Article from Professor Sean Carroll that tells why there are no teaching emphasis from Harvard. I am quoting excerpts from his article
None of this is necessarily good or bad; it’s just a recognition of the state of affairs. Harvard et al. judge themselves by the research and scholarship they produce. Students will always keep applying to those places and trying to get in, because the aura of intellectual attainment produced by precisely those scholarly accomplishments will always act as a powerful draw.
Such students are by no means making a mistake; the intellectual atmosphere at such places truly is intoxicating, and if nothing else the interaction with your fellow talented students can be a life-changing experience. But to try your best to get into Harvard and then complain once you are there that the professors seem interested in their own work rather than in teaching is to utterly miss the point.
My opinion; it will eventually not make the quality of research amenable to common sense.
Its when we teach that we ourselves realize how effective our research quality is. As is said by the giants usually Einstein and Feynman “If you can’t explain it in simple terms perhaps you don’t understand”. So basically how can we be sure that the research Harvard is doing is applicable to validity or even a contribution towards intellectual assimilation by humanity? (Of-course Sean makes very clear all along that thats not the mandate of Harvard and its news to me that it isn’t.)
Only Industry, Funding Agency and Nobel Prize Committee will estimate the worth of the organization and its work. Isn’t that a death-nail to science? Because science is Research+Education not just research. I have done pain staking research in my life in last 12 years at-least for 10 years. But they will never be known, especially my particle physics research, if I will NOT be able to explain them or teach them, if some of them turn out to be interesting for any field. Of-course I am not Harvard and an individual. But this is the kind of difference between organizations and individuals, the organizations constitute of individuals but work in a fashion that respects only a specifically chosen policy, thats not questionable, whats questionable is why it will appeal the masses? Just because money flows from one end to another where no-one has a say?
Isn’t it then comparable in malice to the idea of patenting and selling works of generations of particle physicists and scientists by compiling them into one book and making a million dollar. (Exorbitantly enough the book was priced for half-a-house). And once the copyright belongs to the authors, no one including you or me will be able to use the work of generations of scientists and generations of intellectual contributions simply because the license belongs to a few.