Posted by:
kenc
(
)
Date: February 24, 2018 09:58PM
Not to put too fine a point on it or be argumentative, but the first reply to the OP was a tiny bit off the mark. I apologize if I seem insensitive. I don't mean to be.
There are not just two (2) different kinds of institutions of higher education - those that do research and those that do not.
Colleges and universities are not usually "just research" or "just teaching" universities that issue baccalaureate and some masters degrees. And those colleges and prestigious universities that focus on research are not necessarily better at educating despite their prestige as major research universities. A significant number of undergrads who attended large prestigious universities often complain about the lack of teaching ability of research professors.
I'm a former Director of Research and Sponsored Programs (I know--so what! :), and can tell you that faculty at some community colleges conduct "prestigious" applied research. Of course they are committed to and focus on teaching, but some of their intrepid faculty members understand that research can often enhance their teaching. Prestigious research and teaching are found at all levels of higher education.
Predominantly undergraduate institutions (baccalaureate granting colleges and universities called PUIs) may focus on teaching undergraduates as their specialty but frequently bring in millions of dollars from grants devoted to applied and theoretical research as well. The research awards vary from a few million to tens of millions. Again, though the focus is on teaching and undergraduate degrees, they conduct meaningful research, leading to patented devices or processes that benefit society. Though they award mostly baccalaureate degrees, many also award masters and doctoral degrees (think state universities that used to be called state colleges in the 1960s), and have expanded their roles.
Large and prestigious research universities can be publicly funded (University of Washington), or private institutions (Stanford, Harvard). Indeed they are prestigious and they bring in Billions in research grant award money to conduct theoretical and applied research.
But contrary to the reply above, students at these large and prestigious universities are often (and often not) frustrated that during the first two years of undergraduate work they are forced into huge sections of undergrad classes, and feel like cattle being put on an assembly line to run through as many "cattle" to get their baccalaureate degrees as they can. (College funding mechanisms force business decisions that cause this situation, at many universities.)
Large undergrad courses frequently use adjunct (part time) teachers or grad assistants to teach those courses. This defeats the idea that you are getting a top notch researcher you teach you the sciences or humanities, etc.
Lawsuits have been filed by frustrated students who have found it nearly impossible to understand the language of their teachers at the "prestigious" research institution. And if the prestigious profs, are forced to teach the intro undergrad classes, are sometimes the worst teachers. They can do research but cannot teach well. Lucky is the student who has a proficient researcher and good teacher. Even luckier is the student who has the good researcher, good teacher, and is invited to participate in research and publish findings with the excellent researcher/teacher. Less prestigious universities are sometimes more adept at this than the larger ones who use predominantly grad students for research assistants.
Finally, the most skilled teachers are found at every level; in large research universities as well as community colleges. And some of the worst teachers are found in all levels of higher education as well.
I spent enough time both as a student, faculty and professional staff member before my retirement, to know that blanket overgeneralizations about where one will find the best teachers, or even the best researchers is bound to be contradicted by dozens of exceptions.
I used the terms, theoretical and applied research. The National Science Foundation's annual report on research explains the difference. Both are valuable. Or you can google it.