Why is research higher status than teaching?

It is a truth universally acknowledged: within academia, research has higher status than teaching. The question is, why?

High status work is generally well paid work, and vice versa. Wages are determined by market forces, so supply and demand is the first place to look for an explanation for the high status of research.  

Perhaps research is highly valued because it is in short supply. Scarcity explains the high status accorded to those with truly brilliant, original and creative minds. But scarcity cannot explain why dime-a-dozen mediocre researchers are accorded higher status than excellent teachers.

Moreover, the scarcity of research is, in a sense, artificially created. There are a limited number of people publishing in 'top journals' only because the number of top journals is limited. Research would be about as scarce as blog posts in a world where people self-published their own work.

Even a scarce commodity will have a low price if there is not much demand for it. Academic research is a highly differentiated product. It is typically "curiosity driven" - researchers produce what they choose to research, not what the marketing department thinks will sell well. Often that is a good thing. For example, I think that one reason the Globe and Mail's Economy Lab section (that a number of WCI bloggers contribute to) is so successful is that we write whatever we feel like writing, and this connects better with the public than the same old material editors think will sell.  

But what is the market for papers such as "On the Asymptotic Optimality of Empirical Likelihood for Testing Moment Restrictions"? I don't have any information on willingness-to-pay for academic research in general, but as Secretary Treasurer of the Canadian Economics Association (managing the financial side of the Canadian Journal of Economics (CJE)), and also as Business Editor for Canadian Public Policy (CPP), I had opportunities to observe willingness to pay for particular research articles. JStor makes the entire back catalogue of CPP and CJE available on-line. Students and faculty can access the articles at no charge through university libraries; people outside academica pay an access fee of $5 to $9 per article. As Secretary Treasurer, every quarter I would receive statements listing the articles downloaded, and a small cheque from JStor. Of the hundreds of articles available in the two journals, only a few dozen were ever purchased on-line, suggesting that the general public's willingness to pay for the output of a typical academic researcher is pretty low. 

Even within the university, the substance of research - the question studied, the answers obtained, their wider social or policy relevance - is of less import than measurable bibliometric outputs. How many publications? How many pages/co-authors per publication? In which journals? What is the impact factor of those journals? 

Some might say this is the best way to measure research productivity. After all, how can we, as outsiders, judge the rigor and relevance of research outside our own specialized discipline? Peer review is the sine qua non, the best and only test of research excellence. 

I have some sympathy for this view - although it must be confessed that, sometimes, peers are idiots. 

But if the actual substance of much academic research is only of intelligible to a small group of scholars, why is it accorded such high status? Why are taxpayers prepared to fund research intensive universities? Why do undergraduate students choose to attend research intensive universities, even though the "top scholars" may have little contact with undergrads?

I think this is because research output is a signal of ability. To function as a signal, an activity must have two properties. First, it must be easy to observe. Research output, like peacock feathers, is readily measurable. Publications and citations can be counted, journals can be ranked. Second, an effective signal of ability must be easier for a high ability person to produce than a low ability person. For example, jogging is an effective signal of fitness because it's easier for fit people to jog than for out of shape people. (That strange North American habit of talking about exercise? It's all signalling.) In the same way, research is an effective signal of ability because it's easier for a creative person to think of novel research ideas, it's easier for an analytical person to program a new econometric routine, and so on. 

Teaching just does not work as a signal in the same way. First, top rate teaching is extraordinarily difficult to measure. Sure teaching can be evaluated using standard metrics such as student evaluations, or by education professionals, who will assess a professor's audibility, organization, and so on. Indeed, these metrics are valuable for identifying poor teachers, and helping individual teachers improve their performance. Yet they do not strike at the heart of the great teaching. Great teaching is about deep understanding, helping students see the world in a different way. Measuring that? Impossible. 

Second, I don't know if teaching performance is as highly correlated with intelligence, creativity, and originality as research performance is. Certainly a lot of things that students value in a teacher - being well-organized, conscientious, predictable, approachable, and sympathetic - are not necessarily correlated with raw intelligence scores. 

Well-organized and conscientious people are, of course, highly valuable.  But it's like dental hygienists and dentists. The average a visit to a dental hygienist produces far greater health benefits than the average visit to a dentist. The dental hygienist removes plaque from your teeth, which reduces the risk of cavities, gum disease, and a whole host of other ailments. A lot of the time, if there's something seriously wrong in your mouth, the hygienist will be able to spot it, even if she doesn't want the responsibility of making an official diagnosis. All the dentist does is look in your mouth and say either "cavity" or "no cavity" - which a lot of the time you knew already anyways.

But if you had the choice to get your check-up (as opposed to your cleaning) done by a hygienist, rather than a dentist, would you? I suspect most people wouldn't, because the dentist has more education, more training, more knowledge - and don't your teeth deserve the best? 

There is, of course, another parallel between dental hygiene and teaching - both are female dominated professions. I've made gloomy predictions in the past about the impact of feminization on the future of universities, that once a job become feminized men stop entering it, and it starts being perceived differently.

In that previous blog post I asked: Have universities reached the tipping point? The Drummond Report seems to think so. It wants to create a differentiated university system. Some places will specialize in research, others in teaching. The Drummond Report wants to challenge the culture that places research above teaching, to "Refocus resources and rewards towards teaching in post-secondary institutions."

Good luck with that.

Comments

[Min]

Maybe it is because students lost control of the Universities a couple of centuries ago.

[Jim Sentance]

One thing that pops to mind reading this is the argument that Wente et al are fond of making that I think runs along the lines that the obsession with research is something faculty have pushed because they'd rather do that than teach. While there probably are some who have joined the parade on that basis, my own experience in observing university standards over the years leads me to suspect the big push is top down, aided and abetted by some who really do much prefer research and enjoy lording it over their colleagues or applying their built in tendency to judge and evaluate beyond those they teach.

Administration has a lot to motivate them this way, from being able to set the bar for expensive promotions higher to bringing in increasingly important research funds to having a basis to boast about and promote the quality of their institution. And certainly in negotiating collective agreements, which I have a fair bit of experience in, the push for higher standards always comes from admin. Not, as I suggested that there aren't a number of faculty all too pleased to go along.

