To the Editor:
Paul Courant and his colleagues at the University of Michigan want the federal government to support the research habits of elite public universities ("Needed: A National Strategy to Preserve Public Research Universities," The Chronicle, January 3). Good research is good for America, yes? Not so fast.
The argument is self-serving. More than that, it is fundamentally flawed. Elite public research universities have pots of money, which they can and do choose to fritter away on enterprises of dubious value, from get-rich-quick curricular programs (where the intellectual basis is one of expediency rather than truth seeking) to auxiliary enterprises, like satellite campuses and intercollegiate athletics. Why should the federal government subsidize, in effect, frivolous courses, mail-order degrees, and hard-knock football?
Furthermore, the argument is supply-side front-loaded. The elite public research universities produce many thousands of Ph.D.'s yearly, most of whom wind up in practical trades or at institutions of higher learning quite lacking in a climate that encourages the generation of new and significant ideas; there they wither on the vine. By any measure, creating a special strategy to feather the nests of fancy universities is not a responsible use of federal funds.
It would make much more sense to award federal funds to scholars and scientists individually, wherever they are located. We do that presently, of course, on the basis of research proposals, a system where the production of knowledge in the natural sciences indirectly subsidizes, by overhead, the elaboration of meaning and understanding in the humanities. To game this system, the elite public research universities pamper faculty members with comfortable offices, gourmet dining facilities, sophisticated machines, rare books, administrative staff, and reduced teaching loads, all of which contribute to confecting the proposals and guiding them to a successful outcome.
How much better, and fairer, to assign federal research funds to faculty tout court, less on the basis of promising a better mousetrap than on the basis of past accomplishment? In effect, bet on the horses, which are located everywhere. The nation has many thousands of brilliant humanists and scientists, marooned in swamps or lodged in slums, who have nevertheless written decisive books and made fundamental advances—and who would again make significant contributions if only they had a bit of research lucre. Their accomplishments would serve to raise the level of intellectual discourse at their financially strapped and practical-minded institutions. All ships in American academe would float higher on this rising tide.
Today the sharpest minds in ivy-decked halls are often the product of overseas education. Even in flush times, elite American institutions have been unable, by themselves, to provide appropriate faculty members for all their own lecterns. Why, then, should the federal government provide money to bail them out in tough times? We would all benefit if the fancy universities reduced their size and focused more exclusively on significant research. They could spin faster if they had a tighter angular mass.
The best research doctorates at hundreds of American universities are the equal of the best research doctorates at the privates and at the flagships. It is time to let a thousand flowers bloom. Europe is vital intellectually, and remains a significant source of distinguished faculty members for America, precisely because it has supported a large number of relatively new universities, often through grants for small units and chair professors. A great many academic institutions there now rival Oxford, Heidelberg, and the Sorbonne. Rome n'est plus dans Rome. In any event, it is hard to see why a vibrant democracy should promote supercilious stratification by coddling swank schools. The latter operations are able to do well, if they so choose, without a dedicated line of federal money.
Lewis Pyenson
Dean of the Graduate College
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, Mich.






Comments
1. texasguy - February 04, 2010 at 02:14 pm
If we let elite public universities die or force them to privatize, we will be left with a two-track system, with first-class private universities for the offspring of well-of families and second-class publix universities for everybody else.
This is exactly what is happening now in California where the state is progressively letting the University of California system go and the Cal State System will soon be the sole true public university system.