By George Leef
Wednesday, June 24, 2020
When it comes to real research — the kind that leads to
breakthroughs that make our lives better — a high percentage of it comes out of
American universities.
Why is this so? Columbia University professor Miguel
Urquiola has written an intriguing book in which he argues that the reason why
is that compared with universities in the rest of the world, ours are
comparatively laissez-faire. In today’s Martin
Center article, Duke University professor John Staddon evaluates Urquiola’s
book.
Staddon writes:
How did the US achieve leadership
in research despite several counter-indications and a slow start? Urquiola’s
answer is that our higher education evolved in the direction of the free
market. In European countries, institutions of higher education evolved in
the opposite direction.
In our early days, colleges and universities sorted
themselves mainly by religious affiliation and there wasn’t much competition
among them. But in the 19th century, a few (such as Johns Hopkins) began to
move in a different direction, competing to attract faculty members who could
both teach and do research. That competition was the key to our success.
Few American students are scientifically literate, but
that doesn’t matter. Staddon explains:
Research is an elite activity. A
handful of universities dwarf the rest in terms of research output. Poor
scientific literacy in the mass of the population is irrelevant so long as the
brightest fraction of students are well-educated and offered research
opportunities.
In higher education, we’re doing a lot wrong, but getting
a few crucial things right. As Staddon concludes,
Urquiola deserves credit for highlighting American academic research pre-eminence and giving a plausible description of the historical process that made it possible. Our higher education system is messy, but due to competition, it works rather well.
No comments:
Post a Comment