Marquette recently hired a national education consulting firm to produce an analysis of Marquette’s PhD programs. It has taken on the moniker “the Yardley Report,” after its authors, the Yardley Research Group. Up until now, MU has managed to keep it secret.
I’ve been given a copy of the report’s general observations section, read it, and decided that any value or competitive advantage Marquette may lose by its widespread dissemination and discussion is far outweighed by the general University community’s interest in seeing what is driving our decision-makers’ policies. This report, if wholeheartedly embraced by the Administration, will have far-reaching ramifications for our beloved Marquette.
You can download the 15-page PDF document, The Yadley Report, here and read it for yourself. Let me offer my own main observation now, and I may add more nit-picky commentary later.
First, I agree with the official University vision: that we should strive to be one of the three or four best Catholic universities in America. Second, I agree with the Report that Notre Dame and Georgetown, Boston College and Fordham, are our primary competition for these select spots. Currently, MU does not consider ND and Georgetown as benchmarks, because it is “unfair” given their significantly larger endowments. Balderdash.
The Report appropriately calls out the University for “internal ambivalence” about our commitment to this goal. Simply playing “catch-up” by measured, careful progress is not going to catch us up, because the other institutions are also moving briskly forward. No one is resting on their laurels in such elite company.
The Report also says that the time has come for the Administration to make some decisions. Faculty are stretched thin, and they are yearning for clear direction and priorities from the top. Where should they turn their attention, faculty ask.
The Report’s conclusion is that the path to national prominence, and thus the University’s top priority for tenure system faculty, must be research. More research by more faculty is the central conclusion of the report. Marquette should encourage research, fund research, concentrate on research, promote research, and, in a word, DO research. This, the report argues, is the only way to reach our goal of being a nationally great institution.
The Report also says that something must give for faculty to have the time and resources to do the necessary research. This “something” is time spent teaching undergraduates.
A previous, internal report phrased the question this way: Is Marquette a research university, or a university that does research? The Yardley Report urges that our unequivocal answer be that we are a research university. My own preference is that we are a teaching university that does research.
The conflict is best summarized in Footnote 30, pages 16-17. The Report criticizes a decision by the College of Arts and Sciences to increase the number of core undergrad courses taught by regular, tenure system faculty. The Report suggests instead the the University hire temporary or adjunct faculty to teach such classes. This is where the rubber meets the road.
There are already universities out there that do research. The University of Wisconsin at Madison and the University of Minnesota Twin Cities are two such institutions. Certainly the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign or the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor are also such mega-research institutions. But Marquette students, who primarily draw from the Midwest, did not choose to go to those schools, even though they could have done so for significantly cheaper tuition, half or less. Marquette undergrad students chose to pay $10,000 or $20,000 more to come here.
They did so because they wanted an excellent, personalized education in a Catholic setting where they have options. For my own mind, Marquette offered all the resources and opportunities of a major national institution – exciting DI athletics, leading faculty, lots of academic and extracurricular programs – with the promise of individual attention and classes taught by professors, not TAs.
I trust the Report’s research that faculty are stretched thin and looking for direction. If the time for a decision at the top is now, I hope the powers that be choose teaching, not research.
I doubt the answer will come in some grand speech by Fr. Wild, at the State of the University address or another juncture. Rather, the test is this: Who do we hire as our next provost? Who do we hire as the next Dean of Arts and Sciences? Will they be world-renown researchers, or true teachers?
Let me close by considering the words of the Prophet Jeremiah:
“Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.” (Jeremiah 6:16).
The Yardley Report says that we are at a crossroads, the time for decisions and priorities is now. It says that if we want to compete with Georgetown or Notre Dame or BC, we must be more like them, and that means lots more research.
My own answer is different. Why play at a game when we start way behind in the score? Why start a race when the other team is already several decades ahead of us? Why look to the standards of secular success? Let us play a different game, one where WE start out in the lead, one where our own heritage, history, and identity fit well with the goal.
Let Georgetown, Notre Dame, Boston and Fordham compete to be the best Catholic research university in the country. For Marquette, let us strive to be quite simply the best Catholic institution in America for undegrads to get an excellent education. To accomplish that goal, research will certainly play a part, because it attracts faculty and keeps them on the cutting edge of their disciplines. But let’s not quibble over what takes priority. Let us provide undergrads an excellent education with a personal touch in a Catholic environment that offers a wide multitude of opportunities. That’s cura personalis.
If we do so, we will fulfill our WHOLE vision statement. We will “provide a Catholic, Jesuit education that is genuinely transformational, so that our students graduate not simply better educated but better people,” and, because we are the only top-tier Catholic institution in the nation focused first on excellent education for undergraduates instead of focused on research, “when asked to name the three or four best Catholic universities in America, people will include Marquette as a matter of course.”
