Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="freyar" data-source="post: 6754426" data-attributes="member: 40227">One other thing on this point: I do largely agree, but not entirely.&nbsp; Specifically, &quot;research education,&quot; ie experiential learning through involvement in original research projects, is an important part of education in science, and I'd argue that it's become critical even for students who go directly into the workforce (without getting an advanced degree).&nbsp; It has helped some of my former students get jobs, and I'd argue that the type of independent, critical thinking and problem-solving it fosters is crucial for society.&nbsp; So that's one reason research is implicitly tied to education.&nbsp; Another is that teaching is much more time-consuming than many people suppose, and someone with a 100% teaching position isn't likely to have the time to keep abreast of recent developments in science.&nbsp; Just doing that is a non-negligible part of my (research) workday and often the only research I have time to do.&nbsp; For myself, that informs some of what I choose to teach in class and certainly informs what I teach informally when I talk to students at other times.&nbsp; Research and teaching are not totally unrelated.&nbsp; (Not that I think you mean that, but I like to elaborate on things, as you can probably tell.)The other thing, of course, is that universities are increasingly being run as corporations and there is already a squeeze on research/teaching positions (tenure-stream faculty) many places in favor of teaching faculty on short-term contracts (who are effectively paid less than minimum wage given the amount of work it takes to teach a single class).&nbsp; That has its own problems both for those instructors and also for students, but it also raises the question of how basic science will get done if not at universities.&nbsp; I think most people reading this thread would agree that basic science does provide a social good.Anyway, I'm interested to hear your (Umbran's and everybody else's) thoughts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="freyar, post: 6754426, member: 40227"] One other thing on this point: I do largely agree, but not entirely. Specifically, "research education," ie experiential learning through involvement in original research projects, is an important part of education in science, and I'd argue that it's become critical even for students who go directly into the workforce (without getting an advanced degree). It has helped some of my former students get jobs, and I'd argue that the type of independent, critical thinking and problem-solving it fosters is crucial for society. So that's one reason research is implicitly tied to education. Another is that teaching is much more time-consuming than many people suppose, and someone with a 100% teaching position isn't likely to have the time to keep abreast of recent developments in science. Just doing that is a non-negligible part of my (research) workday and often the only research I have time to do. For myself, that informs some of what I choose to teach in class and certainly informs what I teach informally when I talk to students at other times. Research and teaching are not totally unrelated. (Not that I think you mean that, but I like to elaborate on things, as you can probably tell.) The other thing, of course, is that universities are increasingly being run as corporations and there is already a squeeze on research/teaching positions (tenure-stream faculty) many places in favor of teaching faculty on short-term contracts (who are effectively paid less than minimum wage given the amount of work it takes to teach a single class). That has its own problems both for those instructors and also for students, but it also raises the question of how basic science will get done if not at universities. I think most people reading this thread would agree that basic science does provide a social good. Anyway, I'm interested to hear your (Umbran's and everybody else's) thoughts. [/QUOTE]

Verification