Talk:University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Racist Claims

01:50, 6 March 2011 Gun Powder Ma (talk | contribs) (29,479 bytes) (restore accepted history of the university as an institution which evolved in Western, not Eastern Europe)

It is astonishing that authors of such ignorant racist claims might be so active writers in Wikipedia.

I am a Canadian but I am well aware that Southeastern Europe was within the cultural orbit of the Eastern Roman Empire (also known as the Byzantine Empire). In that context, the European East was more advanced culturally and intellectually than Western Europe. The fact that many of their achievements did not survive is due to the Ottoman Conquest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.87.43 (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop these lame accusation, stop your edit-warring and take your time to make yourself acquainted with the international standard work on the origins and characteristics of the university: A History of the University in Europe. The series is written by an international panel of experts who view and analyse the university in terms of its Western European origins and formation years. While the School of Salerno is a border case, the Bulgarian and Byzantine schools were institutions of (higher) education which are historically unconnected with the university and otherwise dissimilar in structure, organization and aims. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

How ignorant are people who have read a single book in their entire life! What a misery! One source against dozens! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.146.73 (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Cite your sources. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You were so 'kind' to erase these sources several times! Remember - you are not a tutor here, nor we are your students!

I mean please quote from your sources. Where do they claim that "the University of Salerno followed by the University of Constantinople (founded by Theodosius II in 425 with 31 chairs), Preslav Literary School and Ohrid Literary School in the Bulgarian Empire, established in the 9th century, were the first institutions of higher education in Medieval Europe, thereby forming part of the pre-history of university education"? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh my Goodness, Gun Powder Ma, I now realize now that you do recognize only 'copy-paste' as a proper method of citation! Could you please make a 'tremendous" effort to read the sources and see where this info is?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.146.73 (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody claims that the University of Constantinople and the Bulgarian literary schools are universities in a modern sense! It is clearly stated that these form part of the pre-history of the university education. The whole paragraph is dedicated to the pre-history. The nervous behaviour of Gun Powder Ma really implies racist feelings towards a more advanced region of medieval Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasho.spasev (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Are the "Education and Culture in the BARBARIAN WEST" (ISBN 0-87249-376-8) the real education and culture of Gun Powder Ma?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.50.253.190 (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Origins

I am still waiting for your quotes to arrive, Tasho.spasev. Meanwhile I am quoting Verger, Jacques: "Patterns", in: Ridder-Symoens, Hilde de (ed.): A History of the University in Europe. Vol. I: Universities in the Middle Ages, Cambridge University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-521-36105-2, pp. 35–76 (62–65). According to Verger, the four oldest universities are:

• Salerno (12th c., but status as university uncertain)
• Bologna (End of 12th c.)
• University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (1188, but status as university uncertain)
• Vicenza (1204, dissolved as early as 1209)

Others have somewhat different lists and dates, but all expert are agreed about the undisputed primacy of Western Europe in the development of universities and the special role of Bologna and Paris in particular. Your Bulgarian centres were merely schools and the Pandidakterion is unrelated to the university both in terms of its characteristics and history. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Who are these "all experts" who allegedly "agreed about the undisputed primacy of Western Europe"?

Walter Rüegg (Switzerland), Jacques Verger (France), Hilde de Ridder-Symoens (Belgium) and many others such as Asa Briggs, Aleksander Gieysztor, Notker Hammerstein, Olaf Pedersen, Alison de Puymege, John Roberts and Edward Shils. Drop me an email and I can send their list to you. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No, thanks! I already obtained a PDF copy of your favourite book! Authors basically originate from the countries whose universities are mentioned in the text! Long live the supremacy of Western Europe!  :)

Yes, they are all part of a great global conspiracy to deprive Eastern Europe from its rightful place in the history of the university. Psst, but don't tell nobody, they are in league with the Illuminati and always come at night. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No cure for ignorance (even in the West of Europe)!

What's the point of talking to an anonymous IP which cannot even sign its talk page contributions? I've handed the matter over to the notice board, but let me tell you that the online source you just introduced is not WP:reliable (and quite possibly retrieved from Wikipedia itself), while you still have not quoted from the other, printed source. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You do not tell the truth! There are enough printed and reliable sources cited! Watch the authors' contribution and not their IP's! Maybe you need my credit card number to grant more confidence to me? :)

Tag

Tagged some recently added dubious claims of primacy for "universities" in Eastern Europe. WP:reliable is clear about this: Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. I challenge the notion that these references actually support the claim as being made, and I'd like to see therefore verbatim quotes from them. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Did you ban the freedom of speech?

Alternative Hypothesis regarding "Discrimination by University Faculty"

To counterbalance the conservative perspective offered in the first paragraph of this section, I have added a statement to it (pasted below). I did not remove or alter any other langauge. I would welcome open, impersonal debate on my choice of words. The central issue here, as I see it, is the questionable presumption that Universities' differing ideological makeup is a result of bias, rather than a result of epistemology. Universities specialize in open, rather than closed epistemologies--(1) if one wants an idea represented in the academy, one has to be willing to see it attacked and scrutinized, and subjected to direct and rational competition with other ideas. Meanwhile, those who profess love of a traditional world view, way of life, or faith in a deity, are understandably less interested in critical scrutiny of those things. Arguments to protect Christian views in the university, for example, have hinged on a need to "protect intellectual diversity," but the notion of a "protected idea" is antithetical to the university.

"However, these findings are not conclusive; in particular, studies like these do not effectively address the alternative hypothesis: that Universities require ideas to be studied systematically and openly, and that religious and conservative ideas, being often indebted to power, tradition, and ideology (and less related to specific proofs, discoveries or observations), are inherently disadvantaged in neutral, open discussion."

In plain words: it isn't really that University types have general disdain for religion or arranged marriage or creationism; rather, it's that those with such conservative convictions normally prefer not to accept or entertain rational criticism of them. In the University, it's absolutely fine to hold dearly to one's sacred beliefs and practices...but if on the other hand one wants to speak about them in class, or in a peer-reviewed journal, one has to be ready to defend them not as traditions or faiths, but as rational hypotheses.

