This is a very fine episode of The Paper Chase. Not only does the series put life in a graduate/professional school under the microscope, generally, but this particular episode takes on the essential question of what should define a faculty member's job description at an institution that aspires to be regarded as elite. In fact, it really is asking what do we really expect from our outstanding colleges and universities.
The law school has to award tenure to two of four candidates. We are introduced to two of the candidates. Each unwittingly represents a side in the debate among those on the tenure committee. The point of contention is between those who press for outstanding scholarship and those who insist upon exemplary teaching. One candidate is an exceptional young scholar who seems to publish much more frequently than many of his senior colleagues. The other struggles as a writer (so one wonders how he landed the tenure-track position at "Harvard" LS in the first place) but the episode portrays him as a phenomenal classroom instructor.
Okay, some of the arguments in the debate are a bit shrill and the classroom instruction doesn't seem nearly as rigorous as one would find in a third year seminar (and, surprisingly, we learn that Kingsfield really aspires to win his students' affection as well as their respect; huh?), but the debate over the mission of the institution is very real. Is its primary purpose to teach students in the classroom or to hire faculty who are successful at teaching others with their pens (word processors)? I think many a student who has attended a fine research university only to sit in a perpetual stream of classes taught by graduate assistants has asked that same question (as have those who work at a college where plenty of faculty hide behind the mantra "but we're a TEACHING institution" in order to sidestep their responsibility to write).
Kingsfield has a great line during the tenure committee debate: "The purpose of a university is to nurture talent -- talent in its students and the talent of its faculty."
The law school has to award tenure to two of four candidates. We are introduced to two of the candidates. Each unwittingly represents a side in the debate among those on the tenure committee. The point of contention is between those who press for outstanding scholarship and those who insist upon exemplary teaching. One candidate is an exceptional young scholar who seems to publish much more frequently than many of his senior colleagues. The other struggles as a writer (so one wonders how he landed the tenure-track position at "Harvard" LS in the first place) but the episode portrays him as a phenomenal classroom instructor.
Okay, some of the arguments in the debate are a bit shrill and the classroom instruction doesn't seem nearly as rigorous as one would find in a third year seminar (and, surprisingly, we learn that Kingsfield really aspires to win his students' affection as well as their respect; huh?), but the debate over the mission of the institution is very real. Is its primary purpose to teach students in the classroom or to hire faculty who are successful at teaching others with their pens (word processors)? I think many a student who has attended a fine research university only to sit in a perpetual stream of classes taught by graduate assistants has asked that same question (as have those who work at a college where plenty of faculty hide behind the mantra "but we're a TEACHING institution" in order to sidestep their responsibility to write).
Kingsfield has a great line during the tenure committee debate: "The purpose of a university is to nurture talent -- talent in its students and the talent of its faculty."