榴莲视频

诺奖得主施密特：是时候重新审视洪堡模型了

<榴莲视频 class="standfirst">他说，现有研究资助是按每所大学都是研究密集型高校这一“错误前提”设计的
三月 11, 2020
John Ross
Brian Schmidt
Source: Getty

一位研究型教学最坚定的倡导者软化了自己的立场，称研究资金压力可能会使洪堡主义原则部分失效。

澳大利亚国立大学（Australian National University）校长布莱恩·施密特（Brian Schmidt）表示，传统洪堡模型，即以研究为特征的教育曾是研究密集型大学的重要概念。但他告诉泰晤士高等教育：“然而我认为并不是每所大学都要是研究密集型的。我们需要对此达成共识。”

他称：“对于一家培养研究领导者的机构来说，遵循洪堡模型可以最有效地进行教学。但需要大学教育的学生中，有90%都不会成为研究领导者。我们的系统是在‘我们都是研究密集型机构’这一错误的前提下设计的。”

作为2011年的诺贝尔物理学奖得主之一，施密特教授是目前唯一担任高校领导的诺奖获得者。在2018年泰晤士高等教育世界学术峰会上，他警告说，退出以研究为主导的教学是教育滑坡的开始。

在这场于新加坡举行的活动中，他说大量采用仅负责教学的学者将切断教学与研究的联系，并引发“危险和不可持续的”循环，使未来的学生“完全脱离当下的研究”。

但是，在堪培拉举行的2020年澳大利亚大学会议的间隙中，施密特教授称，高等教育已进入“令人不安的状态”。

他说：“如果学生不接受一线研究人员的辅导，这一循环一旦开始，整个系统就会陷入瘫痪。如何找到平衡点是一个问题。我们需要培养研究领导者，而这需要以研究为主导的教学；但对普通毕业生而言这并不重要。这就是挑战所在。”

在堪培拉会议上主持审查高等教育政策的小组讨论时，施密特教授问道，“希望高校中的每个人都申请研究经费是否合理？”他又质疑，当人们为了中标率小于20%的研究经费撰写超过100页的申请书时，“国家对这项投资有多少回报”？

他说：“我赞成部分大学遵循洪堡大学的理念。但如果要培训30万名国内学生，他们都需要这一模型吗？我们是否要重新调整思路，承认同时存在有研究导向的教学和非研究导向的教学？毕竟研究导向的教学耗资甚巨。”

澳大利亚国立大学高等教育实践教授安德鲁·诺顿（Andrew Norton）表示，大学教学作为一个职业理应得到尊重。但是这一点在高校内部遇到了“巨大的文化和产业阻力”。

诺顿教授在会议上说：“学者们由于得以进行有趣的研究，似乎接受了这一危机，甚至接受了学术界的低工资。不管一些大学怎么说，在同事们看来，一位只负责教学的学者可能比不上只专注研究或兼顾研究与教学的学者的水平。”

施密特教授说，在美国，仅提供教学的文科学院也遇到了“声望”问题。他说：“生源正在减少。市场似乎错位了。”

他称：“我们需要以某种方式告诉民众：像这样非常优秀的教育也是十分宝贵的。我们需要抛弃‘研究密集型会带来声誉’这一看法。”

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com

本文由陆子惠为泰晤士高等教育翻译。

阅读更多相关文章
阅读更多相关文章:&苍产蝉辫;
Management and governance
University funding/finances
<榴莲视频 class="pane-title"> 后记

Print headline:?‘Humboldtian model isn’t for everyone’