I think a good part of the difference in value attached to teaching and research comes from the fact that teaching is something we basically all have to do. It's not really up to us and the degree to which we can slack off is fairly limited. On the scholarly work side the degree of difference is much more substantial, and depends either on working hard or being original and creative. Not as much as it used to be, but research is more of an obviously value added component of our jobs, so I can see why it tends to get value attached to it.

And like you say, value added in teaching is harder to see and quantify, though not as impossible I think as you suggest.

In fact I was going to mention again that at my university, you can get promoted to full professor on the basis of either excellence in scholarly endeavors or teaching (or service for that matter). You can't ignore other aspects of the job (so great teachers have to do some research and great researchers have to do good teaching as well) but there is a much more symmetrical valuation than I gather at most places.

I won't pretend that we have successfully brought teaching up on par with research (you can only get to be emeritus on the basis of research for example), but we have come some way, and the record we have in producing good teaching is exemplary in many ways (and we have a pretty good record at getting research funding as well). I've even sat on a promotion committee for a Canada Research Chair and had someone seriously question whether they should be promoted because their teaching wasn't quite up to snuff.

As I said in another thread, it's probably seen as blasphemy to many, but I really do question the value of some of what passes for research these days. I don't think it would hurt to readjust the balance a bit. But I do have some qualms about this research school/teaching school division some are promoting. That's not a balanced system, that's a system of imbalances.

[Jon]

High status fields compensate for low wages. Low status fields have high wages. Let's think through some low status fields:

Hedge fund manager. Garbage man. Lawyer.

Now some high status fields:

Scientist, aid worker, social worker, teacher

You might be confused because there is actually a stratification of jobs layer on top of this pattern--this really describes the indifference curve between pay and status in each strata.

[Frances Woolley]

Jim - yup, it's complex, and there are many important things I didn't cover, so I'm glad you raised these points. Your observation that teaching is something that we don't have control over - we have to do it, at certain times, and to certain specifications - is important. To what extent is research just an excuse to get out of teaching? I don't know.

Jon - at the risk of taking you way too seriously and entirely missing the point of your comment -

There's actually some research on occupational prestige in Canada - there's a book reviewed here but you would have to do some digging to get actual findings (I did so a little while ago, but had to access files through the university library). Your intuitions on status and wage are a bit off - generally status and wages are positively correlated. Telemarketer is at the bottom of the status scale, though interestingly Catholic priest comes pretty low in recent survey rankings, presumably due to recent abuse scandals.

[Determinant]

If we regard "teaching" as undergrad teaching, then undergrads get the "Standard Body of Knowledge". The specialty stuff comes in grad work. For research to have value it must be relevant, understood by the academy and deemed important enough to add to the Standard Body of Knowledge.

Like most things, 90% of research will not get that far.

Plus nowadays people want a "Research Hub" as a technical incubator. Politicians have learned that this is an easy sell as the next line is "jobs, jobs, jobs." However to make this model work you need capital, patient capital because 90% of most discoveries will fail to turn into a profitable consumer product. Nobody talks about the costs of failure or where the capital will come from.

[Patrick]

On the research school vs. teaching school thing: there was a time when best brains in the world sat around ponder Euclidean geometry. We now teach it to grade school children. The world moved on.

If by 'teaching' we mean undergraduate level teaching, then I'd suggest that undergraduate level education is the new high school. The world moved on.

It seems to me that university teaching and research became associated under the assumption that many of the students were apprentice researchers. That is not now the case, and hasn't been for a long long time. Modern Canadian universities are a goofy extension of the public school system that no longer produces employable people. The problem lies there. Relieve the universities of the burden of picking-up the slack for an outdated and inadequate public school system, and I think many of these teaching vs. research problems go away. And as a bonus, the Universities would get much smaller and you could fire all those professional administrators who *will* suck the life out of the system, one way or another.

[Frances Woolley]

Patrick: "And as a bonus, the Universities would get much smaller"

Nick said it all in his post on University crashes

[Naoshad]

I'd argue that researchers are favoured over teachers because they represent the future and potentially solutions to our problems (the accuracy of this and its potential is irrelevant to this argument).
As humans we admire and reward those responsible for change rather than those responsible for maintaining us. We perceive these people, roles, professions to be responsible for our safety, future and lifestyle.
Researchers are essentially a step away from inventors. We recognize that their knowledge is required and may at some stage have practical applications. The ability to develop new and better ways to hunt, kill, irrigate, heal were key to a tribes success over others and are still key today to our economic and military dominance over others.
Teaching however is perceived as essentially an act of repetition. There are very few good teachers -- ones who actually impart critical thinking skills and problem solving abilities to their students as oppose to regurgitate information or opinion.

The second reason for this difference in perceived value is simply an availability heuristic. Most people are exposed to teachers. The average teacher is, well, average. While they may have one or two excellent teachers in most cases their opinion of them as a whole will be weighed by their experiences with those in the middle and due to psychological reasons the few bad experiences they have will have a disproportionately high effect on their view of the profession and its adherents.
Exposure to mediocre researchers however is limited because frankly nobody cares. Superior researchers who make significant advances and those with the communication skills to impart this knowledge to the public are the ones that most people will be exposed to. Even when exposed to mediocre or poor research most people lack the basic grounding in mathematics and/or scientific method to recognize its flaws. Hence it is only natural that we perceive teachers below researchers.

[Jack]

Main reasons, I believe:
(1.) Measuring research output is far less controversial than is measuring educational value-added. We can quibble about AER vs. Econometrica, but people agree roughly what are Tier I, Tier II, and so on journals. With teaching, who knows? It's a pandora's box of non-experimental data problems, and the treatment effect is not identified, to use the jargon. Not to mention well-established student biases that diminish the usefulness of student evaluations (sex, ethnicity, dress, looks, voice, etc. affect evals).

