James Drogan

A recent article from Slate has the following opening lines.

"A recent survey of "the world's top universities" by Jiao Tong University in Shanghai reports that 17 of the top 20 institutions are in the United States, with Cambridge (No. 3), Oxford (No. 8), and Tokyo (No. 14) the exceptions on the list. The rankings are largely based on quantifiable measures of research performance, mostly articles published in prestigious journals and internationally significant research awards, such as Nobel Prizes."

Note that it says nothing about students.

What should universities be about?  What are the desirable outcomes?  If a university claims it's strategic goal is to be listed in US News and World report, is that really a desirable outcome?

I don't think it's a question of what universities should BE, but rather what they should PRODUCE.  Responsible, well-informed citizens of the world who can take care of themselves and of others, who can thrive and make a difference in resolving any number of critical issues, who leave behind a quality of life better than what the inherited, seems to me to be useful goals for the universities.

Are "... quantifiable measures of research performance, mostly articles published in prestigious journals and internationally significant research awards, such as Nobel Prizes."  the most appropriate goals?

Alternatively, what are students qualified to do in life if the measures are  "... quantifiable measures of research performance, mostly articles published in prestigious journals and internationally significant research awards, such as Nobel Prizes?"  Will these qualifications allow these students to do what needs to be done?

See  Discussion Around a Masters Program in Supply Chain Management for related ideas.