BlCarson —Preceding undated comment added 11:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC). Stop vandalism and ignorance of Gun Powder Ma!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.185.203.27 (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Stop vandalism and ignorance of Gun Powder Ma!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasho.spasev (talk • contribs) 03:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

An interesting topic that somebody might like to write something on maybe - how do various countries control who is allowed to call themselves a University and issue degrees? In the UK, for instance, a University is instituted as such by a Royal Charter. How is it done elsewhere? - Khendon

The links to Nalanda seem out of place. Should they perhaps be located on a more specific page? - Tubby

perhaps someone can add a few lines on Maoist views on universities and their abolition. Perhaps a good place to start to get an idea of something like that would be visiting Judith Miller the philosopher's wikipedia page

How did the age of enlightenment affect the universities of today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.159.61 (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

CIA on Campus

CIA on Campus is a reality which influences university live in many ways even if Dbiv removes the link as often as he pleases to do. This is not supposed to be a project owned by labor party members. (unsigned comment by User:217.88.118.123)

I removed the link because I don't think it's appropriate for this page, which largely discusses the historial origins of a University and the theory of institutions of higher education. Also, you should note that Wikipedia is not a links repository. The issues of university research being pushed to support particular political goals, and of espionage keeping tabs on goings-on in universities, are relevant but it would do better if it was explained and discussed in an NPOV way, rather than simply putting the link in. The site is already linked from Central Intelligence Agency. I think with links of this kind it would be best to say that the site has an agenda to push when making the link.

Incidentally, on Wikipedia, we generally assume good faith from other contributors. Dbiv 12:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If "CIA on Campus" is not an appropriate issue for this article, I don't know why "Nazi Universities" or "Communist Universities " should be more appropriate. This subjects just don't fit into a description of 'the University' as an institution which is present in many different cultures throughout history. It looks more like this subjects are part of cold war's left-over discussions regarding the supremacy of the american capitalism or rusian communism over any other form of organization. Personally, I don't think this section would be inadecuate in the american-centered point of view of the article. Before thinking wether "CIA on Campus" is an appropiate section, we could think about the point of view of the whole article and try to find an adecuate place for this section as well as many other that are currently displayed.

I think we need an article entitled "American university" where we can read about the affect federal laws have on American universities. These laws would include the Civil Rights Act, Family Privacy Act, Title IX, the USA Patriot Act, ROTC on campus, and (yes) CIA recruiting on campus. Rklawton 19:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

american-centered point of view of the article

This Wikpedia isn't american-centered. If you like to have an article about US universities - write it. Xx236 06:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

European Universities information template

I'd like to make a Template for European universities, like the one for American (Template:University_information). Let's take a look at which terms I think don't fit for a European one:

• Motto: mine doesn't have a motto. I think this is an american thing.

• School type: public, state, Catholic, Anglican (valid categories)...?

• President: what's a more european term: Rector?

• Graduate-Undergraduate: in Europe: Students-doctorandi ?

• Faculty: idem?

• Endowment: What's that?

• Campus: campus surface: European Universities are generally too spread out for this to be included.

• Sports Team: Sport team? What? There is 1 team per sport. They don't have silly names.

So, how could we do it to fit for all European universities?

Phlebas 16:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There have been a number of these already for a while, and I have made a number for different European countries, based on the pre-existing templates, which I have then modified. I don't know if you have looked at these or not (Template:Infobox German University etc.). I don't see any reason to have one in common for all European universities. U.S. universities have some characteristics which European universities mostly don't (like the emphasis on sports with teams with "silly names" and mascots), but there are enough differences to warrant one for each country. If someone wants to modify one of these, it won't affect the other templates and create unnecessary conflicts between users with knowledge of different educational systems. For Leuven (I just looked at your user page), you could probably use and perhaps modify the Template:Infobox_Dutch_University (look at University of Leiden). Please continue this discussion at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities/tables, in order to keep the topic in one place. / up◦land 17:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Poll on University Naming Conventions

A new survey has been created to assess consensus with respect to university naming conventions, specifically regarding the usage of terms like "University of Texas" vs. "University of Texas at Austin". The poll addresses this issue both in the specific case of the "University of Maryland" and proposes an amendment to Wikipedia:Naming conventions which could impact a large number of additional pages. It doesn't directly impact this page, but I figure that people editting here may be interested in the topic. Dragons flight 17:54, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! --Coolcaesar 23:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

universitas, meaning corporation?

I would like to question the idea that "University is derived from the Latin “universitas”, meaning corporation". The word "university" is from "universitas" which is short for "universitas magistrorum et scholarium", meaning roughly "community of masters and scholars" According to this source, the term "corporation" did not come into use until about 100 years after the term university was applied to groups of scholars. According to David C. Lindberg in his book "The beginnings of western science", "guild" is a good term to use to describe such a "community of masters and scholars". The idea of teachers banding together was part of the movement towards trades and crafts forming what came to be known as guilds. The members of a “universitas” attempted to organize and monopolize a local area's higher learning efforts and as a "whole" could be described as a "corpus" or "a corporate body" or later, a corporation. Recently, many conventional universities have become large corporations run by money managers rather than educators, but this is a departure from the original meaning of the term. --JWSchmidt 20:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the following:

1. Here "corporation" = corporate body. The commercial meaning it has today grew from this meaning.
2. Also see this PDF from Cambridge University (albeit the Foundation) at page 15, where it states that "by 1225 they were legally constituted as a universitas, a corporation led by a Chancellor that could own property and make binding statutes."

Though I guess strictly universitas does not mean "corporation", maybe its a type of corporation.

