Too often, the Collegian is raked over the proverbial coals in its Reader Opinion. Although I will admit that occasionally I've been tempted to join the irate, letter-writing lynch mob, that is not my intent in this letter.

I'm writing to commend an editorial which appeared in the Nov. 28 edition of the Collegian . . . an editorial which warned against Penn State's veritable fetish for research.

Not only does research harm the undergraduate student body as a whole (PSU's large classes and unavailable professors are infamous), but it also hampers teachers themselves.

Two groups of instructors are affected: those at the Commonwealth campuses who would like to conduct research, but do not have access to facilities like those here at University Park; and those teachers anywhere who wish to do just that . . . teach.

The first group -- Penn State's willing researchers at the (commonwealth) campuses -- face obvious handicaps when compared to their main campus counterparts. Regardless of whether it is library resources for their social scientist or lab facilities for the chemist, opportunities for research are pitifully fewer at PSU's (commonwealth) campuses.

And although inter-campus book and equipment loans are possible, the simple convenience of University Park's facilities is absent at commonwealth campuses.

Furthermore, teaching assistants are afforded to University Park faculty much more readily than to (commonwealth) campus faculty, rendering the research time more available to professors here at Main.

This disparity would not be so unjust if it were taken into account when evaluating (commonwealth) campus instructors. But it isn't -- faculty members at commonwealth campuses are expected to conduct the same volume of research as do their University Park colleagues.

The second group, teachers who do not wish to conduct research, is hurt even more fundamentally by Penn State's drive to experiment, innovate and publish. Truly brilliant instructors are distracted from practicing their real gift by obligatory "scholarly activities": extraneous work of which research is a large component.

Everywhere -- not just at Penn State -- excellence in teaching is of lesser priority than obtaining huge grants and producing cold fusion. If some professors can balance research with the responsibility to pass on their expertise to their students, that's fantastic . . . but don't expect that of faculty who have neither the facilities nor the desire to conduct research. Let these teachers teach.

I'll close by citing the third drawback of compulsory research. Do you remember when you were forced to do a paper, essay, etc., on a topic which you cared little? Unless you had exceptional patience, it is likely that your work wasn't as good as it could have been. The motivation wasn't there.

Can under-equipped faculty or teachers with education as their primary motivation be any different? I don't think so.

Penn State . . . edify us -- your students -- by considering the diverse strengths of your faculty. Improve yourself, Penn State, by recognizing those strengths other than research.

Editor's Note: This letter was submitted to The Daily Collegian last semester.