Talk:Research university/Archive 1

Archive 1

Oppose merge suggestion by User:DrStrauss

It is ridiculous to propose a merge when this article has been needed for a long time. With over 20 books on Google Books alone that expressly mention "research university" or "research universities" in their titles (and dozens of others which discuss the concept in detail in their body text), it should be self-evident that there is a strong distinction between universities and research universities. Indeed, the Association of American Universities expressly describes itself as "an association of 62 leading research universities." I will continue to expand this stub article over the next few weeks. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The quotation has to be used verbatim because the subject is too controversial

Someone who does not understand Wikipedia Manual of Style keeps attempting to change the quotation in the article. Please review MOS:QUOTATIONS and Wikipedia:Quotations. We always reproduce quotations faithfully, especially in the context of a controversial subject such as which universities established the model for the modern American research university. In this case, we have to use Dabars and Crow's paraphrasing because if you look at Geiger's magnum opus on the subject, he doesn't concisely and clearly state his conclusions in one sentence the way they do. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Overall bias towards American system

If this page is explicitly referring to American universities it sould begin with a statement like '... is a term used to describe universities in the United States that...'. Otherwise, it is very biased towards American universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.223.200 (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Biased in what way? The article describes generally what is a research university. The only part that is U.S.-centric are the last two sentences, which are fully supported by sources per Wikipedia policy. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The distinction between "research university" and "teaching university" is a concept that is not generally known at least in Germany, and I doubt in most other European countries as well. See History_of_European_research_universities, what is now known as R.U. seems to be the default in Europe. Countries in South America however, tend do have a much lower fraction of R.U.s even than the US. IMHO the article would benefit from an overview over the perception and distribution of universities in countries/cultures/continents. --Quazgar (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

University usually does mean "research university" in the sense of the present page

Could you please provide an example of a "non research" university? Virtually all universities expect all its tenured and tenure-track faculty to continuously engage in research. For example legislation through all Europe explicitly require this. This page looks like making no sense to me, sorry. Popop (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like you need to read up on the extensive history of normal schools, which began as glorified vocational schools for teachers and for that reason have always stressed teaching over research. A few universities which evolved out of normal schools, like UCLA, went on to become true research universities in their own right. Many former normal schools, including most campuses of the California State University, are still far more oriented towards teaching than research. For example, at least half or more of a typical CSU student's courseload is provided by part-time lecturers with no tenure, no job security, and no requirement to do research. All they do is teach, usually for salaries so meager that they have to cover multiple CSU and community college campuses to make ends meet (and are often jokingly called "freeway flyers" because they have to dash from campus to campus). At UC, about 90% of the courses are taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty with support from graduate student instructors who are doctoral candidates. That is, the professors teach the large lecture courses each week, then the GSIs teach the small discussion, lab, or seminar sections that follow up on the material introduced in each weekly lecture. The GSIs usually don't get paid much, but the tenured professors do earn good salaries. They usually got on the tenure track in the first place and then secured tenure because for their dissertation thesis, they developed something truly brilliant that made them into a rock star in their field. Even then, public research universities like UC are notoriously vulnerable to raids from better-funded private universities like the University of Southern California. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course (ehm, I appear to be a bit late - I regret!) you are perfectly right when you say that there are normal or superior schools whose personnel is as qualified as university personnel. But they are called schools or "colleges", not universities! I learn from the UCLA article that its former name was Los Angeles branch of the California State Normal School. So, let me repeat it: "university" nowadays is synonymous with "research university". So I cannot get what the article is about. Perhaps "Institutions of higher education performing research". (Well, quite OT and regrettably, underpaid and nonguaranteed, though highly qualified, scholars occur in "research universities", too, throughout the world.) Popop (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of universities around the world where research is not central to the mission of the institution. Most famously, and to continue your example, the University of California system consists of the state research universities while the universities of the California State University system are teaching focused. In many other state university systems there is a flagship research university and the other universities are teaching focused. In terms of the Carnegie classification, there are plenty of US universities that are not classified as research universities. Outside of the US, not all English or Welsh universities grant research degrees and would not properly be called research universities. Robminchin (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no need to say that certain universities (individuals, too!) perform research better or more intensively than other universities. I still subscribe the assertion that research is a (one among the) central mission(s) of any university. As far as I can see, the CCI simply classifies the amount of research done. The expression "research university" does not even appear in the page explaining the methodology: [1]. I still see no example of a university not performing research at all. Popop (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I did not say that some universities perform research better than others, I said "There are plenty of universities around the world where research is not central to the mission of the institution", with the example of California where this was made explicit with the tripartite division of the California Master Plan for Higher Education. The University of Law is another example, in the UK, of a university that concentrates on teaching and does not mention research (see About Us). It may be that you "subscribe [to] the assertion that research is a (one among the) central mission(s) of any university", but I'm afraid you don't get to apply your definition of a university on Wikipedia to exclude those universities that disagree with you. Robminchin (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposing to remove original research inserted by User:Wikiuser100 on 5 April 2019