202.0.40.14 11:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As further support, Roman Catholic canon law continues to use the Latin term universitas to mean body corporate. See the 1983 code, the 1917 code, etc. Pmadrid 23:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Also see [1] (Note, has political bias); [2] quite good; [3] might be of some interest; [4] has etymology---according to this "university" is short for universitas magistrorum et scholarium, "community of masters and scholars". 202.89.150.69 00:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Its a bit late, but in the absence of other authoritative sources, I will use JWSchmidt's information in the lead. At least it can be traced back to a book. 202.89.157.142 11:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Relevant quotations

• http://www.ox.ac.uk/aboutoxford/history.shtml By 1201, the University was headed by a magister scolarum Oxonie, on whom the title of Chancellor was conferred in 1214, and in 1231 the masters were recognized as a universitas or corporation.
• http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/2002-3/supps/1_4633.pdf PDF 1.21 MB After 1214 the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of Oxford quickly gained recognition as a corporate body distinct from the individuals who were its members. The word universitas, which at the time meant any body of persons having a distinct purpose and legal status, was first applied to the Masters at Oxford in 1216 and within the next two decades was applied to the body of Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars collectively in grants of royal and papal legal privileges. (page 91)
• http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/pubs/history/medieval.html There were no professors; the teaching was conducted by masters who had themselves passed through the course and who had been approved or licensed by the whole body of their colleagues (the universitas or university).
• (maybe not relevant) http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=052184097X&ss=exc In a similar manner, the scholars’ guild was established in the 12th and 13th century as “a universitas magistribus et pupillorum,” or “guild of masters and students” (Krause, 1996, p. 9).
• http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=u&p=7 University... In the academic sense, a shortening of universitas magistrorum et scholarium "community of masters and scholars;" superseded studium as the word for this.
• http://www.bede.org.uk/university.htm By the late eleventh century they were using new developments in civil and canon law to form a universitas or corporation (the actual term for an academic university was studium generale) in a similar manner to the craft guilds also appearing at this time [NOTE].

Of course the Internet can be used to prove anything, so feel free to ignore. But I think the current formulation in the lead is a bit clumsy. might benefit from being done differently (though I fail to see how :p). 202.89.157.142 11:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How to define a university system?

I've noticed an amusing edit war in progress between California State University and State University of New York fans. Apparently the debate is about which one is the largest university system in the United States. Part of this has to do with how New York has integrated nearly all public higher education institutions into SUNY. In California, where tradition and politics favor local control, UC, CSU and the California Community Colleges system are all independent of each other (and the 73 community college districts are also all independent of each other). Also, SUNY is responsible for continuing education. In California, UC Extension handles continuing education for professionals (law and medicine) and the CCC system handles the rest.

Basically I think the problem boils down to when counting students in a university system, whether anything other than standard full-time students ought to be counted (by which I am referring to continuing education students, part-time students and candidates for the associate's degree, which is not awarded by most traditional universities). What does everyone else think? --Coolcaesar 06:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

First university on the American continent and the oldest in the world out of the European continent

From what i've read the first university outside Europe that was founded through a papal bull (and in fact the first university in America) was the Autonomous_University_of_Santo_Domingo (founded 1538) and not the Real y Pontificia Universidad de México (founded 1551). -- PhiloPizzaFreak [5] --Aryah 21:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• The Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo (Autonomous University of Santo Domingo) was founded in 1914, not in 1538. This university, in current Dominican Republic, expects to be a “primatial university of America” in spite of the fact that it holds, against every Latin American legislation of the time, a foundation illegally authorised by the Pope in 1538; it has been officially recognised by the monarchy just in 1747 like "Universidad de Santo Tomás de Aquino"; it has been prohibited by Royal Letter of 1758 the use of that false title insulting universities of Lima and Mexico. As if it were not enough, the Santo Tomás University was definitively extinguished in 1824, having no relationships with the current one (founded in 1914), because it is a new and different institution that seeks to recover for itself its colonial predecessor's history. The Universidad de San Marcos (San Marcos University) of Lima was also, and continue being, the oldest university in the world out of the European continent, founded on 12th May 1551, and for this reason it takes the deserved title of “dean of America” (the oldest, not necessarily the first), since it is the only university that survives, uninterruptedly, since the XVIth century. (Miguel Angel del Castillo M., 28-VII-07)
  • http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Lista_de_universidades_y_similares_en_Am%C3%A9rica_latina%2C_anteriores_a_1810
  • http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusi%C3%B3n:Universidad_Nacional_Mayor_de_San_Marcos

americocentric, of course..

'unlike community colleges, enrollment at a university is not generally available to everyone. '

untrue, in my (post-communist) country, all universities are available to everyone. Even privately-owned primary and secondary schools are totaly rare, and there is no visible trend of changing that. Plz rephrase this fallacy, im sure this article is not supposed to speak only about america, right? --Aryah 21:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

BE BOLD and change it yourself! It is the WikiWay!

Sources

The few sources in the reference list seem exclusively devoted to universities in the European tradition. Are there sources for the universities in the other traditions? --SteveMcCluskey 13:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. I'm sure there must be books out there in the relevant languages, but no one's bothered to translate them yet. Plus there's the fact that the modern American research university is the star attraction among the few historians who specialize in the history of universities, due to its prominence and the widespread availability of primary sources. --Coolcaesar 16:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

In so far as the article needs to be made more international, this can't be done simply be adding lots of photos of universities from around the world. Too many of them will clog up the page, and it's the text that's important. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's the text that's important, and of course the article can't be made more international just by adding lots of photos of universities from around the world. But it doesn't follow that removing more than half of the images improves the article, nor is it clear that seven images constitutes "image overload". -- Mwanner | Talk 22:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was getting to be a bit overloaded as well. I even thought about deleting a few, but decided to recuse myself. Rklawton 03:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

1. The person whom I was reverting didn't just add some photos; he did so with the edit summary "globalize with images", and removed the two images there already.
2. The article looks congested in the form Mwanner created, with a solid strip of photos down the right-hand side (made worse by their being inflated from their thumbed size).
3. I've returned the original photos, whose removal was unexplained, and kept one of the new ones.
4. Instead of the unilateral replacement and large increase of images, could editors discuss the changes here? With Rklawton, there are two of us who feel that the images shouldn't be overdone. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the 8:18, 6 June 2006 version looks good with four photos from four different countries. Now, if someone would just work on the text... Rklawton 14:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, i have a question (i would imagine that there is no wrong answer, but perhaps a variety of opinions) - Does the image of an Oxford ceremony at the top of the page give undue prominence to one uni over all others? I understand the need for images, both in practical and aesthetic terms, but clearly, intentionally or not, the use of this image in this place offers Oxford prominence...? I am open to all opinions on the matter.Best, Darigan (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the image. There really is no way to illustrate the article without highlighting a few universities. As long as the captions and article text are neutral, it is fine. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Spam

