Stereotypes have consequences that are far from proportional to their accuracy. Actual experience is more complicated than the disjunctive stereotypes would indicate. No one would dispute that teaching and research can compete for scholars' time, attention, and resources. Emphasis has fallen on one or the other in cyclical fashion, and Eli cites sound reasons to expect another turn of this wheel. His data support the proposition that an academic who pursues scholarship in his or her discipline is more likely to succeed in communicating with students than a colleague who eschews research and focuses on classroom teaching alone.
Much imbalance occurs because the two activities are measured along different scales.
Research productivity can be quantified, at least through such approximate tools as citation indices and the ability to attract grants. Success in teaching is harder to establish in other than qualitative terms, since it is reflected in the success of one's students and their impressions of one's mentoring ability. Universities face the challenge of developing tenure evaluations that include attention to quality of instruction, and given current pressures on the institution of tenure itself , the effort to recognize and reward superb teachers is becoming even more difficult. Still, Columbia considers this effort indispensable to maintaining the proper balance between teaching and research. Herbert Chase comments on why he and his colleagues have reshaped the College of Physicians and Surgeons ' basic science and practical curricula to meld medicine with the information sciences of the future and thereby integrate research more directly into teaching.