Last 5 posts by Daniel- Tom Barrett's Savings Plan - June 8th, 2010
- C.J. Abrahamson on J. Stevens - April 11th, 2010
- Why always Bill Bablitch? - March 24th, 2010
- Suhr on Nixon on Health Care - February 23rd, 2010
- Did the USCCB Foresee Dead People? - February 8th, 2010
Interesting report. I tend to agree with you on this one Dan. We definitely need to play our own game which is to promote the art of teaching. Students don’t come for the research, they come for great teachers and personal attention.
I recently read a book called Managers Not MBAs ( http://newlycorporate.com/2007.....ng-either/ ) that discusses academic research in business schools. He proposes a “Bob and Barbara” test (two managers he knows) for research. Take your research out to the field and ask real people doing related jobs if they think the research is valuable. Providing value is afterall, what we wish to do right?
He also suggests some changes to the tenure system that make sense to me. His suggestion is, change it so that you can gain tenure through a teaching or a research track. Currently, most university’s require 50% of a profs time be teaching, 40 be researching and 10 be administrative (or something near that). Why not let those who teach best reach tenure through what they do best rather than being forced to produce research to fufill a requirement (a tactic sure to produce sub-par research).
In order for Marquette to not only rank well but define a great Catholic institution we need to encourage teaching by promoting it and allowing those who teach to reach tenure by their area of expertise. This will only encourage the true teachers we have here but, it will encourage the best from other University’s to come to Marquette and Be the Difference!
Daniel- Just wanted to say this is a great post!
Your point about the practical applications of research is right on, Brandon. It’s another reason to be wary of investing so many more resources in research. Now, I’ll agree that there is value in, for instance, translating works of minor Greek philosophers from ancient days into English. But we shouldn’t get out of hand with that. Consider this from the New York Times, for instance:
My point is pretty simple: just because we become a “research university” doesn’t mean that we are going to have a greater impact on the world. And we may lose some of our impact as we make a lesser impression on the lives of our undergraduates.
You’re absolutely on the mark, Dan.
In spite of a bit of rhetoric about the teaching mission of Marquette, Yardley really seems to believe that a proper university is a research factory, with external funding dollars the be all and end all of the enterprise.
I think all faculty should be at least pretty decent researchers. But all faculty should be good teachers too. And a mediocre research factory is the last thing Marquette should want to be.
Dan this is an excellent analysis. I do tend to agree with you most of the time, but concerning this post, I do disagree. I would agree with Yardley that we (MU) do need to concentrate greater on research.
The way I see it is schools prominence are judged but the sources coming out of the school with its name attached. Like a Harvard Business Report or a University of Chicago physics study. If we have to be recognized across the nation as a premier catholic school we need to compete with the other Jesuits the way they are competing. The XFL tried to do their own thing cause they were to far behind the NFL, and we all know what happened to the XFL.
Daniel,
I think that your argument assumes that the people that would be the best researchers would also be the best teachers. At a college level, I don’t think that’s true. The ability to teach a fresman-level chemistry class has nothing to do with the ability to do world-class chemistry research.
I think what the report is suggesting and what I agree with is to have adjunct faculty who are really good teachers teach the freshman classes. Then, we should have the full-time faculty mostly research and teach the upper-level/graduate classes.
“The XFL tried to do their own thing cause they were to far behind the NFL, and we all know what happened to the XFL.” The XFL’s problem was that it was directly inferior to the NFL in every measurable way, so I think your metaphor is fairly inaccurate.
The NFL had better athletes, a better t.v. deal and better endorsements. Much like Notre Dame has better students, a stronger national reputation, and a larger endowment.
Frankly I chose Marquette over huge research institutions (Minnesota & UW) and it was not for the Catholic Identity of Marquette. If I had wanted to attend a huge national research institution and receive my undergrad degree from TAs I wouldn’t have chosen Marquette.
[...] Fighting Like Warriors and Thinking Right. Systematically Debunking Liberal Rhetoric. « GOP3 Exclusive: The Yardley Report on PhD Programs and MU’s Future [...]
“Let Georgetown, Notre Dame, Boston and Fordham compete to be the best Catholic research university in the country.”
This is a great comment. Among true “research universities” these four aren’t even on the map. One of the reasons Notre Dame would be such a poor fit in the Big Ten is that it brings nothing to the table in this area. How can a university be a “research university” without such elements as a medical school or outstanding graduate schools?
It is undeniable that Notre Dame is a great undergraduate university, but a research university it is not.
The thing that NO ONE is talking about is that this report is on PhD programs at Marquette. I am a PhD student at MU, and I participated in the survey for this report. If Marquette is going to have competitive graduate students, then the faculty have to be able to provide the grad students with knowledge of current research as well as mentor them in how to do professional research. That means, whether they are researching and writing articles themselves, they most certainly need to keep up to date with what other researchers are doing. That takes a lot of time. Honestly, my opinion is that if MU is going to be what it wants to be, they are going to have to hire more tenure-track faculty and spread the teaching out a little, so that everyone has time to do what is expected. If MU isn’t willing to do that, then maybe they should drop their graduate programs and just be a school that caters to undergrads — which, let’s be honest, they already, silently, do, since that is where the money is.