Dá, também, para reflectir sobre os indicadores que deixaram de ser vistos como resultados e passaram a ser tratados como objectivos, uma espécie de erro semelhante ao investimento dos estados:
"Teaching loads at research universities have declined almost 50 percent in the past 30 years,
Today, research is the dominant criterion by which faculty members are evaluated. In deciding which professors get tenure, assessment of teaching tends to be perfunctory (few members of tenure committees ever bother to visit a classroom), and all that is required is competence. It is nearly impossible, however, for a professor to win tenure without publishing at least one book and three or four articles in top academic journals.
Unfortunately, much of that work has little intellectual or social impact.
“The vast majority of the so-called research turned out in the modern university is essentially worthless,” wrote Page Smith, a longtime professor of history at the University of California and an award-winning historian. “It does not result in any measurable benefit to anything or anybody. . . . It is busywork on a vast, almost incomprehensible scale.”
The number of journal articles published has climbed from 13,000 50 years ago to 72,000 today, even as overall readership has declined. In his new book “Higher Education in America,” former Harvard president Derek Bok notes that 98 percent of articles published in the arts and humanities are never cited by another researcher. In social sciences, it is 75 percent. Even in the hard sciences, where 25 percent of articles are never cited, the average number of citations is between one and two."
BTW, este trecho "Here’s a simple rule of thumb: A university should spend more on instruction than it spends on anything else, besides research." fez-me lembrar as contas da Abraço.