And "of course", this is one argument not to go to a top ranked research university for undergrad.

BTW, the low ranked university I went to was a research university. Professors got tenure/promotions based on that and not based on teaching. They still cared about teaching. It is at some level a matter of culture. If a top ranked university is worse when it comes to teaching, the reality is the university doesn't value education. Let's not use research as an excuse for poor education.

The point is that you can't expect academics to necessarily love or enjoy teaching, as they're not selected for that trait. Of course people should do their jobs to an acceptable standard. But expecting academics to routinely do more than that is expecting something you wouldn't expect of people in other professions. Do you expect your accountant to do your accounts with enthusiasm?

I went to a middle ranked university for undergrad, but it was ranked top 2 in the country for undergraduate teaching.

Undergraduate teaching ranks should be weighted more in overall rankings since that's supposed to be the school's primary function and all.

>Well yes, of course. People don't go into academia because they want to teach. Academics are also not rewarded significantly for good teaching.

When student tuition fees make up the bulk of a department's income, is this reasonable and fair to students? Are they getting value for money?

Some institutions have separate teaching and research promotion tracks mapped to equivalent salary grades.

> When student tuition fees make up the bulk of a department's income, is this reasonable and fair to students? Are they getting value for money?

It's difficult to say, isn't it? How does one determine how much a university education "should" cost?

I don't see any easy solution. If we convert research-focused universities into teaching-focused institutions, what happens to the research? If we create new and separate teaching-focused institutions, who pays?