三月 11, 2020
Brian Schmidt
Source: Getty


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。”








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”。







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



  • 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
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.


Reader's comments (6)

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 If we invite everyone to inquire into learning and practice then we will not need to maintain very outdated and artificial boundaries between 'researchers' and 'teaching'.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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.