I think the reference to infoors.com is spam, so it must be deleted.--198.68.242.210 15:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't helping the reader understand Universityness, then it's spam. For those in doubt, it's spam. Rklawton 16:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why I consider this article unreferenced

Thi s article has some relevant books listed at the bottom, but it is not at all clear to what extent these have been used in the writing of the article. The definition of a university isn't discussed and cited, and the history section doesn't cite any sources. It is hardly uncontroversial to claim for instance that the "University of Magnaura" was the first university or that the "University" of Salerno (which was just a medical school, and thus lacked three of the faculties needed to be a university in the medieval sense) was the second. The works on university history I have looked at regard Bologna as the first, and I think that is what most mainstream historians would say; anything else needs to be carefully discussed and explained and clearly cited, not just claimed as if it was self-evident and generally accepted. I added an {{unreferenced}} tag to this article a while ago, and have re-added it now after it was removed. An article isn't referenced if it is obvious that what is in the text has very little to do with what is in the so-called references. up◦land 15:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. For an example of how to properly connect text to references, see my work at Lawyer. --Coolcaesar 04:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

---

i've got some references on this, and will add them. --Smithgrrl 22:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

This section needs considerable attention. Two of the three points made are quite American-centric, and the remaining point seems a bit vague. I have little doubt that considerable criticism exists. Possible criticism that comes to mind include elitist, ineffectual, dumbed-down, out-of-touch, and backwards in administration. In some countries, corruption remains endemic. Whatever points we choose to make here, however, I think it's important to focus on the university as an idea and not on specific instances or nations. Rklawton 19:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's work in this aspect together! --Uncle Ed 19:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I think criticism probably boils down to two categories: 1) Purpose, and 2) failure to achieve this purpose. In short, I think there's a lot of debate over what a university is all about. And there are a whole different set of debates over how universities are failing to do whatever it is they are supposed to do. Given the historical context of this article, these debates should also have an historical component. This is no small task, but if we establish a clear framework, many editors can help fill in the details. Rklawton 19:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that I was cited, but incorrectly, since neither in Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology nor elsewhere had I ever argued that universities guide students away from small businesses, etc, nor would I. In fact the role of universities is discussed only briefly there. I changed the prose to more approximate my actual position, and included a quote from a different work where I laid out my criticism of American, and overseas, universities much more explicitly. Hope that's okay and that I did the reference right. David Graeber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.79.158 (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The citation is still there from Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology. I scanned this and did not find this to support the statement about universities supporting hierarchy and bureaucracy. This citation should more specifically indicate where this is located. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.62.132.67 (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

American usage in regards to undergraduate institutions

The article currently contains this sentence:

On the other hand, many smaller, principally undergraduate institutions call themselves "universities," primarily for marketing purposes to make them appear more prestigious.

I don't think this is a completely fair representation, but I'm not sure what to put in its place. As it stands, it has a snobbish air. For example, I attended Trinity University (Texas), which has called itself a "university" since it was founded in 1869 as a tiny church-related school. Today, it offers a few master's degrees, but is mainly an undergraduate institution. It is not a research university, and it doesn't claim to be one. However, it also offers more "professional" degrees (e.g. business and education) than a pure liberal-arts college. I know that some US colleges have changed their names to university in recent years, but is that a "marketing" decision or a reflection of changes in the makeup of the institutions? Other countries (e.g. the UK) seem to control the use of the word university, while in the US it appears to be up to the institution what to call itself. I invite other Wikipedians to offer their thoughts. GeoGreg 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In the US, the closest thing that exists to an objective definition is the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. The system categorizes on the basis of the emphasis on degrees of various levels. In this system, institutions categorized as I and IIA are "universities" in the traditional sense of the word. IIB's are 4-year undergraduate institutions; III's are 2-year colleges. A lot of IIB's (like Trinity) offer masters and professional degrees. However, to jump from IIB to IIA requires significant emphasis on graduate degrees -- including, but not limited to having support infrastructure such as a research library. Wikiant 21:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have moved and expanded the relevant paragraph into a subsection, "Classification in the United States". As the situation in the US is at best muddled, I thought more explanation would be worthwhile. I have also included updated information on the Carnegie system, which recently stopped using the Roman numerals. Even in it's category name, "Master’s Colleges and Universities", Carnegie seems to recognize that there is disagreement on the meaning of college vs. university. I believe this is worthy of expanded discussion due to the prominence of US higher education. I have definitely met non-US students who are confused by the whole thing. Discussing again the one I know best (Trinity (Texas)), the school has a large library with broad holdings and journal subscriptions, good lab facilities in the sciences, and faculty who are encouraged to conduct research, yet master's degrees are only awarded in a handful of disciplines. Most research is conducted with undergraduates, not grad students. I have a feeling that such institutions may not exist at all outside of the US, which may explain why the terminology here is confused relative to the rest of the world. The parallel public and private higher ed systems in the US also contribute to the confusion, I think. GeoGreg 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Levels

The article says that universities offer degrees at levels from Bachelor to Doctor. This isn't true. Some universities don't have doctoral programmes. If I'm not mistaken, there have even been universities that had no masteral programmes, but I might be wrong about that. I'm sure about the doctoral programme thing though. My university for instance has all the proper accreditations, but the highest we offer are Masters. I would have changed the article myself but I didn't want to edit it without posting my comments here in case anyone objects.J.J. Bustamante 05:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole idea of "all levels (bachelor, master, and doctorate)" is rather US-centered. In Europe there are/were universities which offer only Ph.D.'s, or only M.A. and Ph.D., often with a 5-year M.A program that was roughly equivalent to a 3-year BA plus 2-year MA program at a US university.

