By LINDA P. CAMPBELL
lcampbell@star-telegram.com
The dueling news releases emanating these days from the Tier One aspirers look impressive, daunting even:
A University of Texas at Arlington professor got a $281,547 four-year National Science Foundation grant for a research project called "NanoDomain Structure and Multifunctional Properties of Polymer Derived Ceramics."
With $491,081 from the Energy Department, a UT-El Paso professor will "investigate improved materials for thermal barrier coatings" and develop nanostructured coating for hydrogen turbines to protect engine components operating at higher temperatures.
The National Institutes of Health gave Texas Tech University professors $809,700 to determine the best ways of teaching introductory physics.
And a University of North Texas professor will use $640,000 from the NSF over four years to study plant defenses against the green peach aphid, a pest that not only loves fruits but also eats its vegetables.
The schools are bragging more about their projects and the size of the grants underwriting them because of the push to designate Texas’ next great research university.
It’s a curious kind of competition. UT-Arlington, UNT, UT-Dallas, UTEP, UT-San Antonio, Tech and the University of Houston all want to join UT-Austin, Texas A&M and Rice as "premier" schools, enjoying the kind of funding and prestige that go with a "Tier One" label. (They aren’t the only ones with those aspirations, mind you; Texas State-San Marcos and others would like to join the club.)
Yet several schools banded together to secure legislation designating a special pool of research money they could tap into if they raise matching funds and meet other criteria indicating they’re doing a better job.
And voters approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday allowing part of the earnings from a National Research University Fund to fund projects at "emerging research universities."
That probably means intensified competition for research dollars.
But what does it really mean for students and their classroom experience?
The arguments for striving to be a Tier One university are compelling: Larger investments in research turn into products, technology or advances that attract venture capital or can be marketed, thus generating jobs, boosting the local economy and bringing the university more money, higher-profile faculty members, even better students.
But many of those bonuses are indirect to what happens in the classroom day in, day out.
Talented researchers aren’t automatically great teachers. There’s a reason some academics prefer the solitude that some types of research require. And excellent teachers who connect effectively with students often prefer to devote their time out of class to work that benefits those students directly in ways that a peer-reviewed journal article or even a lucrative new patent can’t.
What’s to guarantee that the overarching emphasis on research won’t mean that students are increasingly lured by promises of access to accomplished professors, only to find themselves actually taught by graduate assistants because, well, those professors are off doing the research that’s made them — and the university — famous?
Looking for comments?
Share
@Nyx.CommentBody@