<p>Teaching vs Research </p><p> </p><p>My friend Ron Cronovich, in a comment on a previous post, suggests that universities give too much weight to research over teaching:</p><p>Approximately only the top 20% of published journal articles really make any difference at all. Most of the rest are read by scarcely anyone but the editors and referees that decide the papers' fate, and do little more than earn their authors tenure and merit pay.</p><p>On the other hand, writing one of these papers in the lower 80% can be a useful exercise. It keeps you connected to the literature, the questions top researchers are asking, the methods they're using, the results they're finding. It helps keep you as part of the discussion. </p><p>Still, I feel that the social benefit of published journal articles outside the top 20% is way smaller than the private benefit, and too small to justify their overwhelming importance in promotion and tenure decisions. I have colleagues (not necessarily in my department or college, but maybe) who publish a high quantity of articles in "C" journals, get $2500 merit pay raises every year, and are living large. But if you read one of their papers, you have to wonder what the contribution is, why anyone would bother reading it. </p><p>The ability to do research in this lower 80% serves as a barrier to entry and reduces competition among teachers and schools. I wonder if this might be why schools stack the incentives toward mediocre, unimportant research and against more socially meaningful things like exceptional teaching that truly makes a difference. If someone knows of a different reason, please say so. I would much rather hold a less cynical view about this.</p><p>I am inclined to agree with Ron that universities should give more weight to teaching relative to research. Yet I am not fully convinced about my own judgments here because I do not understand what market failure leads universities to overweight research.</p><p> Note that Harvard may now be moving in the direction of elevating the role of teaching. Only time will tell whether this change is real or just "cheap talk" aimed at satisfying alums and other donors.</p><p> </p><p>译文如下： </p><p> </p><p>我的朋友Ron Cronovich, 在前一篇博客里的评论中，认为大学对研究重视得过了头，轻视了讲课。</p><p>在出版的论文中，大约只有20％的顶尖论文确实比较重要。剩下的大部分论文很少吸引到眼球，除了编辑以及审稿人这些决定论文命运的人外，几乎找不到读者。这些论文除了帮助作者拿到教职或者得到奖励外，几乎毫无用处。</p><p>另一方面，这些占比80％的二流论文的写作，可以当作一个有用的练习。这种练习，帮助你跟踪文献，关注顶尖研究者思考的问题、使用的方法和寻找的结果。这种练习有助于你成为讨论的一员。</p><p>然而，我还是觉得，除了20％的一流论文之外，这些出版的期刊论文的社会价值，远远小于个人的从中得益。它们在决定晋升和获取教职中具有压倒性的作用，这与它们的的社会价值是极不相称的。我的一些同事（未必是我所在的系或者学院，但也不排除），在“C”类杂志上出版了大量的论文，每年可以得到$2500的绩效加薪，生活得很是阔绰。但是，如果你读一读这些文章，就会怀疑它到底有什么贡献，为什么有人会自找麻烦地去读它呢。</p><p>这些80％的二流论文的研究能力，制造了一个进入壁垒，减少了教师之间和学校之间的竞争。我怀疑，是不是就是这个原因，使得学校的激励有利于平庸而平凡的研究，而不鼓励出色的授课。而正是出色的授课这些事情，才意义非凡，更加具有社会价值。如果有人知道其他的原因，请讲出来。这样，我才不至于对这个问题如此愤世嫉俗。</p><p>-----</p><p>我倾向于赞同Ron的观点，大学应该更加重视讲课而不是研究。然而我还不完全确信自己的这个判断。因为我还无法理解，到底是什么样的市场失灵导致大学对于研究的过分重视。</p><p>注意到，Harvard正在朝这个方向变化，更加重视授课的作用。只有时间才能告诉我们，这个变化是真的，还是一场“口水”博弈，一场仅仅用来满足校友和其他捐款人的秀。</p><p> </p><p>（以上来自曼昆快语日志）  </p>