- Email: [email protected]
A view on higher education
DIGITAL
SIGNAL
PROCESSING
1,
120-122
(19%)
PERSONALGLIMPSE
A View on Higher Education Guy Sohie GE Corporate
Research and Development
Center, Schenectady,
When I left Europe several years ago and came to the United States to pursue a graduate degree, many of my friends and colleagues wondered why. European universities really were not inferior to American institutions, so why not stay there? Some thought that I had caught “gold fever,” that I was driven West with treasures on my mind, and that I would return disappointed. Others thought my imagination had taken over, that I had watched too many cheap TV series, and that I would soon long for a real engineer’s job in the old country. Some looked at me with dismay: Why would anyone with a genuine interest in mathematics want to leave the lowlands, where more than a few mathematicians had gained fame throughout history? The more practical minded ones figured I was just being deceived by high engineering salaries in the United States, and was looking to grab some of the “greenback” opportunities. But I did not feel that the United States deserved its reputation (although some Americans even disagree with that). Personally, I was simply looking for a change, for a good excuse to broaden my horizons in more ways than academic, and most of all for an environment with a large “derivative,” one in which change forever keeps you on your toes. So here I was, armed with a Fullbright scholarship, a little bit of pocket money, and ambitions not to return without a Ph.D. in a field that was less than conventional. In addition to a good education, I found plenty of what I came looking for-dynamics and change. As a scientist I always liked to think of change as a challenge: inventions, new products, new ideas.. . . However, we scientists have typically kept an unchanged image: the absentminded professor, the weird individual with glasses and gray hair, with a lab coat once white but now torn apart because of various chemicals. It makes me wonder about the changes 1051.2004/91 $1.50 Copyright 0 1991 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
New York 12301
that have taken place in the ways in which we do research and how we educate our scientists and engineers, and it is worth looking back to see how well the system is holding up. After graduate school, a term of military service, a few years as an assistant professor at a large state university, some time in the “front lines” of the semiconductor industry, and now at an industrial research center, I have seen my share of change in my personal career. My years in graduate school at Penn State were probably some of the most enjoyable of my career. I was lucky enough to obtain a graduate assistantship, and I was (and still am) quite grateful for this opportunity. I can not help but wonder in how many countries of the world you could simply “show up” and receive a graduate education-free of charge. When I later joined the ranks of assistant professors, I entered academia with the idea of contributing to education, and of giving back some of the values I had learned myself. But as is the case with many starting assistant professors, many of my expectations of academia turned out to be ill-matched with the reality of the academic’s job. Personally, I enjoy teaching and academic research very much. And I think my record at the university was actually quite acceptable according to the institution’s standards. But when a university places more emphasis on obtaining funds for “release time” from teaching than on teaching itself, it is easy to become confused. With more importance placed on obtaining research dollars than on the value of actual research performed, one starts to wonder. I saw faculty with poor teaching records receive tenure while they had million dollar research contracts. I found the same faculty being asked to retire, when some of the contracts were not renewed. People with excellent teaching and research credentials disappeared when the dollar amounts did
not live up to expectations. Many of those who did well on both fronts paid with failed marriages and unhappy personal lives. I expected to find a “company” with education as a product; instead, I discovered the battle ground of the assistant professor. This “workhorse” of academia, the “grunt” of higher education, deserves more credit than tenure could ever give. We reward marathon runners with medals. We reward assistant professors with the assurance that they can keep on running for as long as they like. And although salaries at academic positions are quite competitive with those in industry nowadays, I found no assistant professors who really displayed satisfaction in their jobs. At the risk of overgeneralization,’ I have a simple feedback control model of how the assistant professor is shown the academic world. At the output of the system (i.e., the “measurement equation”) we have a collection of numbers. There is probably quite a bit of variation in what these numbers are. But typically, the measurement equation is some nonlinear combination of the number of publications, number of research dollars attracted, total number of students, number of students graduated by degree, and, oh yes, maybe some educational aspect such as student course evaluation results. The input of the model is what funds it all: the bottom line. These numbers vary even more from one school to the next, but typically consist of some combination of tuition, money from the state and local government, and money from various industrial and federal research funding agencies. The feedback control system represents the elusive “publication and funding” cycle. At a time when governments at state and federal levels have difficulty making ends meet, none of the “measurements” can have much impact on funding sources from state and local governments, so the numbers-to-local-government feedback gain is zero. Tuition, in turn, can be more easily raised independent of any feedback. Consequently, we have seen educational costs soar during the eighties (this is the feedforward control portion). Finally, there are research contracts. Assistant professors are programmed to believe that the better the measured numbers look, the more contract dollars attracted. The slogan “We must become one of the nation’s top ten research universities” is probably as common on some universities’ campuses as are pep rallies for the football team. Unfortunately, logic prohibits hundreds of universities nationwide from filling these ten slots. 1 I do realize that many universities and mold, and my apologies go out to them.
