I get lots of positive comments and high marks from my students on teaching evaluations. That's good. I was recently told by my boss that I am not publishing enough, and more seriously, I'm not bringing in enough contract research. That's bad. Now, in case you don't know how the system works at a research university, here's a primer.

Professor have idea. Professor spend long hours writing proposal, only to find out halfway through that other professor has commercialized the same idea and started company to make product. Professor start over. Finally professor submit proposal. After many moons, professor get rejection letter with nasty comments from impartial reviewers. Professor start over. After several years, professor get pittance of funding. University skims 1/3 for overhead. While conducting research, funding agency cut budget. Research finished on shoestring. Graduate students go hungry. Professor go hungry. Professor submit results for publication. Paper rejected with nasty comments from impartial reviewers. Paper re-submitted. After several years, paper published. Repeat entire process.

The key thing here is the 1/3 skimmed for overhead. This is money that goes into the budget of the administrators, which is their lifeblood. Don't get me wrong. Administrators are not bad. The funding process is not inherently bad. But the system has been perverted when the pressure to generate research funds far outweighs the need to teach well. I fear this is happening where I work, as well as at many other universities.

There is a way to bring a balance back. A discipline-specific universal college graduation exam should be put into place by which the amount of learning achieved can be measured quantitatively. Publicly ranking colleges by this metric will force administrators and teachers to put teaching back on par with research grants. If I were a parent about to send my child to college, I know which one I would care about the most.

Now, back to the proposal...