--Austrian 20:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Guinness Book of World Records?

"The Guinness Book of World Records recognizes the University of Al Karaouine in Fez, Morocco as the oldest university in the world with its founding in 859."

Does the Guinness Book of World Records have any place in an academic encyclopedia? Smadge 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Attribution. A source doesn't have to be a pure academic journal or book to be reliable, but usually it must have some kind of editing or filtering procedure (as with magazines and newspapers). --Coolcaesar 04:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

External Link - Universities

Hello all, I tried to add a very comprehensive and effective guide of Universities around the world for the benefit of Wikipedia "universities" term visitors. Universities.AC is a non commercial site which doesn't sell a thing and is basically a database contains information about education systems and thousands of higher education institutions including details about their academic divisions, the degrees and diplomas they offer, Location and classification, General Details, Facilities, Statistics and more. I think this site is a must for this term since it's a very unique guide and a great help for this term. I'm new in Wikipedia, I tried to add it but it's been deleted, and I've been told to discuss it further in the discussion page before uploading it again. Please kindly advice with your opinion. The site address is http://www.universities.ac/ thank you all for this discussion --Etaihugi 22:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

External Link - Universities more discussion

Hi Indon, thank you for your answer. Thanks for guiding me to the List of universities and colleges by country in Wikipedia; I sure think you are right; and I'm going to do my best to help update this page with information. Also as you said, I think that by the meanwhile and in addition, the external link will provide a useful tool for those who need further information. Relating to your remark about the 'ultimately complete' issue; I think you are correct, the site have 18,889 Universities Info, while there are aprox ~19,200. Thanks for the time you took explaining wikipedia discussion board. --Etaihugi 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Two things. 1) You really shouldn't add the link yourself. It is considered a "conflict of interest" - WP:COI. Adding the link should be the decision of other editors and it should be added by someone other than you. 2) While it seems like a fine website, and one that many people surely find useful, it basically replicates content on Wikipedia - as was noted by by Indon. In fact, the list of colleges/universities already makes up a significant part of the article. People can find the same information on your website (and more) in the articles already on Wikipedia. Even the fact that you might be drawing on Wikipedia as a source of information indicates that it duplicates content. (See WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #1). While your site might be "non-commercial", it also contains advertising. This is another reason not to link it. I am removing the link for the time being. You are welcome to continue the discussion here, but the advice of one other editor doesn't equal a consensus and it might take some time for that to occur. In the meantime, please do not add the link yourself. Nposs 20:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. --Etaihugi 10:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Section

IMO, the paragraph about universities in Nazi Germany should be deleted. It contains nothing interesting or noteworthy that isn't already common knowledge, and doesn't quite fit in with the rest of the article. I'll be removing this section in a few days if no one voices their objection. Rearden Metal 08:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think the Nazi section is entirely inappropriate as being far too specialized a topic for this article. I see that the post above was from 2007. WAs it ever remioved and was there any discussion?SteveO1951 (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The outline of the article is overall strange (not only the nazi section, there is also "definition" as a subheading of History). Maybe we should archive the old discussions and find a way to make an outline that makes sense. --Anneyh (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I will delete this section now based on missing contextual value.--VonFernSeher (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism (mostly in form of Leninism)

(mostly in form of Leninism) has been removed without any comment. I believe it's important, because the alleged Marxism-Leninism was in the Soviet Union transformed to Stalinism and Leninism. Xx236 10:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Soviet universities

My article about Soviet universities has been removed. I understand it as a form of censorship. There existed (and still exist) Soviet-type universities, influenced by Leninist ideology, without freedom of expression, controlled by Soviet-type parties, political police and army. If you don't like the name Soviet universities propose a better one, but don't tell me they didn't exist.Xx236 11:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Many universities in many countries have been and/or are rigidly controlled by the state in which they operate or operated. The onus is on you to show source materials that describe such universities in Leninist settings as having unique qualities that set them aside from other universities under strict control by the ruling elite of their home countries. --Orange Mike 13:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no Soviet-type of universities, you just made up this class. The universities in Soviet Union were just as universities in any other heavy-ideological country Kochede (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC).

Which ones? Why doesn't the article inform about it? Which country killed, expelled and imprisoned hundreds professors? Xx236 13:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Many, sadly. It tends to fall within the histories of the individual universities, from Uganda to Russia to Germany to... --Orange Mike 17:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

We can recall also the Cultural revolution in China, when a lot of intellectuals were killed. And a lot of other historical episodes. But I'm sure that the section with name "Chinese universities" describing this historical period would be inappropriate here. It's not what the "Universities" are about, it's more about the history of authoritarian states. So, I'm moving this part of article here, I think it whould better to move it to the siutable articles, like Education in the Soviet Union. Kochede (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Article Nazi university exists. Germany allowed the majority of its Jewish professors to emigrate. Germany killed mostly foreign citizens.
  • But there is no section German universities here. Kochede (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• If you know something about extermination of professors in Uganda - be welcome, describe this tragedy, here or in a specific article.
• Russia didn't kill its professors, it was the Soviet Union and the article about it has been removed. Xx236 12:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The article Education in the Soviet Union still exists; sounds like you might have something to contribute there! --Orange Mike 13:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt very much they want me there.Xx236 14:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No one owns an article; doesn't matter whether "they" want you there or not. Truth always trumps. --Orange Mike 15:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not in this Wikipedia, where a small group can impose non-academic opinions.Xx236 (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

