3 ms·

I don't see any particular reason to tie research generally, and scientific research specifically, to institutions primarily organized around undergraduate educ

I don't see any particular reason to tie research generally, and scientific research specifically, to institutions primarily organized around undergraduate education.

HarryHirsch 10y ago
When you are working at the coalface of research you are intimately aware of which concepts are relevant and which are not. That directly feeds into undergraduate teaching. You can't teach today what you taught 30 or 50 years ago, but at the worse undergrad-only colleges you can get away with it.
- bradleyjg 10y ago
  Even if this is true, and it seems much more aspirational than something that actually occurs with any sort of frequency, that's merely one benefit to be weighed against all the disadvantages. To name just a few such: worse average teaching ability than a selection method that focuses on teaching ability, reduced research output due to splitting researchers' time between teaching and research, and of course the issue pointed out in the article that the needs of undergraduate education in large measure limit the number of research scientists. Were it not for the historical accident that we do things this way, I strongly doubt anyone would suggest we adopt it for whatever tiny educational benefit it may impart to undergraduates -- most of whom won't even go into the academic fields they are studying.
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  You mean undergrad courses don't teach the same thing they taught 50 years ago? When did that change?
JohnStrange 10y ago
Well, I'm at a research institute as a postdoc. The problem is that there is no career path except for trying to get tenure, and since there are no openings and the competition in the academic middle field is insane, this is so unlikely that it has become unrealistic to plan for it even when you're doing good work and have adequate publications. So at least in my area there is no research career. It's a dead end.
- hluska 10y ago
  Two things: 1.) I am sorry that you are going through this. 2.) Your experience perfectly matches that of a good friend of mine. She has been doing excellent work, she has had some great pubs and yet she considers getting tenure to be about as likely as winning a lottery. I wish I had something tangible to offer, but the best I can offer is my good wishes. Seriously, best of luck!
  - mattkrause 10y ago
    As someone in the same situation, thanks for the good wishes! For biomed stuff, it's frustrating that the NIH seems like it could address this problem (they control a huge proportion of the available funding), but have no interest in actually doing so. If I were king for a day, I'd seriously consider shrinking the training grant pool and redirecting that money to developing viable career paths for "staff scientists" or other experienced-but-non-PI employees.
    - greeneggs 10y ago
      They don't have an interest in fixing the problem. They want to get as much research done as possible---and so they benefit from exploiting cheap labor. (One could perhaps argue that they are harmed in the long run, but this isn't clear.) They also don't see PhDs leaving academia as a bad thing at all. To the contrary, they advertise it as a positive externality; the research money isn't just staying inside an insular academic community, but is giving companies across the economy access to skilled labor. Giving money to staff scientists would work against both of these benefits. It would cost more and could reduce the number of trained scientists entering industry. (Although that isn't clear. Creating more NTT positions might just give hope to more of those eternal postdocs.)
      - mattkrause 10y ago
        > They want to get as much research done as possible I agree, but it certainly does not feel like the NIH has thought about this carefully either. My impression is that the NIH does what does because this is how it has always been done (and that worked well enough for the PIs they consult). I would love to see data suggesting that the current arrangement is optimal--or even close to it. The only thing that comes to mind is a recent paper arguing that peer review scores for grants were mildly predictive of the number of number of resulting publications. As for staff scientists, one good staff scientist could certainly be more productive than a gaggle of newbie masters' students on their own. Right now, everyone is incentivized to do just enough to get the next paper. Permanent employees could build up infrastructure (protocols, code, etc.) that is actually reusable and ultimately more efficient.
sliverstorm 10y ago
My understanding is it's the other way around. A research university teaches undergraduate education almost by accident, to help pay the bills when funding is short and provide able bodies to run experiments. Look at UCSF, they don't even have an undergrad program.

I don't see any particular reason to tie research generally, and scientific research specifically, to institutions primarily organized around undergraduate education.

HarryHirsch 10y ago

When you are working at the coalface of research you are intimately aware of which concepts are relevant and which are not. That directly feeds into undergraduate teaching. You can't teach today what you taught 30 or 50 years ago, but at the worse undergrad-only colleges you can get away with it.

bradleyjg 10y ago
Even if this is true, and it seems much more aspirational than something that actually occurs with any sort of frequency, that's merely one benefit to be weighed against all the disadvantages. To name just a few such: worse average teaching ability than a selection method that focuses on teaching ability, reduced research output due to splitting researchers' time between teaching and research, and of course the issue pointed out in the article that the needs of undergraduate education in large measure limit the number of research scientists. Were it not for the historical accident that we do things this way, I strongly doubt anyone would suggest we adopt it for whatever tiny educational benefit it may impart to undergraduates -- most of whom won't even go into the academic fields they are studying.
marcosdumay 10y ago
You mean undergrad courses don't teach the same thing they taught 50 years ago? When did that change?

JohnStrange 10y ago

Well, I'm at a research institute as a postdoc. The problem is that there is no career path except for trying to get tenure, and since there are no openings and the competition in the academic middle field is insane, this is so unlikely that it has become unrealistic to plan for it even when you're doing good work and have adequate publications. So at least in my area there is no research career. It's a dead end.

hluska 10y ago
Two things: 1.) I am sorry that you are going through this. 2.) Your experience perfectly matches that of a good friend of mine. She has been doing excellent work, she has had some great pubs and yet she considers getting tenure to be about as likely as winning a lottery. I wish I had something tangible to offer, but the best I can offer is my good wishes. Seriously, best of luck!
- mattkrause 10y ago
  As someone in the same situation, thanks for the good wishes! For biomed stuff, it's frustrating that the NIH seems like it could address this problem (they control a huge proportion of the available funding), but have no interest in actually doing so. If I were king for a day, I'd seriously consider shrinking the training grant pool and redirecting that money to developing viable career paths for "staff scientists" or other experienced-but-non-PI employees.
  - greeneggs 10y ago
    They don't have an interest in fixing the problem. They want to get as much research done as possible---and so they benefit from exploiting cheap labor. (One could perhaps argue that they are harmed in the long run, but this isn't clear.) They also don't see PhDs leaving academia as a bad thing at all. To the contrary, they advertise it as a positive externality; the research money isn't just staying inside an insular academic community, but is giving companies across the economy access to skilled labor. Giving money to staff scientists would work against both of these benefits. It would cost more and could reduce the number of trained scientists entering industry. (Although that isn't clear. Creating more NTT positions might just give hope to more of those eternal postdocs.)
    - mattkrause 10y ago
      > They want to get as much research done as possible I agree, but it certainly does not feel like the NIH has thought about this carefully either. My impression is that the NIH does what does because this is how it has always been done (and that worked well enough for the PIs they consult). I would love to see data suggesting that the current arrangement is optimal--or even close to it. The only thing that comes to mind is a recent paper arguing that peer review scores for grants were mildly predictive of the number of number of resulting publications. As for staff scientists, one good staff scientist could certainly be more productive than a gaggle of newbie masters' students on their own. Right now, everyone is incentivized to do just enough to get the next paper. Permanent employees could build up infrastructure (protocols, code, etc.) that is actually reusable and ultimately more efficient.

sliverstorm 10y ago

My understanding is it's the other way around. A research university teaches undergraduate education almost by accident, to help pay the bills when funding is short and provide able bodies to run experiments. Look at UCSF, they don't even have an undergrad program.