So much importance placed on a single metric, maybe not even related to the candidates actual job. It's sad there doesn't seem to be a 'teaching track' in the

So much importance placed on a single metric, maybe not even related to the candidates actual job. It's sad there doesn't seem to be a 'teaching track' in the UK (where this article originates). I remember the best teaching lecturer during my undergrad being fired for his low research output. For the most part, undergraduates don't need to be taught by great researchers. I mean, it's inspiring, but we all know leading figures get PHD students to put together their course anyway. The department needed a high average researcher quality to increase the chance of future funding. That would indicate they believe research subsidises teaching. I'm not sure how this works, as UK students pay about £24 per hour of lecture time, and there are probably 100 of them in the room. Research must be really profitable if it can make more than £2400 an hour. An interesting article on the American side: http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/research/studies/who-subsidizes-whom/ http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/research/studies/wh...