---

===Soviet universities=== [[Image:Moskau Uni.jpg|thumb|[[Moscow State University]] at [[Sparrow Hills]] is the largest educational building in the world.]] Soviet type universities existed in the [[Soviet Union]] and in other countries of the [[Eastern Bloc]]. Medical, technical, economical, technological and arts faculties were frequently separated from universities (compare the [[List of institutions of higher learning in Russia]]). Soviet ideology was taught divided into three disciplines: [[Scientific Communism]], [[Marxism-Leninism]] and Communist [[Political Economy]], and was introduced as part of many courses, eg. teaching [[Karl Marx]]' or [[Vladimir Lenin]]'s views on energy or history. [[Sciences]] were supported, but the [[humanities]] curbed. In 1922, the Bolshevik government expelled some 160 prominent intellectuals on the [[Philosophers' ship]], later some professors and students were killed or worked in [[Gulag]] camps. Communist economy was preferred, liberal ideas criticized or ignored. [[Genetics]] was degradated to [[Lysenkoism]] from the middle of the 1930s to the middle of the 1960s. Communist parties controlled or influenced universities. The leading university was the [[Moscow State University]]. After [[Joseph Stalin]]'s death, universities in some Communist countries obtained more freedom. The [[Peoples' Friendship University of Russia|Patrice Lumumba Peoples' Friendship University]] provided higher education as well as a training ground for young communists from [[developing countries]].{{Fact|reason=at least some of this should be cited, currently it's pure conjecture|date=March 2009}}

China in History of universities sect.

I think it's worth debating the section that claims the "earliest recorded institution of higher learnings was Shang Hsiang, and later Taixue and Guozijian." The Shang Hsiang is, so far, only a part of Chinese legend (and only 'recorded' in that sense) and the latter come from the Han and Sui. Moreover, arguably these were not "universities" in the sense that is meant in this article in the first place. Nostalgiphile 02:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Intro

A university provides both tertiary and quaternary education.

Does anywhere actually describe it as such? My understanding is that generally "tertiary education" is a catch-all for both Higher Education and other post secondary education - vocational, further education, etc... - whilst according to postgraduate education it "is normally considered to be part of tertiary or higher education". So does the current intro make any sense in talking about it as though it's different? Timrollpickering (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts for improvement

• Organization - How true a worldwide picture is this? "University system" is a term that only seems to be used in a few countries.

• Classification in the United States - This probably really belongs on Higher education in the United States. A more general section about the various terminologies in use and the very different standards of legal definition would be more useful than a one country specific section.

• Criticism - this section feels odd to me, though I'm not sure why.

• Under pressure - I'm sure that this could stem much further beyond Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Would a more general "Universities under pressure" or something article be better, with a potted summary here? Timrollpickering (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the article again and I've added the main template to the Higher education in the United States link. The Organization section is a very gross overall description. I wouldn't focus too much on the usage of terminology, as different colleges and universities have their own way of structuring their institution. However, the Criticism section does seem odd. Perhaps it is the third paragraph, where the purpose of attending college has been placed with a money sign. I personally believe that you attend college to gain knowledge (even if it's a liberal arts degree), not to serve food on the plate, although a decent degree can land a handsome salary. I think the Under Pressure section is the most peculiar - I find that in it is more obvious that whoever is paying the bills at the institution dictates what particular subjects to focus research on. It's just the way it is. (But that's just me now... isn't it?) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

COTF template

I removed the COTF template from the main page because, as other WikiProjects do it (see WP:COTW and the current collab article, which is Poverty), this template belongs on the talk page. As the COTF template is now integrated into the {{WikiProject Universities}} template, the {{UniversitiesCOTF-Now}} template is not needed. —Noetic Sage 20:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Cluebot did a good job!

Cluebot did a very nice job automatically reverting the page blanking! - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove discussion of Communist Political Academies

We haven't come up with a definition of universities, but whether we take the breadth of their training program, the nature or their organizational structure, or their autonomy from outside interference by church or state, these academies really don't belong in an article on universities. Even if they did, lists of that sort do not really belong in an encyclopedia article. I propose that we remove everything after the discussion of Patrice Lumumba U from the Under pressure section. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Add "Corporate" university to "Under Pressure"

I think it'd be great to add a subsection to "under pressure" that addresses the increasing corporate or market-driven nature of the university. I'm thinking about recent books like... Universities in the Marketplace (2003), by Derek Bok; University Inc. (2005), by Jennifer Washburn; Academic Capitalism (2004), by Sheila Slaughter and Gary Rhoades; Knowledge and Money, by Robert Geiger (2004); and Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line: The Marketing of Higher Education (2003), by David L. Kirp. What do ya think? --Junius49 (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Would these books be the sources? Are they reasonably unbiased? →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read any of these specific books but Derek Bok is one of the most respected persons associated with American higher education alive today. His writing is typically lucid, pointed, and very well-informed. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it may be a valid addition. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"degradated"?

Is "degradated a word? Brian Pearson (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

See this. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Grazie Brian Pearson (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Dec. 30 & 31, 2008: college v. university

The deleted source said, and still says, "As a general rule, colleges tend to be smaller than universities and usually do not offer doctoral degrees, while a university offers a wide range of graduate programs, including doctoral degrees. Universities emphasize research as well as teaching (traditionally a strength of colleges), and universities that offer doctoral programs are usually referred to as research universities." Good call, that http://educationusa.ecacms.getusinfo.com/home/education-usa/global-left-nav/graduate-study/about-graduate-education-in-the-u/types-of-institutions was written by the State Department to help non-Estadounidenses understand the difference. I corrected the name in the text and the citation. Thanks for that catch; I don't know what I was thinking there. --Aepoutre (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oldest universities

There're some mistakes in the list of the Medieval universities: Modena's University has been founded in 1175, before Cambridge's University, and the two oldest universities are the University of al-Qarawiyyin, Fes, Marocco (founded in 859) and the University of Al-Azhar, Il Cairo, Egitto (founded in 988) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.15.171 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The University in Ruins

Has anyone read "The University in Ruins"? http://louisville.edu/journal/workplace/issue6/cramer.html

How about adding in criticism that universities constantly "weed out" many students because they don't have room, & then the people who are cut involuntarily are considered "less than the best people" by most people.

Also, most people know that what they learn in university doesn't help them in their jobs in any way, yet they're forced to pay back all loans, etc. And many still end up homeless through no fault of their own?

