Many students choose Brown because of its Open Curriculum, small class sizes and brilliant faculty, all of which define Brown’s unique educational approach. Despite these strengths, the University’s research infrastructure and graduate program offerings remain underdeveloped, a shortcoming that has significantly contributed to Brown’s current $46 million budget deficit. To resolve the current deficit, our community must support the University’s ongoing transition to become a leading research university so it may realize its full academic potential.
Compared to the research infrastructure at peer institutions, Brown’s has room to grow. The University lags significantly behind its peers in federal research spending, published articles and faculty citations. The size of Brown’s graduate programs also remains comparatively small — the University enrolls a little under four thousand graduate students, which is less than Columbia, Penn, Cornell and many other institutions. Brown’s current budget deficit is intimately related to its research problem: its lack of income from research activities and graduate program tuition has limited its potential revenue. Until these programs generate returns, the University’s budget will continue to be strained. This makes it difficult for Brown to prioritize other financial demands, resulting in the disappointment of many community members. Faculty recently expressed dismay at the University’s choice not to implement a 5% raise in salaries last month, which administrators attributed to the current deficit.
While growing Brown’s research infrastructure costs money, the investment can address many of the University’s fiscal and academic shortcomings, and its payoff outweighs the initial burden. Brown would have more revenue from graduate programs to fund its annual budget, thereby expanding the University’s financial capabilities while concurrently enhancing its educational programs. This emphasis will lead to increased undergraduate research opportunities, which are critical for a holistic education. Such changes would also prevent deficits like the one we currently find ourselves in, allowing the University to give more uniform priority to various other expenses such as department funding, student financial aid and campus maintenance. This improved stability would make community demands — such as a raise for faculty — easier to implement.
The benefits of academic expansion are clear, but the University must not sacrifice its unique pedagogical strength. Teaching is the centerpiece of Brown’s institutional identity, but for faculty, the responsibility to teach is fundamentally opposed to the expectation to increase research output. If the University places too many financial and professional expectations on faculty to prioritize research over teaching, Brown jeopardizes the faculty excellence that sustains the University’s educational quality. Without careful oversight, the Open Curriculum would become a frenzy among undergraduates to find the few remaining courses not taught by a postdoc.
Although Brown’s decision to improve its research and graduate programs has caused budgetary strain, our community should support the University’s targeted focus to improve these programs. Everyone in our community will benefit from more research, graduate excellence and financial stability.
Mike Woodilla ’27 can be reached at mike_woodilla@brown.edu. Please send responses to this column to letters@browndailyherald.com and other opinions to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
