Since status and money go (and grow) together, the low status of undergraduate teaching is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why not give it the priority it deserves?
Last spring, I was offered a tenure track position at a state university that serves 16,000 undergraduate and masters students. I'm familiar with the dismal tales of not-so-young scientists toiling away for years in postdoctoral positions as they search desperately for permanent employment. I felt incredibly fortunate to get an interview, let alone the offer. More than that, I was thrilled at the opportunity to work with colleagues whose interests describe a broad spectrum of biology, ranging from genome analysis to coral reef ecology to bird migration, at a university that places a heavy emphasis on the quality of its teaching.
As a postdoc at a major research institution, I'm fortunate to have advisors and collaborators on whom I can count for honest and friendly advice. Four out of five told me that accepting the offer would amount to nothing more than ending my career as a research scientist. I assured them that I'd have my own lab with undergraduate and masters students; that my teaching load would be only nine hours per week; that three other molecular labs were up and running and if they could do it, there was no reason why I couldn't. I accepted the offer, but my explanations didn't allay their fears. In their minds, I've retreated from the cutting edge of biomedical research to a backwater, where my ability to do simple experiments will be crippled by a heavy teaching load and inadequate funding. My mentors assume that I'm choosing this career for personal reasons since it makes no sense to them professionally.
I, on the other hand, feel like the winner of a personal and professional jackpot. This position will enable me to continue my research while helping students appreciate and understand science. Yet I can't entirely ignore my colleagues' warnings or the low esteem in which they hold teaching. It's a century-old conflict. In one corner, "publish or perish," the natural inclination of scientists toward the leading edge and their dependence on the public's interest for funding. In the other corner, the thrill of sharing science with young minds unspoiled by overspecialization and a rejection of the notion that research alone is sufficient to sustain a life in science. It should be obvious, however, that research and teaching play equally important roles, and that anyone who is committed to the future of this profession must be concerned for the quality of teaching at all levels.
A report published last spring by the Boyer Commission of the Carnegie Institute for the Advancement of Teaching explored the education of undergraduates at Research I and II institutions, defined as those that grant over 50 doctorates per year and receive at least $15.5 million in annual federal support. The Boyer report describes ways in which these institutions often shortchange their undergraduates by delegating teaching responsibilities to graduate assistants and by failing to integrate undergraduates into research programs. The report also reminds academics that teaching and research ought to be inseparable; that each makes a unique contribution to the success of the other. It recommends creating small introductory classes, integrating the curriculum across fields, and strengthening the emphasis on teaching and mentoring undergraduates who, after all, represent the next generation of scientists and citizens.
Many of the report's recommendations are already being implemented in small colleges and universities. But for scientists at medical schools and large research universities, including the three US institutions where I have studied and trained since my undergraduate years, the focus is rarely on teaching. Here success is measured by grants and papers, the seeds and fruits of successful research. Postdocs are discouraged from teaching, which is seen as a distraction. Small wonder that each successive generation of scientists, bred on the notion that teaching weakens research, would resist choosing a career in which teaching plays a dominant role and would dutifully advise their postdocs against such a move.
For the postdoc who rejects such advice and chooses to teach undergraduates, how is his or her research likely to fare? Eugene Garfield attempted to measure this in 1993 by surveying all papers covered in the Science Citation Index over the previous 12 years. He looked for papers in which one or more contributing author was at a primarily undergraduate institution (PUI). He found that the average "impact rate" of these papers (based on the number of citations) was comparable to the average overall, suggesting that research performed in PUIs was of equivalent quality to that done elsewhere. However, the total number of papers generated per lab is likely to be smaller at a PUI, averaging one or fewer per year. Measured by publication quantity alone, the average researcher at a PUI cannot stand up to his colleagues at large institutions wielding doctoral students, postdocs, and technicians, but the quality of such publications may not differ significantly.
From the perspective of the undergraduate student, the opportunity to engage in research is often greater at a PUI than at a large research institution. A 1987 study of 50 "science-active" liberal arts colleges found that 30% of papers published by faculty at these schools included an undergraduate student as co-author, compared to fewer than 1% of papers published at large research universities. Quantitative evaluations of the impact of research on student achievement are scarce. One, however, was presented in the December 1997 issue of the CUR (Council on Undergraduate Research) Quarterly. From 1993 to 1997, the psychology department at Washington College in Maryland altered its curriculum to increase the involvement of undergraduates in research. Over this period, the performance of graduating seniors on a standardized national achievement exam in psychology rose from the 46th to the 76th percentile nationally. Psychologist George Spilich, in describing these trends, attributed the dramatic improvement in his students' performance to the increased emphasis on undergraduate research.
PUIs also train a significant number of future Ph.D.s. According to an NSF survey, PUIs granted 46% of the nation's bachelor's degrees in science and engineering in 1993. Between 1991 and 1995, PUIs accounted for the baccalaureate origins of 43% of life science doctorate recipients. PUIs were disproportionately represented in some fields, accounting for the origins of 54% of psychology doctorates and 60% of chemistry doctorates.
Yet there is no comparison between large research institutions and PUIs when it comes to funding. According to data provided by the NSF, in 1996 the nation's total research and development expenditure on higher education was nearly $23 billion. Ninety-eight percent of these funds ($22.5 billion) was spent by doctoral-granting institutions, which represent a minority of all institutions of higher learning in the U.S. The remaining two percent ($500 million) represents the entire research and development expenditure of more than 2000 "other" institutions, including universities whose top degree is a masters or baccalaureate, and two- and four-year colleges.