(2.) Academic research is unique, really, as an economic activity (I would include supervising graduate students as research rather than is teaching). Researchers are proud to be doing it, and it is why they got PhDs, why they suffered graduate school, why they go through the tenure process, why they accept a lower Net Present Value of lifetime earnings. Teaching is not unique. There are grade school teachers, high school teachers, community college lecturers, university lecturers, heck, drivers ed teachers. I suppose this brings us back to status, although to my knowledge academic research is *not* high-status in society, at least not in Canada (maybe a bit more in the US, because academics often become important policy players, or expert witnesses in big court cases).

[Frances Woolley]

Noashad: "The second reason for this difference in perceived value is simply an availability heuristic. " - I love this explanation!

Jack - the comparative ease of measuring research output is why it is an effective signal.

On the status of academic research in society at large - society at large is much more impressed by a Globe and Mail column than an article in Economic Journal. I think academic research is largely invisible - as in people who say "it must be nice to have the summer off" while I'm working long hours (o.k. long-ish hours) trying to actually publish something for a change.

[Patrick]

I'm not thinking that they'll shrink over time. I'm thinking I'm hitting the reset button. Think impulse response, not decisions at the margin. At time t they will be size n. At time t+1 they will be size m << n. Of course it'll never happen, so there's probably no point in talking about it anyway.

[joan]

The status of researchers whose work is rarely cited is a puzzle. Yet, they get course reductions, higher pay, and greater respect. But many are awful teachers, it seems clear that the system is broken. If good researchers signal the high quality that deserves classroom exposure, we should videotape the best researchers teaching courses and the rest of us could simply watch.

[Frances Woolley]

Joan: "we should videotape the best researchers teaching courses and the rest of us could simply watch."

Larry Summers recently suggested this in a NY Times opinion piece. It's not so far-fetched either - Nick Rowe's ECON 1000 lectures are taped and watched in several different courses including an ECON 1000 equivalent course for graduate students.

But I find the idea of replacing the university experience with a computer screen and a taped lecture is profoundly depressing. It wasn't the great lecturers that made a difference to me as an undergraduate - it was going to seminars, getting to know people, hanging out in the student union building...

[Frances Woolley]

"But many are awful teachers" actually if you look at RateMyProfessors you'll see that the average teacher is pretty average, and the numbers getting blue sad faces definitely in the minority.

[Chris J]

Research means more grad students, more postdocs, more techs and more overhead money for the department.

Researchers do have a practical econ output: Christie Romer, Larry Summers, Greg Mankiw... Presidents do not draw these names from ranks of great teachers.

[Frank Dean]

I have a simpler, albeit more cynical, explanation.

Outside of the physical and biological sciences (and even there), the value of research is very difficult to measure. Teaching effectiveness is also difficult to measure. (Yes, I am repeating Frances' points.)

The key difference is that research is evaluated by insiders. The academy evaluates itself. High status researchers anoint future high status researchers.

In contrast, teaching is evaluated by lowly undergraduates, who have little stake in perpetuating a system of sinecures.

[Literasyme]

I think the impact argument works for some fields, but obviously not at all for others. Most humanities disciplines will never, and shouldn't be expected to, produce anything of commercial value. The best you could say is that some humanities scholars advance the public state of knowledge -- but those aren't necessarily the same figures most respected in their fields (the qualities that make one a good teacher are more likely to qualify one as a public representative of a field than the qualities that, say, make one a good archival researcher). The arguments about signalling, on the other hand, seem to me to apply fairly broadly across disciplinary divides (with a good measure of cultural capital thrown in, but I think there's some overlap between these concepts).

I really think it can't be repeated often enough, though, that the idea that research generates money for departments is a red herring, at least in North America. Research virtually never pays for itself, no matter how large the grant it receives. Grants enable activity, but they never fund that activity fully.

[Jon]

Francis, let me repose my claim then. I wasn't very precise peeking away on my phone.

Suppose there is some labor supply curve for a given profession--full-time employment. Now suppose the status of that profession increases or decreases (exogenously), how does the supply curve shift?

I'm pretty sure status increases supply and so ceteris paribus lowers the wage of that profession.

[Bob]

RE: Research v. Teaching

I believe the preference for research over teaching mostly boils down to two things - novelty and greed. First, we seem to be programmed to like something new over something routine. First runs of hit shows have better ratings than re-runs of the same program, etc. Research seeks new insights whereas teaching, however valuable it may be, rehashes what is already known. Greed (maybe too strong) is also a factor. Extramural research brings money and prestige to a university - second only to big-time sports. According to a 2010 GAO report, over 75% of US universities have a negotiated indirect cost (overhead) rate greater than 45%. For big research schools with hundreds of millions in annual research expenditures this starts to become real money. Further, good marketing has convinced policy makers that there's big money in commercialization of research - even though experience shows us licensing income for a given portfolio of research is most often dwarfed by the cost of the underlying research.

Lastly, I could be wrong but I think the gender bias argument is over-blown mostly because it gets the causality wrong. In the instance of research, I don't think that research gets attention and resources because it's male dominated. It's male dominated because it gets attention and resources - money. Maybe we men are genetically wired toward attention getting occupations - maybe it's societal pressure to earn more - maybe a bit of both. However, I just don't see sexism as a major contributing factor as much as a byproduct - though I could be wrong (just ask my wife).

[Frances Woolley]

Jon "I'm pretty sure status increases supply and so ceteris paribus lowers the wage of that profession." - can you think of any jobs that are high status and open access? Doctor - nope. Rock star - not really - the odds of your supply being demanded are trivially small.

So, yes, ceteris paribus, people will trade-off wages and research time. But all else is rarely equal.

Literasyme: "the idea that research generates money for departments is a red herring, at least in North America."

I suspect it's a complicated issue. If a university has a certain infrastructure to maintain - a financial services office to support, for example - research grants become necessary to maintain the research infrastructure. The costs are the benefits, as the saying goes.

Chris J: "Research means more grad students, more postdocs, more techs and more overhead money for the department."

I call these "prof-zi" schemes - like a ponzi scheme, the system works by sucking in people at the bottom to deliver rents to those at the top.

