Financing Higher Education American society expects much of its system of universities. esoeciallv those that are ouhlic. On the one hand, they &expected-to produce ned knowledge-the product of .research, and all that implies. In the sciences, this involves funding for researchers-faculty and graduate and postdoctoral students-for equipment, consumables, and appropriate physical facilities. On the other hand, universities are expected to provide a quality basic education for undergraduates. While tensions between the related, but different, functions of research and education have long existed within universities.. thev have sharolv . intensified recentlv. The nation's major research universities are increasinglyhampered bv a oersistent eaD between revenue and s~endine.It is decoming more difficult to support the costfy demands of advanced research and, at the same time, pay for high quality undergraduate and graduate programs. This gap persists despite the glowing reports of successful multi-million-dollar fund-raising drives. Federal figures for all research universities that grant doctoral degrees, including public universities, show that tuition accounts for a little more than a third of their annual revenue. Parental and student resistance to tuition increases, reductions in Federal and state aid, corporations olacine more restrictions on their donations, and the arowing cost of scholarly pursuits all contribute to an i n t e n s h a tion of the financiallv based tensions between research and education. Much effort is beinx expended to formulate ways to continue to finance these iwoixpensive, hut vital, commitments of American universities. Some argue that universities could do a better job of managing their available resources. This approach has led some institutions to combine or eliminate programs. These decisions were not necessarily related to declining enrollments in particular disciplines but rather were choices to support other programs in a time of scarce
-
-
resources. Thus, Columbia has decided to close gradually its aeomaohv and linmistics deoartments: Washineton Univers i t i o f ~ t Louis : &nounced>t was phising outits sociology department, which 20 years ago was widely considered to be among the nation's best. This sort of "academic triage"may become common in the future as universities are forced to accommodate to fmancial realities. It is becoming increasingly clear that most universities are losing the capacity to continue to try to be all things to all people. Perhaps it is time to stop. These mowine financial tensions are exacerbating the natural tenzons t h k have always existed between research and teachine. Manv research institutions deoend on their abilitv to sustain advanced research programs attract and retain the top faculty they proportedly want to teach their undergraduates. However, because of the expense and complexity of current scientific research, many faculty prefer to work with post-doctoral students rather than graduate students. Post-doctoral students are perceived to be "more efficient" than graduate students or advanced undergraduates. In such an environment, undergraduate education is often considered to "stand in the way" of frontline research. Faculty who were enticed to universities ostensively to provide exemnlarv undereraduate instructors are drawn further and furtheiaway frim these very students, a process that produces results contrarv to the oriainal intent. All this brings in& question the relationship between scholarshio and teachine. Classicallv. a strone and direct relationship has been se& as a positi;; benefit the educational orocess: eood scholarshio is necessarv for eood teaching. ~ k l the;; e may be a of truth in this position, the present reality seems to be driving scholarship and teaching apart. A fine line exists between a healthy tension and a JJL destructive adversarial relationship.
Volume 66
Number 10
October 1989
79 1