colleges
do not fit this
I have always been suspicious that quality is not a controllable variable in this system. Certainly, good research results should be published, yet when we use the number of publications as a single measure of research quality, research quality itself quickly becomes an unobservable process. A strong research program and funding to support graduate students are definitely necessary to support good education. But the quality of education can hardly be controlled by research dollars and publications alone. In the long run, I cannot help but wonder what is the metric by which we are trying to optimize the system: is it buried somewhere in the self-perpetuating notion of research for publications for dollars for research, and so on? To a professor, the metric is all too often simply entered in a spreadsheet formula which combines the numbers, and “magically” calculates a salary raise. Should it not be the quality of education in final analysis, measured by proficiency of graduates and the types of positions they end up with that define how the system is controlled? In the past (we hope), American industry has also ignored quality issues at times. Consumers went from happy with American products to fed up with lack of quality to outraged when quality reached the danger level. When there were few domestic products satisfying domestic tastes, foreign products invaded the market, with due consequences. Nowadays, there are national quality awards, and quality is finding its way back into our products. Industry is not only improving quality control, it is investing heavily in quality improvement programs. In this process, companies count heavily on talent provided to them by colleges and universities. But if we turn out college degrees like we once made gas-guzzling cars, we will continue to make ourselves dependent on foreign technology like we already depend on foreign oil. With a decreasing national defense budget, universities may well find themselves on the losing end of the cold war. Contracts from defense agencies make up a major part of many universities’ research funding. If these funds shrink, “contract hunting” at universities may grow even more into a full-time occupation. American industry obviously stands to lose the most, and should make a determined effort to invest in product quality, not only on its own turf but also where most of its future will originate: American universities. This, in turn, will affect the way research is conducted at universities, in response to the way research at industrial research sites has been affected by increased competition. Many industrial research centers are being consolidated and made part of business units. Elsewhere, funding structures of industrial research sites are changed to make research more
responsive to business needs.2 Corporations are looking at how research affects productivity, and at devising ways of increasing that effect. Academic research, in the long run, will not remain immune to this process. Industry has a nagging need for academic re’ See IEEE of the changes
Spectrum, October 1990, for a good overview in industrial research.
of some
search, directed to “feed” industrial research efforts. It is hoped, by making academic research more responsive to industry’s needs, that we can increase the awareness and usefulness of graduates. This feedback loop-industrial funding of university education and research to university graduates to industrial positions which require quality education-may make more sense than the present fundraising process.
SIGNAL
PROCESSING
1,
120-122
(19%)
PERSONALGLIMPSE
A View on Higher Education Guy Sohie GE Corporate
Research and Development
Center, Schenectady,
When I left Europe several years ago and came to the United States to pursue a graduate degree, many of my friends and colleagues wondered why. European universities really were not inferior to American institutions, so why not stay there? Some thought that I had caught “gold fever,” that I was driven West with treasures on my mind, and that I would return disappointed. Others thought my imagination had taken over, that I had watched too many cheap TV series, and that I would soon long for a real engineer’s job in the old country. Some looked at me with dismay: Why would anyone with a genuine interest in mathematics want to leave the lowlands, where more than a few mathematicians had gained fame throughout history? The more practical minded ones figured I was just being deceived by high engineering salaries in the United States, and was looking to grab some of the “greenback” opportunities. But I did not feel that the United States deserved its reputation (although some Americans even disagree with that). Personally, I was simply looking for a change, for a good excuse to broaden my horizons in more ways than academic, and most of all for an environment with a large “derivative,” one in which change forever keeps you on your toes. So here I was, armed with a Fullbright scholarship, a little bit of pocket money, and ambitions not to return without a Ph.D. in a field that was less than conventional. In addition to a good education, I found plenty of what I came looking for-dynamics and change. As a scientist I always liked to think of change as a challenge: inventions, new products, new ideas.. . . However, we scientists have typically kept an unchanged image: the absentminded professor, the weird individual with glasses and gray hair, with a lab coat once white but now torn apart because of various chemicals. It makes me wonder about the changes 1051.2004/91 $1.50 Copyright 0 1991 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
New York 12301
that have taken place in the ways in which we do research and how we educate our scientists and engineers, and it is worth looking back to see how well the system is holding up. After graduate school, a term of military service, a few years as an assistant professor at a large state university, some time in the “front lines” of the semiconductor industry, and now at an industrial research center, I have seen my share of change in my personal career. My years in graduate school at Penn State were probably some of the most enjoyable of my career. I was lucky enough to obtain a graduate assistantship, and I was (and still am) quite grateful for this opportunity. I can not help but wonder in how many countries of the world you could simply “show up” and receive a graduate education-free of charge. When I later joined the ranks of assistant professors, I entered academia with the idea of contributing to education, and of giving back some of the values I had learned myself. But as is the case with many starting assistant professors, many of my expectations of academia turned out to be ill-matched with the reality of the academic’s job. Personally, I enjoy teaching and academic research very much. And I think my record at the university was actually quite acceptable according to the institution’s standards. But when a university places more emphasis on obtaining funds for “release time” from teaching than on teaching itself, it is easy to become confused. With more importance placed on obtaining research dollars than on the value of actual research performed, one starts to wonder. I saw faculty with poor teaching records receive tenure while they had million dollar research contracts. I found the same faculty being asked to retire, when some of the contracts were not renewed. People with excellent teaching and research credentials disappeared when the dollar amounts did