Literasyme: "Researchers do have a practical econ output: Christie Romer, Larry Summers, Greg Mankiw... Presidents do not draw these names from ranks of great teachers."

But why does the existence of a few influential researchers on in the White House confer status on tens of thousands of researchers producing articles that will have less impact and influence and fewer readers than this blog post?

There might be some kind of lottery going on here - opportunity to do research = research lottery ticket = chance to publish article in American Economic Review that changes the way people see the world.

Interestingly, this is an American phenomenon - there isn't the same kind of academics cycling in and out of political administrations here in Canada.

[Frances Woolley]

Bob: "Extramural research brings money and prestige to a university - second only to big-time sports." There's a great blog post to be written on the parallels between research and football.

[W. Peden]

"Researchers do have a practical econ output: Christie Romer, Larry Summers, Greg Mankiw... Presidents do not draw these names from ranks of great teachers."

They probably should. Anyone who focuses heavily on one specific part of economics will tend to have a weaker knowledge in other areas. If I was a leader and I wanted a general economic advisor, I'd want an experienced and up-to-date teacher (and/or a great textbook writer) rather than a famous economist.

Of course, politically it's better to get advice from someone like Milton Friedman or Larry Summers than Doctor Joe Bob of Mid-South University who has been teaching a consistently updated syllabus for 40 years.

[Frances Woolley]

W. Peden - don't you think that Christie Romer, Larry Summers and Greg Mankiw are smarter than Doctor Joe Bob? (Having met Larry Summers, and a fair number of Dr Joe Bobs, let me tell you - Larry Summers is smarter - though sometimes all of that creativity has its downsides).

Though this is any academic's knee-jerk response: if Dr Joe Bob is smart and capable, why isn't he publishing?

[Stephen Gordon]

There's a great blog post to be written on the parallels between research and football.

Oh, that *does* sound promising. For example, the parallels between grad students and elite athletes: both are talented and work like dogs for the low-probability chance of glory while most of them end up with little in the way of job prospects and may not even get a degree.

[richard]

"But I find the idea of replacing the university experience with a computer screen and a taped lecture is profoundly depressing."

Depressing mainly to the redundant staff, I expect. For a significant proportion of the university student population, having some of their courses offered via interactive internet services would probably provide them with better instruction (assuming the better teachers were given that job) than they now receive. IIRC, a number of my freshman 1000 series courses would have been better had they been delivered via internet services. Instead I was stuck with teachers who had not changed their syllabus for decades (and these were 'teachers', not reluctant researchers).

[Frances Woolley]

richard: "Depressing mainly to the redundant staff, I expect."

Some of the most intellectually challenging interactions I had in university were with other students - sitting in the bar and talking about math and economics and philosophy and politics...and shoes and ships and sealing wax...

That's what I don't want to see disappear.

[Mike the Mad Biologist]

In the 'hard sciences', research brings in a lot of overhead money. If universities move away from a research model, how will they make up the revenue shortfall?

[Jim Sentance]

"In the 'hard sciences', research brings in a lot of overhead money. If universities move away from a research model, how will they make up the revenue shortfall?"

There would have to be some buy in from government for that to work, shifting some of the money they've shifted from operating grants to research back to operating. As I said above, I think a good part of the more recent runup in obsessions over research funding is the result of that switch, mainly from the federal side - they get credit for research funding, but the province gets credit for operating.

In other words, it ain't gonna work.

[Wonks Anonymous]

I get irritated when paywalls try to make me pay for information, something I'm accustomed to getting for free. I probably waste a lot more valuable time looking for ways to evade the wall. I guess I'm like George Costanza insisting on free-parking, as so aptly mocked by Shoup.

[W. Peden]

Frances Woolley,

"W. Peden - don't you think that Christie Romer, Larry Summers and Greg Mankiw are smarter than Doctor Joe Bob?"

It depends what you mean by "smarter". Are they more creative than Joe Bob (Phd)? Obviously. Are they more knowledgeable in their specific fields? Certainly. Do they have a better overall ability to understand and convey all of economic theory as an advisor? Maybe not. They certainly haven't had as much experience as Dr. Joe Bob, whose bread-and-board depends on his ability to convey economics to neonates (like most politicians).

"Though this is any academic's knee-jerk response: if Dr Joe Bob is smart and capable, why isn't he publishing?"

If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?

[Determinant]

Interestingly, this is an American phenomenon - there isn't the same kind of academics cycling in and out of political administrations here in Canada.

This is a function of our different political structures. The US has the residual of the "spoils" system, the President nominates with Senate confirmation or directly appoints a great deal of the senior government hierarchy. They are expected to be partisan and to change with the administration. It's a four to eight year gig before you are replaced by someone else. The President thus has significant ability to put his preferred advisors on the government payroll. They can also be administrators and therefore carry out their advice.

Canada doesn't work like that. We use the Westminster System. Appointments to senior Public Service positions come from within the Public Service itself, the Deputy Minister community does not change with a changing government though they are appointed by the Prime Minister directly. Think of "Yes, Minister" and the eternal presence of Sir Humphrey Appleby who expected to see Ministers come and go and you'll understand, that's the system we use. In Canada a Deputy Minister or Deputy Head is the senior Public Servant in a Department and fulfils precisely the role that Sir Humphrey illustrated on television.

Partisan advice comes from Minister's Staff who are not administrators, they can only order take-out. Orders to the Public Service have to come from the Minister. They only interaction is a former provision that Minister's Staff could compete for internal positions in the Public Service after leaving a Minister's office, this was repealed five years ago.

[Bob Smith]

"But if the actual substance of much academic research is only of intelligible to a small group of scholars, why is it accorded such high status?"

It's accorded a high status precisely because only a small group of people understand it. The fact that the sun rises in the east is every bit as remarkable as the fact that asymptotic optimality assists in testing moment restrictions (or whatever), what makes the latter a form of prestigious knowledge is that everyone can wrap their mind around the former.

"Why are taxpayers prepared to fund research intensive universities?"