Last month, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a bill that would increase the NIH budget by $2 billion in 1999. In March, the American Association of Medical Colleges published its recommendations for allocating the predicted increase. These included a brief acknowledgment of the role played by undergraduate institutions in recruiting minority students to science, but focused almost entirely on the needs of large research institutions. Given the peripheral role of teaching in the lives of many biomedical researchers, it's not surprising that undergraduate education should appear so low on the AAMC's list of priorities.
The Council on Undergraduate Research, whose 3,500 members teach and conduct research at 850 colleges and universities, is preparing its own recommendations. These include increasing funding to enable faculty and students to engage in scholarly research, particularly at institutions that have less-developed infrastructures. CUR is also concerned about NSF funding for institutional and lab improvement grants. Recently, these grants were folded into the "Course and Curriculum Development" grant structure. While important for building teacher and student competence, curriculum development should not be emphasized at the expense of equipment and materials, which are frequently a limiting factor at undergraduate institutions. In addition, funding for labs at PUIs should include support for technicians. A researcher whose time is divided among teaching, mentoring undergraduates, and departmental responsibilities would derive considerable benefit from the support of a full-time technician, as would the undergraduates working in such a lab.
I chose to emphasize teaching in my career because interacting with students is, for me, the most satisfying and inspiring part of science. Nonetheless, I understand my colleagues' concern when they advise me against leaving the privileged environment of the research lab. They know that in science, as in the rest of life, status and money go (and grow) together. As increased funding leads to higher productivity, increased status confers influence over budget allocations, and a cycle develops in which some institutions remain perpetually underfunded. Scientists who shun these institutions are unlikely to push for their survival. Increasing support for undergraduate research is a necessary step in improving the education of the next generation of scientists and citizens. It might even convince a few graduate students and their mentors that teaching at a PUI can enhance one's research career, rather than end it.
Microbiologist Carol Berkower studies the use of recombinant mycobacteria as live vectors for vaccine delivery.
Send us your comments and ideas for future articles.
Endlinks
Council on Undergraduate Research - works to generate support for undergraduate research at individual institutions and to forge links between the undergraduate research community and federal government and industry.
The NSF Division of Science Resource Studies - a source for data on federally funded research. Site links to the Annual Science and Engineering Indicators, as well as to the WebCASPAR database system, which allows user-defined searches of statistical data.
As a postdoc at a major research institution, I'm fortunate to have advisors and collaborators on whom I can count for honest and friendly advice. Four out of five told me that accepting the offer would amount to nothing more than ending my career as a research scientist. I assured them that I'd have my own lab with undergraduate and masters students; that my teaching load would be only nine hours per week; that three other molecular labs were up and running and if they could do it, there was no reason why I couldn't. I accepted the offer, but my explanations didn't allay their fears. In their minds, I've retreated from the cutting edge of biomedical research to a backwater, where my ability to do simple experiments will be crippled by a heavy teaching load and inadequate funding. My mentors assume that I'm choosing this career for personal reasons since it makes no sense to them professionally.
A 
For the postdoc who rejects such advice and chooses to teach undergraduates, how is his or her research likely to fare? Eugene Garfield attempted to measure this in 1993 by surveying all papers covered in the 
From the perspective of the undergraduate student, the opportunity to engage in research is often greater at a PUI than at a large research institution. A 1987 study of 50 "science-active" liberal arts colleges found that 30% of papers published by faculty at these schools included an undergraduate student as co-author, compared to fewer than 1% of papers published at large research universities. Quantitative evaluations of the impact of research on student achievement are scarce. One, however, was presented in the December 1997 issue of the CUR (Council on Undergraduate Research) Quarterly. From 1993 to 1997, the psychology department at Washington College in Maryland altered its curriculum to increase the involvement of undergraduates in research. Over this period, the performance of graduating seniors on a standardized national achievement exam in psychology rose from the 46th to the 76th percentile nationally. Psychologist George Spilich, in describing these trends, attributed the dramatic improvement in his students' performance to the increased emphasis on undergraduate research.
Yet there is no comparison between large research institutions and PUIs when it comes to funding. According to data provided by the NSF, in 1996 the nation's total research and development expenditure on higher education was nearly $23 billion. Ninety-eight percent of these funds ($22.5 billion) was spent by doctoral-granting institutions, which represent a minority of all institutions of higher learning in the U.S. The remaining two percent ($500 million) represents the entire research and development expenditure of more than 2000 "other" institutions, including universities whose top degree is a masters or baccalaureate, and two- and four-year colleges.
The Council on Undergraduate Research, whose 3,500 members teach and conduct research at 850 colleges and universities, is preparing its own recommendations. These include increasing funding to enable faculty and students to engage in scholarly research, particularly at institutions that have less-developed infrastructures. CUR is also concerned about NSF funding for institutional and lab improvement grants. Recently, these grants were folded into the "Course and Curriculum Development" grant structure. While important for building teacher and student competence, curriculum development should not be emphasized at the expense of equipment and materials, which are frequently a limiting factor at undergraduate institutions. In addition, funding for labs at PUIs should include support for technicians. A researcher whose time is divided among teaching, mentoring undergraduates, and departmental responsibilities would derive considerable benefit from the support of a full-time technician, as would the undergraduates working in such a lab.