not live up to expectations. Many of those who did well on both fronts paid with failed marriages and unhappy personal lives. I expected to find a “company” with education as a product; instead, I discovered the battle ground of the assistant professor. This “workhorse” of academia, the “grunt” of higher education, deserves more credit than tenure could ever give. We reward marathon runners with medals. We reward assistant professors with the assurance that they can keep on running for as long as they like. And although salaries at academic positions are quite competitive with those in industry nowadays, I found no assistant professors who really displayed satisfaction in their jobs. At the risk of overgeneralization,’ I have a simple feedback control model of how the assistant professor is shown the academic world. At the output of the system (i.e., the “measurement equation”) we have a collection of numbers. There is probably quite a bit of variation in what these numbers are. But typically, the measurement equation is some nonlinear combination of the number of publications, number of research dollars attracted, total number of students, number of students graduated by degree, and, oh yes, maybe some educational aspect such as student course evaluation results. The input of the model is what funds it all: the bottom line. These numbers vary even more from one school to the next, but typically consist of some combination of tuition, money from the state and local government, and money from various industrial and federal research funding agencies. The feedback control system represents the elusive “publication and funding” cycle. At a time when governments at state and federal levels have difficulty making ends meet, none of the “measurements” can have much impact on funding sources from state and local governments, so the numbers-to-local-government feedback gain is zero. Tuition, in turn, can be more easily raised independent of any feedback. Consequently, we have seen educational costs soar during the eighties (this is the feedforward control portion). Finally, there are research contracts. Assistant professors are programmed to believe that the better the measured numbers look, the more contract dollars attracted. The slogan “We must become one of the nation’s top ten research universities” is probably as common on some universities’ campuses as are pep rallies for the football team. Unfortunately, logic prohibits hundreds of universities nationwide from filling these ten slots. 1 I do realize that many universities and mold, and my apologies go out to them.
colleges
do not fit this
I have always been suspicious that quality is not a controllable variable in this system. Certainly, good research results should be published, yet when we use the number of publications as a single measure of research quality, research quality itself quickly becomes an unobservable process. A strong research program and funding to support graduate students are definitely necessary to support good education. But the quality of education can hardly be controlled by research dollars and publications alone. In the long run, I cannot help but wonder what is the metric by which we are trying to optimize the system: is it buried somewhere in the self-perpetuating notion of research for publications for dollars for research, and so on? To a professor, the metric is all too often simply entered in a spreadsheet formula which combines the numbers, and “magically” calculates a salary raise. Should it not be the quality of education in final analysis, measured by proficiency of graduates and the types of positions they end up with that define how the system is controlled? In the past (we hope), American industry has also ignored quality issues at times. Consumers went from happy with American products to fed up with lack of quality to outraged when quality reached the danger level. When there were few domestic products satisfying domestic tastes, foreign products invaded the market, with due consequences. Nowadays, there are national quality awards, and quality is finding its way back into our products. Industry is not only improving quality control, it is investing heavily in quality improvement programs. In this process, companies count heavily on talent provided to them by colleges and universities. But if we turn out college degrees like we once made gas-guzzling cars, we will continue to make ourselves dependent on foreign technology like we already depend on foreign oil. With a decreasing national defense budget, universities may well find themselves on the losing end of the cold war. Contracts from defense agencies make up a major part of many universities’ research funding. If these funds shrink, “contract hunting” at universities may grow even more into a full-time occupation. American industry obviously stands to lose the most, and should make a determined effort to invest in product quality, not only on its own turf but also where most of its future will originate: American universities. This, in turn, will affect the way research is conducted at universities, in response to the way research at industrial research sites has been affected by increased competition. Many industrial research centers are being consolidated and made part of business units. Elsewhere, funding structures of industrial research sites are changed to make research more
responsive to business needs.2 Corporations are looking at how research affects productivity, and at devising ways of increasing that effect. Academic research, in the long run, will not remain immune to this process. Industry has a nagging need for academic re’ See IEEE of the changes
Spectrum, October 1990, for a good overview in industrial research.
of some
search, directed to “feed” industrial research efforts. It is hoped, by making academic research more responsive to industry’s needs, that we can increase the awareness and usefulness of graduates. This feedback loop-industrial funding of university education and research to university graduates to industrial positions which require quality education-may make more sense than the present fundraising process.