How about saying how the future of all education will be (free someday) on computers worldwide & has already started to make learning easier & available for lots more people? Stars4change (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Enlightenment & Universities

There was an article in the Times Magazine entitled Do you believe in Satan? In it, the author states that a college/university student is more likely to disbelieve in religion and God than a common layman. "After all, the university is the most enduring achievement of the Enlightenment?" states the article. What does this mean? --Richardlaymon06 (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Richardlaymon06, no doubt someone will offer a better explanation than this one but, here it goes: The enlightenment was a movement that began circa 17th century in Europe. A base understanding of the enlightenment is this - it was a movement that championed the questioning of authority. At the time of its origin, religion and the state controlled much of what was written, intellectually consumed, and understood to be true (eg. the world was flat). The enlightenment championed free thought. One of the effects of the enlightment was a reduction in the power of the religion over day-to-day life. Universities are often seen as places that foster free-thought and expression etc., hence the supposed increased likelyhood that University students will disbelieve in religion and god....
As i said, not a fantastic explanation, but hopefully one that can enlighten you to a certain extent. I'me sure there's a wiki on it, so lets try bracketing the term and hope for the best - The Enlightenment. Best Darigan (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Change to Early History section

The Early History section currently reads as follows:

The original Latin word "universitas", first used in a time of renewed interest in Classical Greek and Roman tradition, tried to reflect this feature of the Academy of Plato (established 385 BCE). The original Latin word referred to places of learning in Europe, where the use of Latin was prevalent. The Latin term "academia" is sometimes extended to a number of educational institutions of non-Western antiquity, including China, India and Persia:

This is at odds with the discussion in the immediately preceding paragraph:

The word university is derived from the Latin universitas magistrorum et scholarium, roughly meaning "community of teachers and scholars."

I suggest rewriting this section, in accordance with earlier discussions in the talk page to read:

The original Latin word "universitas" was used at the time of emergence of urban town life and medieval guilds, to describe specialized "associations of students and teachers with collective legal rights usually guaranteed by charters issued by princes, prelates, or the towns in which they were located." Although the original Latin word referred to places of learning in Europe, where this form of legal organization was prevalent, it is sometimes extended to other educational institutions of non-Western antiquity, including China, India and Persia:

This proposed change shifts the focus somewhat to the institutional structure of the university, so I'd like comments before I make the change. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Precursors of the University

The discussion of the earliest universities seems to be comparing apples and oranges. In the historiography of the Western Universities, a clear distinction is made between educational institutions that had developed corporate autonomy and the right to grant a license to teach (i.e., a degree) and earlier educational institutions that were associated with courts or with religious institutions (i.e., cathedral (or episcopal) and monastic schools).

In the discussions of Eastern Universities, there seems to be a tendency to identify religious schools (e.g., madrassas) which at some point developed into universities as having been universities from the day of their founding.

If we applied those criteria to Medieval Western Universities, we would find that there were already episcopal schools throughout Western Europe (including one at Paris) from the sixth or seventh centuries (Pierre Riché, Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: From the Sixth through the Eighth Century, pp. 282 ff.). If we counted its precursor, we could date the University of Paris back some 600 years from its generally accepted date of foundation.

One way to avoid getting into a cultural war over this would be to distinguish schools that existed as part of religious institutions from schools that had developed some form of institutional and academic autonomy. Those earlier schools could be treated in a new section entitled something like "Precursors of the University." --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• But in the early Islamic World, there was no church or church structure like there was in medieval Christendom, so it's misleading to group institutions from both as being part of some broader 'religious' institution. Yes, theology came into Islamic universities, but Islam had no papal or priestly authorities which universities had to obey, unlike in Europe until the Reformation. Black-Velvet 14:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

University (Discussion moved from User talk page)

Hi there,

On what grounds did you remove Plato's Academy (which has been referred to as the University of Athens [6])?

--Athenean (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Because you did not cite the reference in the article. BTW, the reference cited here does not seem to make much of a claim about the nature of that "university;" it would be better to cite a source on the history of universities. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I note that all the other "ancient universities" are similarly uncited. By that rationale, they should be removed as well. Either we remove them all, or we source them all. Anything else would be a double standard. Anyway, how about this [7] ? Best, --Athenean (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a reprint of a 1900 book by an educator, not by a historian. I don't know what Cubberly's credentials are to look at ancient Greek education; it's not the strongest source but it's better than nothing.

I've never heard the Platonic academy called a university and, as one who subscribes to the commonly accepted views that universities, properly called, first emerged in Western Europe near the end of the twelfth century, that whole section on "Early History" needs careful looking at. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with you in that I also think the first true universities emerged in medieval western Europe, the University of Bologna being the oldest, I think. Nonetheless, I do think there should be an "Early History" section, in which a clearer distinction should be made between these "early" universities and "true" universities. The "Early History" section thus definitely needs work. I will consult the literature in a more systematic manner when I have time and hopefully improve the section. Also, I think it would be good if I moved this discussion to the article's talkpage rather than here. Hope you don't mind. --Athenean (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why Yield Rate is redirected to University?

Why Yield Rate is redirected to University? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.241.115.162 (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The editor who created that redirect also redirected Admission yield rate to university. The editor in question is User:Article editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"The U"

Perhaps it might be too American-centric, but could there be a redirect at the top along the lines of "For the university commonly known as 'The U', see University of Miami"?

Perhaps if someone types in "The U" it should take them to a disambiguation page. The University of Miami does use the term "The U" to describe itself, but that's not universal. It's only within a national college sports context. For much of the US, the term "The U" refers to whatever the local university is, similar to "State" referring to the local state college. For example, in Minnesota, "The U" generally refers to the University of Minnesota. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RLent (talk • contribs) 15:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I see. I've only ever heard the term as a reference to Miami, but then I grew up in New Jersey.

Assessment: C-class at best

Hi! I see that this article as been assessed as B-class, by a "team" even, but this is not correct. Without discussion I lower the assessment to a C at the very best, because of blatant failure of B-class criteria. Most importantly, it fails criterion 1: "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary". Whole paragraphs and even sections are unreferenced. Also, the structure becomes looser towards the end. Some sections are very short, and there's a globalize tag present. The gallery and an extremely long "See also" list don't help, either. Geschichte (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

University places per capita?