Because they have no idea what research intensive universities actually do - see above. I suspect that if Joe/Jill Q. Public actually read the output of many university departments, funding would dry up rapidly. If I were a cynic, I'd suggest that the fact that much academic writing takes the form of inpenetrable (often unneccesary so) jargon reflects an implicit understanding of that fact - think about the reaction to an article title "Sinister Sexualities - An Exploration of Alternative Modalities of Sexual Experiences in the Lower Gironde 1820-1827" versus the reaction to an article titled "Left-handed circle jerking in the Lower-Girond 1820-1827" (this is a favourite, and wholly fictional, article title used by my father, the French historian, to describe some of the marginal research he's come across). If you published an article with the later title, the public might reasonably conclude that you have too much time on your hands.

[Mike]

Pre-recorded lectures don't necessarily mean peer interaction disappears. Perhaps its as Saul Khan has suggested, video lectures can be viewed at home, and workshops/study sessions can be done at school.

http://www.ted.com/talks/salman_khan_let_s_use_video_to_reinvent_education.html

Its around 14:38 where he discusses what classrooms can do. I don't know if universities are exactly what he had in mind - but videos can be one of many components in education.

[Bob Smith]

"Some of the most intellectually challenging interactions I had in university were with other students - sitting in the bar and talking about math and economics and philosophy and politics...and shoes and ships and sealing wax...

That's what I don't want to see disappear."

I agree (and that certainly reflected my experience in undergrad), but I wonder to what extent that reflects the experience/expectations of a lot of students these days.

I mean, let's face it, we've all see the students who attend university not because they have any particular intellectual curiousity in math, econonomics, philosophy, sealing wax, etc. They're there because someone told them they need to get a degree to get a good job. They're the student who pops up on the first day of class and ask if your notes will be on the web, who asks, when you divert into an interesting, if not particularly germane, discussion whether "this will be on the exam", who comes to the tutorials so that you'll give him the answers (because, god forbid, he try to work them out himself) or who comes and complains about the generous "C" you gave his illiterate paper because he "needs to get into law school" (as if).

In some sense, we now have two university experiences. The traditional one, the university as life-enriching intellectual exercise, vs. the post-modern one, the university as signalling mechanism. Anyone interested in the former experience is likely to be greatly disappointed by a on-line, pre-recorded university experience, while someone interested in the latter might well prefer it (even if it isn't faster or cheaper,at least you can attend class on your schedule and in your PJs).

Moreover, I also wonder if the experience you describe is typical for students at some of the big commuter schools like UofT, York or Ryerson, where large numbers of students schlepp in from their parents homes every day, and then schlepp back out every evening. Would they really miss that much (other than the commute) if they watched their lectures from their bedrooms?

[SonyaDann]

"But if you had the choice to get your check-up (as opposed to your cleaning) done by a hygienist, rather than a dentist, would you? "

Yes I would prefer to see the hygienist. I would also prefer to see a nurse with a computer than a doctor (clinical research has shown better outcomes if you cut the doctor's opinion out of the diagnosis problem and replace him with a computer program). I think those who say the opposite are being affected by information asymmetry or thinking with emotional brain (like pride, ego and desire to look good to their friends) rather than with their rational logical mind.

It seems to me that you (not that you are the only one to do so) are making an assumption that more education provides better knowledge and that produces better outcomes - but this is less and less true, and it is becoming more and more obvious that this is less and less true. Doctors are like pilots - they need to be given direction or they make mistakes (all humans make mistakes) - basically they are technicians. But more importantly the within group differences are much larger than the between group differences here. A Nurse with 40 years experience will beat a new resident physician every hour of every day of the week. The Hygienist is the best that my teeth deserve (but the dentist doesn't allow that). An experienced LPN or RN is the best that my body would deserve (but the government doesn't allow me that option). A teacher is the best my brain deserves (but research institutions don't really provide that option).

As has been noted in these comments several times in a number of different ways - the value to society of the currently offered university education has significantly declined (i.e. the system is broken) and the longer the education the more the disconnect, or the more broken it seems. As an example most companies prefer to hire an MA than a Ph.D these days not because the Ph.D costs more but because an MA has more value independent of cost. The MA got 'real world' education while the Ph.D spent 5 years cloistered in a fantasy land devoid of real rational economic consequences that provides the experiences necessary to do great work, including great research.

Given this opinion of mine I'd say universities are in big trouble because they take the view that research is easier to measure then teaching. They do this rather than finding new innovative ways to objectively evaluate teachers.

With research the industry tries hard to 'keep it in the family' with useless jargon, for example, rather than finding new ways to open the cloister so the research can better be evaluated. And this allows the ponzi (or prof-zi) schemes to continue.

I apologize for the rudeness of it, but you said "sometimes, peers are idiots" and in my experience a lot, many, many, way too many of your peers are idiots and morons. It took me all of 2 days with your peers to realize it would kill me to have to work with those people and that forced me into choosing a different path in life that would keep me from that hell.

Also, admittedly I haven't met Larry Summers but I'd suggest the opinion that he is worthy of a Whitehouse appointment was mostly a case of group think and elitism than fact in our world where wealth and fame begets wealth and fame. He didn't exactly come from the streets and rise up based on his intelligence, ability and hard work... he came from a family of university professors and economists from Connecticut (which, in the part of Canada I came from is like saying he came from one of the richest, most privileged parts of North America). And I believe there is huge value in having to struggle for your success. If L.Summers didn't succeed that would have been the surprise, not that he did! As a result of this 'hero worship' of economists for people like Summers I've stopped thinking that "research output is a signal of ability", these days I think getting published is a signal of nepotism mostly. Y'all need to fix that before more people think like I do!

I think I need to just stop there but I could keep going!

[Frances Woolley]

Bob, you touch on an issue that is central to the Drummond Report's concerns: does the method of teaching and course delivery that works when 10 or 20 percent of the population go on to get university degrees still work when 50 to 60 percent of the population go on to get university degrees?

I don't know if it does, but suspect the cure may be worse than the disease.