请先注册再继续

为何要注册？

  • 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.
<榴莲视频 class="pane-title"> 相关文章
<榴莲视频 class="pane-title"> 相关大学
<榴莲视频 class="pane-title"> Reader's comments (6)
#1 Submitted by Stefan Cantore on March 11, 2020 - 9:45am
Perhaps it is time to discuss/explore our definitions of research and consider research into practice and esp inquiry into learning. If we invite everyone to inquire into learning and practice then we will not need to maintain very outdated and artificial boundaries between 'researchers' and 'teaching'. Of course, as the article indicates, this will then require a re-think of practices relating to status and power. This is something that might be a step too far for those keen to maintain their control over others?
#2 Submitted by m.robertson8_291084 on March 11, 2020 - 10:42am
A dangerous view: most students when embarking on their studies have no idea whether or not they will be interested enough in their chosen subject to become researchers - let alone if they will have the intellectual capacity to do so. So if universities were to split into research-led and non-research-led, your choice of where to study could limit your options. Moreover, the sheer buzz of excitement good research-led teachning can create is of benefit to all students whatever career path they wish to follow; it is part and parcel of helping them develop the open and enquiring mind that a university education is supposted to deliver.
#3 Submitted by wswail on March 11, 2020 - 10:47am
People choose now where to go based on many factors. And sometimes, society chooses for them via tracks and testing. Everything is a limiter at some point. Research, like mathematics, is for a very small percentage of society. One statistic is that only 1 percent need anything more than basic algebra. As a mathematics and statistics person, that sounds about right to me. When I deal with contractors, they are pretty up on their use of algebra, but likely will never have to solve a quadratic equation. As a person in the research biz for 30 years, nor have I except for helping my son on his homework. Not everyone needs to drive the McLaren, so don't build one model for everyone. I think your comment suggests a liberal arts, rather than a research, program.
#4 Submitted by wswail on March 11, 2020 - 10:43am
The Humboldtian model has played an important role in the maturing of nations and well could continue to play a prominent role in the future. However, higher education isn't the same thing as it was 50 or 75 years ago. Our colleague, Nic Barr, has long said that universities were a different thing when they were educating five percent of the country. But the massification over several generations and the expectation—if not the marketing—of higher education for the masses has markedly changed higher education's role. It has moved from a place of critical thinking and a "higher" education for the sake of society to a more pedestrian vocational role. This is an argument many people do not appreciate but it remains, nonetheless, true: people go to university in the hopes of a better job/life. And while some may go to have a great time for several years, that's not the primary reason. It is about building a better life, and we've made it abundantly clear that the road to career and personal happiness is through higher education. This is, of course, fallacious in a number of ways, but as long as the economics point to more money, people will hold on to that truth.
#5 Submitted by John Baker on March 11, 2020 - 1:08pm
I would suggest that if Universities focused as much on research informed teaching (understanding what makes learning effective) as opposed to research-led teaching (connected to current projects and interests) that would have a greater impact on learner experience. And there can be a disconnect between the complexity of focused post doc research and the lower levels of study within undergraduate degrees which complicates the connection between the two anyway.
#6 Submitted by cea on March 11, 2020 - 2:45pm
This article is _very_ focused on the physical sciences, where -- yes -- cutting edge research is expensive. However, in the social sciences and humanities (which, frankly, are undervalued and undersold in a world filled with "social humans" who need their problems solved, too), research costs are basically those of "time" and "access to published materials" (plus, in the social sciences, access to participant populations). "Time" is costly for everyone, but "populations" are less so, and the costs of "access to publications" have plummeted in the digital age. We might rightly question whether we need more research professors in the social sciences and humanities, but that's not what learning to perform social-science and humanities research is (or should, or needs to be) about. Social-sciences and humanities research is about understanding _people_, and while the _applications_ of such understanding are not always considered in university courses, perhaps they should be. Yes, we know that (idealistically) universities should not be obligated to produce "useful" graduates; or we know that "understanding one's self and others" is, in fact, quite "useful" in many various ways (if not easily quantifiable for the bean counters). But "real-world applications" catch people's attention, and since this article largely ignores the social sciences and humanities, perhaps people's attention needs to be caught. So if we are going to have people -- regardless of their professions, occupations, employments, etc. -- who are going to understand themselves and others, who are going to be able to use that understanding to analyze information, and to develop, propose, and implement solutions in conjunction with others, then getting them to learn the basic competences of social sciences and humanities research are going to be vital.
<榴莲视频 class="pane-title"> 您可能也喜欢