Are some using report for research, teaching clash?
Dear Editor: Can you believe it? Members of our university community are beginning to question the importance of uni-versity-based research and scholarship. Are these people misreading the Provost’s report, or am I? What I read in the report is a strong attempt to increase the quality of the research undertaken, and the quality of the relevant graduate programs that give sustenance to that research. It suggests implicitly the possibility of reducing the size of some graduate programs in order to increase the quality of others. Whether one agrees with this approach or not, this is the intent as I perceive it. To me the Provost’s report is a quality-centered document. I am distressed that some of us appear to be using this report to set forth a clash between the research and teaching activities at the university. The University at Buffalo is a Research I University as categorized by the Carnegie system. As such, we should continue to support an emphasis on research, scholarly, and creati
Related Questions
- If the Lancet case report did not say MMR causes autism, and if his collection of biopsies for research purposes was pre-approved by the Ethical Practices Committee, why is there a case against Dr. Wakefield (and colleagues)?
- Are Research Assistantships or Teaching Assistantships available to M.Fin. students?
- What is the CVM policy for adoption of research and teaching animals?