[Frances Woolley]

W. Peden: "Do they have a better overall ability to understand and convey all of economic theory as an advisor? Maybe not. "

Actually Larry Summers is great at understanding and conveying economic ideas - even if sometimes he gets a bit carried away by them. He's the only one of the three you mention who I've been taught by. Say what you want about the US system - and it's easy for us up here to look down on them - the people who get to the top of that system, i.e. are teaching at Harvard, are pretty damn good.

[Frances Woolley]

SonyaDann - thanks for those comments. I don't have time to reply to all of them (I'm going in to work to vacuum my office - seriously - campus cleaning leaves something to be desired). Some of the issues around e.g. nepotism in publication we've discussed on the blog before.

I'm with you on the hygienists, by the way. I don't know if you're writing from Canada or the US, but that's actually one significant difference between the two countries - hygienists have much greater freedom to practice independently north of the border.

[Bob Smith]

"Bob, you touch on an issue that is central to the Drummond Report's concerns: does the method of teaching and course delivery that works when 10 or 20 percent of the population go on to get university degrees still work when 50 to 60 percent of the population go on to get university degrees?"

The bigger question is why is 50-60% of the population going on to get a university degree? If a university education only serves a signalling function, apart from being a vast waste of public resources (signalling being an inherently socially ineficient, albeit privately profitable, activity), mass university education won't achieve that goal - once a university degree becomse ubiquitous it loses its usefulness as a signal. On the other hand, even if you believe that a university education can develop productive skills (and, personally, I think there is some truth to that), diminishing returns are going to kick-in. Either way, our government's mindless pursuit of "more" education (rather than better education at, say, the high school level - so that remedial english or mathmatics courses aren't offered in universities, and that employers could be confident that a high school diploma at least ensures that a would-be employee is functionally numerate - or more appropriate post-secondary education, so that kids don't end up running up $30k in student loans, only to have to go back to college to be employable) will be a collosal waste of social resources.

But in terms of the cure being worse that the disease, it's the disease that's the problem. The idea of a university as an institute of higher learning is fundamentally incompatible with the university as an institute of mass education. Inevitably, trying to achieve that goal will result in the "dumbing" down of the university experience, if only because it will entail trying to educate dumber (for lack of a kinder word) university students. I suspect the various schemes cooked up in the Drummond Report (and elsewhere) to create "alternative" means of providing a university education is an attempt to make it easier for the 30-40% of the population to get a "university degree" (be it online education, creating "teaching" insitutions, or cutting down university degrees to 3-years - perhaps with "Honours" students, i.e., the traditional 10-20%, taking an extra year) without having to endure the traditional university experience sought by the 10-20%. Those are sensible suggestions, given the objective of achieving mass university education, but the bigger question is why are we trying to achieve that objective? That's the question that's not being asked.

[Determinant]

Those are sensible suggestions, given the objective of achieving mass university education, but the bigger question is why are we trying to achieve that objective? That's the question that's not being asked.

I've spoken about that before and I'll say it again: education has become the cure-all to employment market ills. It is politician's logic: Something Must be Done, This is Something, therefore we must Do This. Education gives the impression that the masses can improve themselves and relieve their unemployment, it lets them do something themselves and the government pays for a good part of it. Whether it actually relieves or reduced unemployment is something I am doubtful of.

The reason it is used is that the alternatives are much more complicated and many are focused on enterprises rather than employees because it is businesses that make investment decisions, seek markets and invest capital. It involves looking at how business allocate capital and the ease with which they can access capital. It may involve restructuring capital markets or even reducing our level of funding for mortgages. Perhaps we have invested too much in housing and not enough in productive industry. But banks and other investors have a structural bias to housing because it is seen as less risky than lending to businesses that manufacture goods or provide services. Any reforms here are going to impact the availability of money for mortgage lending; consumers don't want it and banks don't want to increase their risk and/or reduce their incomes.

Education is a politician's weasel word tactic.

[Frances Woolley]

Bob, Determinant - take a look at my first ever WCI post almost exactly two years ago: Human capital: literal truth, fairy tale or myth. That's my best ever response to the issues you raise.

[W. Peden]

Frances Woolley,

"Actually Larry Summers is great at understanding and conveying economic ideas - even if sometimes he gets a bit carried away by them. He's the only one of the three you mention who I've been taught by. Say what you want about the US system - and it's easy for us up here to look down on them - the people who get to the top of that system, i.e. are teaching at Harvard, are pretty damn good."

There are certainly some people who can both teach well and produce good research. I suppose we can distinguish three broad categories-

1. Those who can convey ideas and teach well but don't produce notable research, who are (by the nature of the academic system) usually pretty unknown. In philosophy, the classic example is John Cook Wilson, who was one of the most influential figures in 20th century analytic philosophy and published one fairly undistinguished book in his entire career.

2. Those who can produce notable research, but can't convey ideas and teach well. For example, Robert Mundell is a very great economist, but from what I've seen on youtube (without having been taught by him) he doesn't find it at all easy to explain ideas conversationally.

3. Those who can do both. Milton Friedman is perhaps the best example: he could explain ideas at varying levels and with both enthusiasm & lucidity, but also produced one or two bits of research which were well-regarded in his time, at least.

[Frances Woolley]

W. Peden - O.k., I will totally grant you Bob Mundell. Though I've got to say, thinking about the way Condi Rice or Hillary Clinton would deal with him is profoundly satisfying.

[Bob Smith]

Frances,

Getting back to your original thread, why is research higher status than teaching?

My own theory is that it's for the same reason that outfielders don't make it to the hall of fame for their defense. There are some positions in baseball where a player with so-so offense can be a star on the basis of his defense alone (think Brooks Robinson or Ozzie Smith, or most big league catchers) - the outfield isn't one of them. And I'd suggest it's because, the impact of good or bad defense in the outfield on the likelihood of a team winning or losing, just isn't that great. Sure, Jackie Robinson or Devon White might be able to snare the odd fly ball that, for an average outfielder, would be a sure double, but over the course of a 162 game season that isn't going to make much of a difference. On the other hand, the left fielder who hits .300 with 40-odd homers and 120 runs batted in will be a significant upgrade over the average outfielder. And it isn't that defense isn't highly regarded or respected, Baustista's feared as much for his cannon of an arm in right field as he is for is bat, and Robinson's "Catch" is a thing of baseball legend, it's just that doesn't make that much of a difference.

