Comment by fasterik

There is a case to be made that teaching improves the understanding and insight of the teacher which in turn can increase their research ability. For starters, it provides a less boring way of drilling fundamentals. But more importantly, having to answer questions from students which very likely will be coming from odd and unexpected directions, helps the teacher clarify their thinking. It could well be that one of these odd questions, the answer for which the teacher takes for granted, may actually hold some insight or raise questions into what they are working on outside of class.

In a similar vein, it is recommended that if you are in a business meeting you hear what the junior positions have to say about something first and work your way up the chain of command rather than the other way around due to the junior positions being less familiar with internal processes and thus more likely to flag or suggest something completely out of left field that the higher ups might miss.

This used to be the case: research was conducted mostly at academic institutions that did not provide degrees [1]. The "research university" is a relatively new thing

[1] https://asteriskmag.com/issues/10/the-origin-of-the-research...

Absolutely not. You could argue this for entry level lectures, but not at the PhD level. PhD is learning how to do original research, how could you separate teaching that from doing that?

That's not entirely the case in Germany. Applicants need to give a lecture which is public. Usually members of the student union will be present and will have a say later within the hiring committee about the quality of teaching.

But I do agree that the ability to produce and procure research is not at all coupled with the ability to teach.

>> Teaching and research should be decoupled.

This is like saying peasants growing vegetables in the field should not mix with philosophers questioning the secrets of the Universe.

Problem is most research is just pissing in the wind. No real results. Show me the cure for cancer. Show me the warp engine.

So it's very nice to sit in their ivory tower doing ivory tower stuff while the peasants feed them with the vegetables they grow plowing the fields.

In reality, let them also teach. That's real, palpable work. I can't do all nice things and never touch shit work, so should professors because unless they cure cancer or invent the warp engine now, they are not a privileged cast.

I would suggest 'more loosely coupled' perhaps, which in many cases they already are. Students may not want a surly, disinterested professor forced upon them because of a teaching requirement, but they won't want to miss out on great teachers forced to choose between teaching and researching. And as expressed by others, teaching and research reinforce each other to some degree. Teaching tests conceptual understanding and research incentivizes maintaining an understanding that tracks the knowledge limits of the field.

But this exists in many educational + research institutions already. Where it runs into problems is in resource constrained environments, where there aren't the budgets to support research-only positions that aren't 'less than' roles or the institution can't support the grant ambitions of highest 'performing' teaching researchers, stuck that they don't go to those institutions and more less research-focused (or at least smaller grant value) teachers populate those schools.

I'm trying not to make any value-judgements here, so please ignore and bias vibes that gives off.

A lot of academics like teaching and think they benefit from it though. Richard Feynman thought so, and many academics I have met seem to as well. Not all.

I think in some subjects (e.g. literature) the greater prestige of research leads to a lot of pointless research and we need more teaching.

Of course, there are many good researches who are bad teachers. I am not so sure about vice-versa, but, nonetheless good teaching should be rewarded more, as should the ability to communicate knowledge in other ways (e.g. by writing books).

No. You should move students around more imo.

I've worked with good and bad at both. Some of the most difficult problems when you have students who have had excellent teachers and then get dropped into the real world. If they don't learn themselves how to apply what they're learning (the other side of the coin of training) then they're often no better than an llm stuck in a loop, they know the textbook but don't know the gray areas...

Also professors and researchers are required to be able to communicate otherwise they're useless to the field. They need to better.

I'm not saying every lecturer will hold any interest in every lecture course. I've had the ones who are there lecturing core material to avoid the dept losing its accreditation and I've done electives where the professor is off the wall and spends half of the time going on about their research instead of the address material (fun but painful come exam time).

I agree. I studied at one of Europe's top "research universities". The most important courses often had the most famous profs, who also were either bad teachers or put no efford into their teaching.

On the other hand the course I learnt the most from was taught by a passionate lecturer who isn't even a professor, and he gets the highest ratings every year. (Yes we have a "rate my prof" event)

Imagine a future classroom defined by elaborate plays performed by curious parents, all on advanced adjacent learning paths themselves. An intertwined learning structure that just keeps going up. At higher levels, instead of having the researcher with their head in the books communicating, they’ll have a whole team of people translating their knowledge into a production fit for antiquity - directors, diverse range of talents, charismatic performers, etc.

Assuming we have time to do this in some post-having-jobs world, of course.

In this sort of case the “teaching” happening with graduate assistants is teaching how to do research. That’s inextricably part of the job of a research professor, is to teach others how to do the job.

So, I'm no professor, but as an ten year post-doc (unfortunately) I can say that most university groups benefit from both types. Again, the problem fundamentally is funding and the wrong incentives, as it always has been from before I entered grad school till now.

"Teaching" in OPs context probably doesn't mean lecturing, but 1:1 sessions with Junior Researchers from Master's Thesis upwards to PhD Candidates and Postdocs.

No, they’re usually rated on the ability to bring in grant money.

You probably need to step outside of your US-centric bubble if you are to comment on how university works outside of the US. There was a fairly large clue in the parent comment.