This sentence doesn't sound right: "It is also possible for a research university to combine both functions, hosting in effect a liberal arts college for undergraduates while maintaining a heavy focus on research in its graduate degree programs, as is commonplace in the American Ivy League institutions." There is no source cited for that, and there's unlikely to be any because it's inaccurate. Please go read up on the various difference between true liberal arts colleges versus true research universities which merely purport to have an institutional focus on the liberal arts. That important distinction wreaked havoc at the University of California when the Board of Regents suddenly converted UC Riverside from one to the other. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View violated?

The first paragraph is full of bias. "Undergraduate courses at many research universities are often academic rather than vocational and may not prepare students for particular careers" - please tell me what a BS in Computer Science from CMU or Georgia Tech prepares you for? "Institutions of higher education that are not research universities (or do not aspire to that designation, such as liberal arts colleges) instead place more emphasis on student instruction or other aspects of tertiary education, and their faculty members are under less pressure to publish or perish.[8]" Totally unnecessary. This feels like a shameless plug for liberal arts colleges. What other aspects of tertiary education? Even if the last sentence were true why is it in the introductory paragraph? ThisFeelsABitOff (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Huh? That text (which was revised by two other editors from my original text) neutrally and correctly summarizes the contents of the cited and linked sources. Did you read the cited and linked sources?

Your use of the words "totally unnecessary" indicates that you have zero understanding of what distinguishes a research university from any other kind of university or institution of higher education. That point is the most necessary one of all. The dysfunctional early history of the University of California, Riverside and history of the University of California, Santa Barbara both revolve around that critical distinction -- an institution that is not a research university has less institutional emphasis on research, meaning there is less pressure to publish or perish. The transformation of both institutions into research universities was so difficult because their original faculty were not researchers, and in the case of Riverside, had been expressly or impliedly promised that they would be teaching at a liberal arts college without institutional pressure to constantly research and publish. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the reason these sentences are in the opening section is that they are about what distinguishes the research university from other institutions of higher education. Both the statements the OP claim to be biased seem to be sourced, so unless there are other sources that have been ignored that contradict what is said here, there is no NPOV violation. To address the specific point about degrees preparing people for particular careers, my reading of this - particularly in the context of the second part of the sentence - is that degrees from research universities are academic qualifications that prepare people for a wide variety of careers rather than being vocational qualifications narrowly focused on a single career path. The current wording also makes it clear that they 'may' not prepare people for a particular career; obviously leaving open the possibility that some of the degrees (such as a BS in computer science) are very much aimed at particular careers, but other degrees are more wide ranging. Again to emphasise: this is all sourced and thus not an NPOV violation unless there are sources that contradict this. The OP needs to provide these, or the tag should be removed. Robminchin (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robminchin, I am new here. Could you please let me know if I identify and include only those sources that fit my narrative, can I get away with it on Wikipedia? If talking about the other side is important, I wonder why underemployment of liberal arts majors or declining demand for liberal arts colleges isn't mentioned in Liberal arts college's introductory paragraph.

As for user @Coolcaesar's comments - "what distinguishes a research university from any other kind of university or institution of higher education", yes! any other kind of university - the complement set of research universities - is an important factor here, which is why "(... such as liberal arts colleges)" looks like a shameless plug for liberal arts colleges in an article about research universities.

Additionally, @Coolcaesar didn't answer "What other aspects of tertiary education?"

I propose we remove -

1. The text in parenthesis. Because it specifically points to liberal arts colleges as the 'other' superior kind of higher education.
2. 'or other aspects of tertiary education' What other aspects? It is vague.

Concluding, if the publish or perish part has to be kept in the introductory section of the article it should be *about* research universities and not presented as a superiority of liberal arts colleges. In that respect, the last paragraph can be removed and a sentence in the first paragraph that "Faculty members of research universities are known to be under the pressure of publish or perish" can be added. NPOV's Achieving neutrality section specifically focuses on 'Impartial tone' even in the presence of cited sources. Unless that happens, I don't think this article achieves NPOV. ThisFeelsABitOff (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a bit rich to go around asking about questions I didn't respond to. You never answered my question about reading the sources, which supports a reasonable inference that you have not read them. Again, please read the sources.

What are you trying to say with the words "any other kind of university - the complement set of research universities - is an important factor here"? This is a incomprehensible word salad that fails to prove any point. As a result, the rest of your statements are entirely unpersuasive because you failed to clearly and coherently argue your premise. Get your syntax straight.