Now, let's look at teaching. Sure, there are professors who are great teachers and professors who are lousy ones. But does great teaching make that much of a difference to the well-being of your average economics department? Do would-be students choose to attend Carleton because Frances Woolley is a fascinating professor? Probably not (sorry to say), if only because I suspect that most high school graduates couldn't name a single professor at their future univerisity (and, if they can, it's probably for their research and/or writing), let alone assess whether they're decent instructors. It probably helps to have a few decent professors to teach the first-year course, so you don't scare away potential economists, but even the most disfunctional of departments can probably scrounge up one or two professors who are reasonably entertaining (just as even the worst defensive baseball team can scrounge up a semi-decent outfielder to cover center-field). Sure, by 3rd year, they may have figured out that Professor Woolley is interesting, while Professor so-and-so can barely speak english and basically reads his lectures from his powerpoint slides, but by that point, they've got enough invested in pursuing a degree in economics that the fact that professor so-and-so is a lousy lecturer isn't likely to impact the enrolment (and funding) of the economics department (it might mean, though, that professor so-and-so has 3rd-year classes of 5 people, while Professor Woolley has classes of 40).

It isn't that teaching isn't prestigious, it's just that the people to whom its targetted are just not that responsive to good or bad teaching. An economicst deparment can get away with lousy instructors because, to use the baseball metaphor, it isn't likely to cost them a lot of wins. The same can't be said for research. Reserch is targetted at other economists, who are likely to be very responsive to good or bad research. Moreover, its more of a winner take all game. The "good" research Department will have professors who have published in well-respected journals, while the "lousy" research deparment will professors who have published in the journal of RETCH. But both the good and lousy teaching deparments will have more or less full complements of students.

[Min]

Sort of off-topic, but I could not resist.

Determinant: "Education gives the impression that the masses can improve themselves and relieve their unemployment, it lets them do something themselves and the government pays for a good part of it. Whether it actually relieves or reduced unemployment is something I am doubtful of."

Education teaches people to be on time, sit still, keep their mouths shut, and follow stupid orders. What more do you want in a work force? ;)

[Min]

Frances Woolley: "does the method of teaching and course delivery that works when 10 or 20 percent of the population go on to get university degrees still work when 50 to 60 percent of the population go on to get university degrees?"

Does that method work at all? When I was an Ivy League undergraduate I met a high school teacher who was there on a one year fellowship. He was very critical of the quality of teaching there. He said that the only thing that saved the Ivy League was the quality of its students. A friend of mine was also critical. He said that our school was like the University of Kentucky, except that we did three times the work. IMX the best education occurred outside of the classroom, in bull sessions with other students, meals with faculty and grad students, and afternoons with faculty in their offices.

Higher education is largely selective, but selection starts, as a rule, by middle school. There is where the waste of so much human potential begins. Do we really want an educated citizenry?

The most celebrated teacher in the West is Socrates. And he was subversive.

[Scott P Bacon]

To begin, I apologize if I unintentionally highjack any ideas from the above article/comments, or misrepresent them in any way. With so much thought provoking content above, I feel it will be difficult to be wholly original in my own response, but what follows is my humble attempt:

The above article addresses, albeit in a roundabout way, a problem I identify with the university as a western institution. It begs the question, I think, as to why students study at university in the first place? Or rather, in effect, what is the purpose of university study? The most common place answer seems to be “to prepare students for the workforce” or from the student/parent perspective “well, a BA looks good on a resume”, but to what end? Silly question, I know, for the end is likely some “better” job (meaning also ‘better’ paying) than one would otherwise obtain without having attended university. But how exactly do the employers determine if the students they hire are well suited to perform in their company? In general, I suspect employers of university graduates desire skills of autonomy, along with some brand of independent problem solving ability; but how does an employer assess such skills from a mere CV? Perhaps, if my below reasoning holds, this assessment can be measured by the exposure a given applicant (graduate) has to particular types of professors, and the relationship she fosters with them.

Let me explain: for me, the above distinction between a research professor and teaching professor is perhaps an unintentional fallacy of bifurcation, as it neglects to include what I find to be an equally important professor: the technical professor. These three types of professors, which I will define shortly, present three purposes, ends, or reasons for anyone to study at university; reasons which seemingly descend in a lexical priority.

For our purposes the technical professor is she who concerns herself with what we may call “productive sciences” (what we call today technology). That is to produce things, to make, improve or repair material things in the world (Kreeft 34). The teaching professor is she who concerns herself with more “practical sciences” in so far as she improves student attitudes and behaviours and who helps “students see the world in a different way” (Woolley). The final, and arguably most desired professor, is the research professor, who as her name suggests is concerned primarily with the “theoretical sciences”, defined perhaps as the study of truth, or rather of ‘knowing’. The research professor’s pursuit is not done for the sake of influencing others, as in the case of the teaching professor, nor does she pursue her theoretical interests to necessarily produce, improve or otherwise change the world, as the technical professor might. Instead, her pursuit is seemingly nobler: it is for contemplation itself; to perfect her own understanding, and in so doing makes her pursuit all the more human than the other two. This view, I confess, is highly sympathetic to Aristotle’s view on how to live a good (virtuous) life, but I do believe there is some truth to it, please allow me to continue:

In my limited experience, those outside the world of academia, outside the ivory towers so to speak, have either admiration for the professor occupation, or revile it with ignorant comments like “oh you only work 8 months of the year”, or “what do you actually do on sabbatical anyways?”. But for those who do at least have some respect for the honour awarded by the title PhD, there seems to be an ordering to which this admiration is placed, a lexical ordering in terms of which professor has earned the onlookers (outsiders) admiration the most.

