Q: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? To improve the quality of education, universities should spend more money on salaries for university professors. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
money in education
Recently, investigations showed that the increase in university fees and tuition for a family goes far beyond the consumer price index. How to make a good use of the fund in a university is a major concern in improving the quality of educations. Some people argue that it is worthwhile for universities to spend more money on salaries for university professors. I believe that such a statement is unconvincing for there are many factors that determine the quality of education.
To begin with, I have to admit the author's argument is reasonable to some extent. The top ranked universities in the world spend large sum of money on compensations of famous and dedicated professors and researchers every year. Sometimes, students apply to a university because it has prestigious professors in the field they find interesting. The renovation in a universities' faculty can make a huge impact on the department of the university. For example, during the World War Two, Richard Courant left Germany to America and established the mathematical department in New York University. The mathematical institute, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, is now the leader in applied mathematics research in the United States. Furthermore, it takes many years and efforts for a Ph.D. graduate to become a professor in a university. He or she has to make great progress in research and give lectures for students for many years. The efforts and money devoted to training an eligible professor justify the high salaries for many university professors. A dedicated and effective professor can in turn bring a lot benefits to university in terms of funding and fame. That is to say, the availability of abundant resources sparks a circular chain of events that allow institutions to attract more top professors and researchers, and thus even more money.
Nevertheless, even though I have addressed that providing more money on university professors is justifiable, it does not necessarily guarantee that the university would reach high-quality education. The purpose of education in a university is to cultivate talents for a society and foster positive spirits in students. So when we assess the quality of education in a university, we should not narrowly focus on the professor it possesses. Many well-known universities thrive in an environment which encourages innovation, leadership and collaboration. These qualities are highly valued by many organizations and are essential for success in one's life. So the university should provide as much necessary resources for students as possible. For example, the universities are supposed to provide necessary laboratories and equipment for engineering students. Also, different universities need money for different purposes. For universities which have much more students than its capacity, it is more important for the university to build more dormitories and classrooms.
Moreover, funding is not the only drive for reaching high quality. If a university's efficiency is greatly impeded by its clunky bureaucracies and external imposed standards, then it is impossible for a university to foster innovation and freedom among the new generations. As a result, they cannot manage their resources efficiently and quickly respond to the demands for a rapidly changing world market.
In addition, education is not the same as common merchandise whose intrinsic value can be represented by its price. In the short run, we can say the worth of college education for a student is equivalent to the expense on every individual or the salary the student make after graduation. But in the long run, the education can somehow determine the future of a nation. High-quality education is conducive to the progression of the whole society and a man's ethics. If we hastily make decisions on how to invest money on education, it may backfire because it makes potential benefits in the long run disappear.
From the above discussion, I have shown that the argument of the author is not convincing and we cannot draw a hasty conclusion based on an ambiguous causality. We should make a concerted effort to improve the quality of education.