The elite academic society, better known as academia, has a way of secluding itself from the rest of the population. Although it is supposed to be the best conditioned to thrive in what everyone calls the “real world,” its environment seems to be a large fantasy in which its contributions to the academic society grant it more merit than it receives through its impact on society and its students.
Members of academia write research papers, books and studies applicable and interesting only for the higher-ups in their respective academic communities; showcase them at conferences and meetings with the people in those communities; awe at the findings and do it all over again.
“They’re patting each other on the back,” University professor Surendra Subramani said. “This is pure egotism.”
And it’s not just something they like to do — it’s a requirement.
Here at the University, professors and instructors are expected to spend 40 percent of their time doing research, even though they have hundreds of students to teach among five classes. There is no way that we can require professors to commit almost half of their time to research and expect it not to affect their commitment to teaching. This is why we run into professors and instructors who seem like academic zombies throwing out statistics and information to a crowd and testing only on the ability to memorize those stats. Professors only have to commit 60 percent of their time to being a teacher.
Why is research so important that professors need to cut two-fifths of their time as teachers to do it?
Do the students benefit from it? No. The students benefit when professors and instructors are focused on teaching about the issues in their courses. The more time students can get with professors, and the more time professors can spend understanding their students’ needs, the better the education.
Academic research doesn’t educate the student body or even the greater public.
When professors conduct their research, it’s written in very specific jargon and specialized language that even the brightest undergraduate students can’t decipher. Thus the information, even though it is often high in value, becomes lost among a muttering of hyper-complex sentence structures and undefined theories and terms.
Our society has been conducting research for ages, and sociologists have been studying the effects of social iniquity for quite some time — yet we still face a perpetually widening income gap and an economy which runs on heartlessness, and we still seem to be falling behind in the educational department.
So, if students don’t become more educated through it, and broader social conditions don’t improve through it, then why is research so important?
Well, University staff and professors need it because when they conduct studies and research within their communities, they do it under the University’s name. In turn, both the professor and the University receive more renown within the academic community, and they both become more prestigious and closer to academic glory — ostensibly more so than, say, if our math department faculty actually put their heads together to figure out a way to educate students enough to pass MATH 111 at a higher rate (currently it’s the most failed course here), and more so than, say, if a teacher has about 400 students assemble in his defense.
The University was prepared to part ways with political science instructor Ken DeBevoise last year, citing him not meeting the standards for research as a factor. Hundreds of students rallied in his name, praising his passion for teaching and his determination to educate students; only then was DeBevoise saved.
DeBevoise challenges his students to think critically about the issues he teaches, and many students say he evolved their way of thinking. But apparently he was too busy teaching students to earn his tenure.
It drives me to wonder: If the University had a really great researcher who was an unsuccessful teacher, would he be fired?
Thinking back to some of the teachers I’ve had, the question pretty much answers itself.
The notions of prestige and merit seem to be as important to the University as its ability to teach us. Members of academia want to assert their ability to research the same way our football team wants to assert that it is the best team in the nation.
Though there is nothing wrong with professors earning respect in their respective professional communities, is it not egocentric for the University to require professors to use 40 percent of the time that we pay them to earn it?
Academia thrives off student dollars and spends almost half of its time seeking the respect of a very small community (8.9 percent of Americans have master’s degrees, and only 3 percent have doctoral degrees). If research somehow aided teacher’s skills or the well-being of society, I would be all for it. But as far as I see, their role as researchers contributes to nothing but their own sense of validation.
[email protected]