To respond to the question about "other aspects of tertiary education" -- as anyone with sufficient basic life experience in postsecondary education should know, other institutions tend to focus on other things like quality of teaching, vocational education, or athletics, while research universities are focused on research first and everything else comes second. For example, UCSB's finest program as a state college was industrial arts, but the Board of Regents went out their way to get rid of that program when they decided to upgrade Santa Barbara College of the University of California to the University of California, Santa Barbara.

That's why it's really important to read the sources cited for a proposition and to read the history links which I helpfully provided above (the point I just made about UCSB is in that article).

If you know anything about research universities (which seems doubtful at this point), you should already be aware that the extensive literature on research universities routinely contrasts them against liberal arts colleges (as Clark Kerr repeatedly did in his memoirs), and therefore, noting that contrast in this article is entirely neutral and appropriate. (And to be clear, I first learned about the concept of a research university from a president of the American Association of Universities.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robminchin, user @Coolcaesar has failed to demonstrate an ability to discuss objectively, in a civil manner (i.e. they can't go without attacking the person instead of the matter at hand), lacks basic comprehension skills, clearly fails to evaluate other opinions and seems to be highly highly biased towards the subject matter. I smell conflict of interest. CoI or not, we need arbitration here - of editors not involved in this topic - because of very apparent strong bias of existing ones. Until then, I don't think NPOV's resolved. ThisFeelsABitOff (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

So your next tactic is to claim other editors are not being civil, after they merely try to explain how you are not responding to others' points and urge you to simply respond. It's clear at this point who's trying to push a non-neutral POV.

Again. To be civil and to assume good faith. Let's see if we can have a reasonable conversation here. Did you take the time to read the cited sources, particularly the cited Irons and Buskist article which draws a sharp contrast between research universities and liberal arts colleges when it comes to the balance between research and teaching, and between publish or perish versus other institutional priorities? Why is the current article not a neutral summary of the points raised in that article?

'So your next tactic' this doesn't help 'a reasonable conversation'. I, too, can say that this isn't your courtroom where you are paid to defend an opinion, no matter what. Civil mature people don't have 'tactics'. They have opinions, which they are willing to change if given new information. Anyway, as for the article, it clearly points to the sharp contrast between research and liberal arts colleges in terms of publish and perish, as you rightly mentioned. I am saying that even that the article is biased - towards teaching in master's and liberal arts colleges and hence, points to "publish or perish" as a supposed benefit of being in a liberal arts college. There are other factors too, and there can be other sources which draw such contrast but are in the favor of research universities, and are missing in both Research university and Liberal arts college. To me, the current contrast doesn't give an encyclopedic overview of the matter. But, as @Robminchin pointed out, the onus is probably on _me_ to be come up with other sources. I don't have time now, but when I do, I might add contrast in terms of other factors and add them in both Research university and Liberal arts college. Until then, I think it'd be okay to remove the NPOV template.ThisFeelsABitOff (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

And what were you trying to say when you said "any other kind of university - the complement set of research universities - is an important factor here"? An important factor in what? --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I am saying there are places of higher education other than research universities and liberal arts colleges. So when distinguishing research universities from 'any' other place of higher education, pin pointing to liberal arts colleges with a parenthesis seems like a shameless plug.ThisFeelsABitOff (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@ThisFeelsABitOff: To answer your question "if I identify and include only those sources that fit my narrative, can I get away with it on Wikipedia?" – If those are the only reliable sources, then yes. But if those are the only reliable sources that exist, then your narrative is the only one supported by reliable sources and thus the only one that belongs on Wikipedia. If, however, other reliable sources exist, then other editors will find them and you won't 'get away with it'. At this point, it becomes a discussion of due and undue WP:WEIGHT. The onus rests on the challenging editor to produce their reliable sources that contradict your reliable sources already included. Until those sources are produced, your narrative remains the only one backed by reliable sources. You should also be aware of what Wikipedia:Conflict of interest means. It refers to having an external relationship with the subject of an article, particularly such that and editor stands to benefit from the edits they are making. It's hard to see how someone could have a conflict of interest in a subject as broad as "research universities". It doesn't mean someone who has strong opinions, or even biases, about the subject – see WP:COINOTBIAS. You need to clearly identify what you think is a breach of neutrality hear. It seems to me that the issue is the comparison to liberal arts colleges, but if this is the case then you need to be clear about why, given that this is a comparison made in the literature, it doesn't belong here. Robminchin (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. It seems like this is a game of sources. Of bringing up sources that have the same bias as me. I'll try to get sources that contrast between research universities and liberal arts colleges, but don't allude to liberal arts colleges being the better of the two. Then we can talk about weight. As that's an onus on me, until then, please feel free to remove the NPOV template (or let me know if I have to do so).ThisFeelsABitOff (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The reference to the Carnegie R1/R2 ranking is out of date

Someone should update the number of US research universities according to these guys to their most recent draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.41.50.76 (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)