Dean Michael D. Smith of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences recently announced that a “teaching and learning” initiative is likely to become a focus of Harvard’s upcoming capital campaign. The initiative, for which the University has already received a $40 million donation, will commission pedagogical innovation at Harvard, including funding pedagogical research and educational technology in the classroom. This donation and the publicity surrounding it seem to indicate that the University realizes that good teaching should be more of an institutional priority. However, we question the donation’s efficacy in the absence of a stronger culture of teaching. Technology and training alone cannot guarantee improved teaching or learning; instead, the University should foster a culture of teaching by incentivizing better pedagogy and combating the widespread belief that good teaching and good research are incompatible.

The belief that high-caliber research necessarily entails low-caliber teaching is misguided. There is no reason that we cannot simultaneously prioritize research and teaching: Indeed, the two should go hand-in-hand. Harvard attracts some of the most talented researchers, and it is precisely these researchers who, when entrenched in a culture that prizes teaching and student engagement, have the potential to become our most talented instructors. By implying a zero-sum relationship between teaching and researching, we not only shortchange the potential of our faculty members, but we also run the risk of excusing an absence of effective teaching with superior research. If we acknowledge that teaching can and should be a priority of universities, we must, then, consider how we might increase its perceived prestige.

Additionally, we encourage the Faculty of Arts and Sciences to implement other solutions to the problem of low-quality teaching. For instance, smaller class sizes and lower student-faculty ratios must become a priority. Reducing class sizes is one of the most effective measures that FAS can take to increase quality of instruction because large class sizes diminish classroom interaction and hinder the learning process itself. A possible solution to this problem might be to allow non-tenure track faculty, such as lecturers, to remain at Harvard rather than expiring their positions. As it is quite difficult to progress from a lower-rank instructor to a tenured professor, allowing talented, non-tenured teachers to remain on faculty can ensure that we have an abundance of quality instructors.

Moreover, FAS should instate a reliable course evaluation system. Without a sounder system of monitoring teaching quality, we consign ourselves to rationalizing expensive pedagogical updates on hunches and assumptions. While there are advantages to our current Q guide, it cannot serve as FAS’s principal course evaluation tool because it is entirely a product of student opinion. Student opinion is no doubt helpful in course selection, but it is also likely to reward less rigorous courses. We encourage FAS to instate a more authoritative course evaluation system, such as a comprehensive departmental evaluation of each instructor. Both departmental evaluations and retainment of quality instructors will incentivize good teaching among our faculty members.

If Harvard truly wishes to make teaching count, it must first target the values of those who have the power to make it count: our teachers. If we are to play an active role in sustaining the value of scholarly work in our culture, then we must take steps to prioritize the transmission of knowledge from the creators to the consumers of scholarship.