I hear the term all the time: “Teaching University.”

Every time I hear it I admit to being a bit puzzled. What is a “teaching university.” Show me a university that does not teach. All universities educate students. So what do those who utter these words mean when they speak them?

Based on my personal experience* as both a university student and 20 years in university teaching I think they have in mind some mythical animal–like a unicorn or big foot–that simply does not exist.

It would be fine if the belief in a mythical “teaching university” was as harmless as the belief in unicorns. But it is not harmless. Critics of higher education berate and belittle faculty at teaching universities for engaging in research.

Professor Vance Fried of Oklahoma State University recently authored a report titled “Opportunities for Efficiency and Innovation: A Primer on How to Cut College Costs” for the American Enterprise Institute. Professor Fried built a theoretical university from the bottom up. One of his assumptions was that “…students do not derive any direct benefit from research or public service activities” (8). On page 13 he dropped this bombshell: “For teaching-oriented colleges, research release is a waste of faculty time.”

In a previous post I argued that faculty research has many benefits for undergraduate students. These are benefits that accrue to students wherever I have taught. When I teach my students I integrate my research into each course. Rather than teaching what others have found–repeating what is in the textbook–students are benefiting from the latest knowledge in my areas of expertise. That is value added to the student’s education. And, after all, is that not what we expect from faculty, to add value in the classroom? If not we would simply give students a stack of books and give them their degree once they had plowed through all of them.

One of the more disturbing aspects of the “teaching university” argument is the inherent elitism. Those who go to elite universities deserve the benefits of faculty involved in research; those who go to “teaching-oriented universities” deserve rote-oriented teaching devoid of active involvement on the part of their faculty members.

Having taught at a variety of universities I know one thing: Academic administrators want faculty who are active researchers because they understand that research improves instruction. To employ a metaphor that I have used before: You wouldn’t hire a personal trainer who did not keep himself in shape, why would you want to be taught by faculty who are not actively involved in their discipline through research and other appropriate activities?

I was an undergraduate student at Seattle University in the 1980s. Then, as now, Seattle University had a reputation for teaching excellence. It was as close to the unicorn-like “teaching university” as any primarily undergraduate institution. Even as an undergraduate I was aware that my faculty were engaged in academic research. Bradley Scharf, my adviser and mentor, was an acknowledged expert in the politics of East Germany and social welfare policy. I was proud of that. And he was an excellent teacher. Though I did not fully realize it as a student, he was incorporating his research into his courses and I was the beneficiary.

Critics of faculty research miss the point entirely. Any funds devoted to faculty research (which are minuscule, at least at non-doctoral institutions, I can assure you) add tremendous value to the classroom, as any investment should.

*I received my BA from a comprehensive private liberal arts university and my PhD from a major research university. I have taught at a Doctoral level research-oriented university, a comprehensive private liberal arts university, and now at a comprehensive public state university.