Returning to our three types of professors, it seems to me that the when the onlooker (outsider) observes the technical professor, they may understand her plight, her passion to change the world, to improve it in some materialistic way, and as a result admire and respect her efforts. Observing the teaching professor may also induce these aforementioned thoughts, as she may be seen as one who inspires others to perfect, improve or change the world, but ultimately, I feel she will be admired for more than this; she will be respected because she changes the lives of those study from her, not just the world in which they operate. Lastly, the research professor, I think properly understood, is the apex of admiration in the world outside academia, not only because they are awarded the biggest offices (I assume?), the highest positions, or the largest paychecks, surely these are but consequences of attaining such a profession. Instead I believe research professors are most likely to be admired and respected, and as a result well-paid, because they have the freedom to pursue their own path of contemplation, or theoretical research; they get to perform, practise and perfect what it means to be human in the most literal sense: to (critically or otherwise) think.

Returning to my original thesis above, the hiring company which has only a CV to judge a given applicant (graduate) may reasonably be interested applicants who were exposed to one particular type of professor over another. While this may be true in specific cases, e.g. skilled-trades, in my opinion the more general case proceeds as follows: if a student adequately demonstrates that they were able to establish a working relationship with a research professor, as well as maintain her degree and other extra circular activities, then I suspect she will be more desirable than her colleagues who were merely taught technical procedures, or became inspired through instruction.

I reason that she is more desirable because by establishing a relationship with the research professor, the student likely participated in increased social contact, exposing her to departmental politics and new ideas she would not have otherwise obtained, and likely forced her to interact within the natural hierarchy that exists between the student and professor dynamic. I think that this increased social contact, exposure to departmental politics, as well as experience in the relationship between professor and student, parallel well with the modern demands of many industries, at least where business relationships depend upon social ability, understanding of company politics, and the relationship between the boss/manager and employee dynamic. In so far as the above reasoning holds, it would appear that our graduate, who established a relationship with the research professor, is a head of the pack so to speak. These previous chains of reasoning, some may argue, equally apply to both the technical and teaching professors; but for me both have at least one significant drawback: neither may arguably embody the level of autonomy and critical thinking ability that the research professor does, and so may be less likely to impart such skills upon the student. This student then has an incentive to pursue only that professor whose maximizes their likelihood of future success, and hopefully, genuinely enjoys the professor’s research interests and personal character.

Ultimately I argue that research professors are held in higher esteem not only by those who look upon them as outsiders, but also by those who work from the inside, from the bottom-up (undergraduates specifically); as research professors represent individuals who possess that most human of attributes: critical thinking, and at a supposedly advanced and refined level. This asset/attribute, at least as I understand it, remains invaluable to most institutions in the private (although perhaps not public…) sector.

If my above reasoning is not too riddled with holes, then I humbly submit it as my account for why research holds higher status than teaching in the western university.

Problems which I fail to address at least include: the apparent disparity between authentic or ‘good’ research vs. “bad” (as commented on above), the reasoning behind the general profile for which employers use to hire graduates, the defence for why research professor are allegedly more desirable for befriending and interacting with, among others…

Kreeft, Peter. "Why Study Philosophy and Theology?" 2012. The Newman Report.
Woolley, Frances. "Why is research higher status than teaching?" 2012. Worthwhile Canadian Initiative.

[Jacques René Giguère]

Min : Socrates was a subversive in the sense that he was an active collaborator to the Spartan occupation forces and did his best to undermine the Athenian democratic model ( flawed as it was, way better than the Spartan Borg collective)
See Irving Stone "The trial of Socrates"
http://www.amazon.com/Trial-Socrates-I-F-Stone/dp/0385260326/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2

[Frances Woolley]

Scott, thanks for those comments. You raise an interesting point:

"Instead I believe research professors are most likely to be admired and respected, and as a result well-paid, because they have the freedom to pursue their own path of contemplation, or theoretical research; they get to perform, practise and perfect what it means to be human in the most literal sense: to (critically or otherwise) think."

Is it research per se that is valued, or is it curiosity driven research, that is, research that is freely chosen by the researcher? I think you're right to say that the later, curiosity-driven research, is more valued. But why? The person who is told "come up with a way of changing the point system to help Canadian immigrants succeed" has just as many opportunities to think as someone who is pursuing curiosity driven research. Indeed, the research demanded by the market or our paymasters is probably more likely to be policy relevant and of interest to a wider audience than some trivial refinement of some obscure estimation procedure.

I think it has to do with freedom, independence, control. But are these jobs that offer freedom high status because they allow people to control their environment? Or is freedom to pursue one's own interests simply a manifestation of something else, a belief that the research professor knows more about what are important areas of economic research than some bureaucrat? In which case the research professor has status not because he has freedom, but he has superior knowledge, and that superior knowledge brings him freedom.

I've written before about the nature of theory. One reason that theory has higher status than empirical research is that theory scales - come up with one good theory and it explains everything, leading to thousands of citations. Empirical work, on the other hand, is specific to a particular time and place.

[Min]

Frances Woolley: "One reason that theory has higher status than empirical research is that theory scales - come up with one good theory and it explains everything, leading to thousands of citations."

Form and substance. :) We revere Newton over Brahe. But where would Newton have been without Galileo, Galileo without Kepler, Kepler without Brahe? And, lest we forget, Newton ground his own mirrors. We don't remember him for that, but he did. ;)

[Min]

@ Jacques René Giguère

Merçi beaucoup. :)

[Barry]

I disagree with the author on the difficulty of measuring high-quality teaching vs high-quality research, since it's pretty clear that large chunks of the most elite macro work in economics for the past 30 years is very problematic. And that many of the elite researchers are incapable of and/or unwilling to correctly assess their peers' research.

[Frances Woolley]

Barry - think about what you've just written.

This post -- and the elite macro work that you mention - is available on-line. You are free to read it, and make your own judgements about its quality.

But do you have any way at all of assessing the lecture that I'm giving in 35 minutes time? Nope. Not even my colleagues know - the students evaluate me, but they can be bribed with cookies (it worked last term anyways).