worse approach.
That is the mindless approach to things.</p>
<p>I will say, however, that the not all the great researchers translate into great teachers. As an undergrad senior at University of Iowa, as a lark (and to fulfill a science requirement) I took an astronomy course taught by Dr. James Van Allen, he of the Van Allen Radiation Belt around Earth. Even though I was about as far from a science major as one can be, I was hoping for an energetic communicator that would make it sound fun.</p>
<p>What I got was the most dry-as-toast monotone lecturer I had ever seen. I actually fell asleep a few times. Thank goodness I had taken the course pass/fail just in case the wheels came off.</p>
<p>If you are thinking that bringing in research $$$$ is not highly important at most schools without a $10 Billion+ endowment you are dreaming. Those are the folks spending many hours in the labs and such. Some history prof that churns out one book every 5 years is not sucking up all his days doing research for the book. That’s what the grad students are for.</p>
<p>"In case you live under a rock WE ARE BROKE. "</p>
<p>Why would investors lend money to a broke entity, and in fact bid its bonds up to the point where it paid record low interest rates? </p>
<p>Suffice it to say not everyone shares your view of macroeconomics. In fact some brilliant economics esearchers at tippy top STATE FLAGSHIPS dont. [Grasping</a> Reality with Both Hands](<a href=“http://delong.typepad.com/]Grasping”>http://delong.typepad.com/) </p>
<p>So why dont we live the purple prose about the the larger state of things for somewhere else, and focus on narrower but more useful factoids.</p>
<p>Annasdad…I was not talking about you…I agree…you are putting forth some good dialogue and are not bashing schools. Another poster…however, is bashing lesser known and less prestigious schools left, right and center. I personally defected from another college message board because I got sick and tired of certain posters who felt that they needed to insult the college choices of others because they didn’t meet the “prestige” level. The reference to these schools is akin to that old board’s comments about TTTs…very insulting…and some of these posts are as well. </p>
<p>You know…not every student wants to attend the tippy top schools…even those who have the stats to do so sometimes choose different schools. Different strokes for different folks. It think we could be just a tad more respectful of differing college choices on this forum.</p>
<p>Just my humble opinion (as one who got a masters degree at Western Illinois University…and LOVED it…and had a GREAT career in my field).</p>
<p>How many papers does the average English or German or Journalism prof publish compared to a science or medicine prof? A prof in English can get tenure at any good school with a few articles and a monograph. Most science profs will have dozens of papers and other accomplishments from patents to new companies. </p>
<p>And I was talking about value to the institution. Why are top science profs paid 5+ times as much as English profs? They ring the register.</p>
<p>My FIL’s English department at an Illinois directional required one published book from a reputable university press. A second had to be in the works and mostly completed. Editing a selection of stories/poems did not count although that was also expected.</p>
<p>"Why would investors lend money to a broke entity, and in fact bid its bonds up to the point where it paid record low interest rates? "</p>
<p>Because we are the best dog in the litter.That does nothing to disprove that the US cannot keep spending increasing amounts without a day that the wheels will come off and nobody wants to see that. Do you think having an ever growing debt that will grow from 69% to 100% of GDP in just 10 years. Not a sustainable level.
So don’t try to tell me many economists think we are on the right path.</p>
<p>Many monographs are not published by reputable university presses and that is a key distinction. I don’t think a couple of articles from journals would cut it either. They are really looking for that second book.</p>
<p>Thumper–feel free to substitute “unknown college with very low graduation rate and far less than average success in placing students in jobs requiring a college degree.”
But the main idea is that we cannot continue to encourage kids to waste their time at such places by limiting acess to info on their performance. Not every college we have needs to exist.
And by giving blank check fin aid–guaranteed by you and me–to the students of such places be they public or private we are throwiny we cannot afford down a rat hole. It is economic stupidity. And we cannot afford to keep doing it just because it feels good or keeps some people employed.</p>
<p>Tough times are the time to set new priorities and prune the stuff that is not producing. Companies do it all the time and the US and states are overdue for a massive correction in stopping doing what we have always done just because. Did California REALLY NEED another UC at Merced?? Does Wisconsin need all the campuses it has? They are not bad schools either–just not needed. Not only should bad schools be closed but it seems HIGHLY likely we are well over needed total capacity in higher ed. That is as wasteful as $600 toilet seats.</p>
<p>“Because we are the best dog in the litter.”</p>
<p>that doesnt make sense. There countries taking the kinds of austerity approaches you like. There are lots of other places to invest ones money, especially if you buy that govt spending is crowding out other investment. That we have almost a zero pct interest rate on US bonds implies that the market turmoil now is about inadequate demand, growth and jobs, NOT about any US debt crisis.</p>
<p>“That does nothing to disprove that the US cannot keep spending increasing amounts”</p>
<p>US federal deficits are increasing BECAUSE we have inadequate growth and a recession. They are an effect, not a cause. State spending has been DECREASING. Overall govt spending is declining. That is holding the economy back.</p>
<p>" without a day that the wheels will come off and nobody wants to see that. Do you think having an ever growing debt that will grow from 69% to 100% of GDP in just 10 years. Not a sustainable level.
So don’t try to tell me many economists think we are on the right path."</p>
<p>Krugman and Delong think we are on the wrong path because we are sacrificing growth in a meaningless obession over short term deficits. Long terms deficits need to be addressed - and can be with a combination of modifications to entitlement programs and increased revenues (our taxes are low compared to both most other developed countries and to historical levels in the US). </p>
<p>It would be a mistake to defund education.</p>
<p>Though given the results, I suggest we start by considering defunding UWisconsin.</p>
<p>"But the main idea is that we cannot continue to encourage kids to waste their time at such places by limiting acess to info on their performance. Not every college we have needs to exist. "</p>
<p>given that </p>
<p>A. our population continues to increase
B. we get increasing numbers of foreign students
C. the total % of HS grads going on to college almost certainly should and will increase (and thats true even if trades apprenticeships increase greatly) its not at all clear that there there is not room for every existing institution. Though I think some of the worse run for profits need to disappear anyway.</p>