Are there any statistics available that tells how many University places each country has per capita? Nunamiut (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove gallery?

As noted above, the gallery contributes nothing—or rather detracts somewhat—from this article. It seems to be turning into a grab bag of photos of everyone's favorite university. I suggest we delete the whole thing. Any reaction? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that DBailey635 has just added a similar comment to the article page. I think it's about time to delete the entire gallery. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it should go. With Commons, there is no need for it. When it was first created, it was essentially a compromise to remove an overabundance of images from the article proper without getting rid of them altogether. So, with it gone, I think editors need to be diligent to ensure that a proper text-image balance is maintained. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion of Commons is a good one. There is a gallery page called Universities that provides single iconic images for a number of universities, organized by country. With some editing of captions to fit the style of the Commons gallery, it would be a reasonable step to move this gallery there. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Daxue, university... and higher learning institution

The counter-term of university in Chinese is 大學 (daxue). Daxue is a kind of Gaodeng Xuexiao (高等學校), just like university is a kind of higher learning school, right? In ancient part, this article only introduces European medieval universities. So should another independent article Higher institution of learning be created? If not, the article Daxue has to be created if Chinese 大學 need to be introduced. Since there is no such an article, in the article Nanjing University the term Daxue has to be explained. Another questions is, if university only mean European style university, then what's the counter-article in Wikipedia English version of 大學 in Chinese version? University? Under such condition, it's obviously not proper. Daxue? - Peducte (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Although it doesn't extend to the modern era, you might want to look at Ancient higher-learning institutions to see how it relates to Chinese higher learning institutions. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the information. -Peducte (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

But the article say that These ancient centres were typically institutions of philosophical education and religious instruction.. I think it's right for many ancient regions. But in China, the schools were not for religious instruction, and religious instruction were generally implemented in religious places, like temples (Daoguan, Fosi) of Daoism and Buddhism. Religious instruction were not considered as zhengtong (正統) by society and government, and not accepted by Chinese schools. In ancient times of China, besides comprehensive schools, there were also specialized schools, such as school of literature, school of history, school of law, school of mathematics, institution of medicine (mainly practice, but with education function), institution of astronomy (mainly research, but with education function) …. And if we say only modern science is science, then you can say that school of xuan study and school of yinyang study were just for philosophical education, not for sciences. But in my view, they were for science of the time. Sciences have been developed in various regions. And only in recent several hundred years especially in recent 200 years, sciences have been rapidly developed, mainly in the West. In recent near 100 years especially in recent decades, there have been also some development in other regions. I think it should be distinguished between schools for common knowledges (and skills) (such as literature, philosophy, sciences, mathematics, art, technology, social sciences) and institutions for religious instruction. - Peducte (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The term "philosophy" holds a much broader meaning in ancient contexts than nowadays. All these fields you list above were routinely taught and commented on by natural philosophers as early as the days of Aristotle's Lyceum and Plato's Platonic Academy, so there is really no reason to single out ancient Chinese institutions of higher learning above or beyond them. The crucial step in the history of higher education was the establishment and development of the medieval university which eventually far surpassed all its - unrelated - forerunners. This is and should be reflected in keeping different articles on the ancient institutions on the one hand and the universities on the other. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have just read the article First university in the United States. I think the article and the discussion is very valuable. There are many definitions of 大學 or university. As for terms, sometimes a term has been used for ages, but its specific meaning and content may have changed for many times. 大學 or university are such kind of terms. If we define modern 大學 or university as 大學 or university, then European medieval university may not be university. Actually today's university is very different from European medieval university, and also modern 大學 is very different from traditional Chinese 大學. But the same point is, modern 大學 and ancient 大學 are all higher learning institutions, not primary level or middle level learning institutions. - Peducte (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It would help this discussion (particularly for those of us who don't know Chinese) if you defined the essential characteristics of the Chinese institutions you are discussing: the daxue (大學), the zhengtong (正統) and the 大學 (which as I read it is somehow equated with "university"). In Western historiography it has been traditional to define a university by its organizational structure; i.e., a legally recognized and autonomous community of scholars that has the power to grant degrees. Could you provide similar definitions of these Chinese institutions with citations to reliable and accessible sources?

On another point, I agree with both you and Gun Powder Ma that we should not equate science with modern western science. The historians of Greek and Chinese science, G. E. R. Lloyd and Nathan Sivin, had this to say about it:

"We will use "Science" here as a conventional placeholder.... The mark of science, in that usage, lies in the aims of the investigation and the subject matter – the bid to comprehend aspects of the physical world – not in the degree to which either the methods or the results tally with those of later inquiries, let alone modern science." Lloyd and Sivin, The Way and the Word (2002) p.4.

That position is held by most historians of science. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, in translation, the corresponding English word of daxue (大學) is "university". Literally, daxue (大學) as education institution mainly only means higher learning school ..., in contrast to lower level learning school. As to other features, there were many differences between schools in China and Europe. In China, there were many kinds of schools including many kinds of higher learning schools. Some private Shuyuan were purely for learning and knowledge (of the time), and they were autonomous (But now under the rule of CPC, no universities in mainland China are really autonomous, in my view). On the other hand, all public schools sponsored by ddifferent level governments were closely tied to politics. All teachers were rank based. Such schools mainly educated students to become governmental officials, especially after Tang Dysnaty. This may be one of the factors that cumber the development of education and science in ancient China. As to ties with politics, Huang Zongxi, a scholar in Ming dynasty, advocated the idea that the public affairs be decided in schools. He argues that school is not only a place for scholars, but also a place to determine right and wrong of public affairs. The emperor should also attend classes of the imperial school as a student, and listen to the comments and criticisms of the teacher, school president, in classroom. The same are officials from prime minister or low level, e.g., a county mayor should attend corresponding county school as a student, accepting education, inquiry and interpellation. County mayor can also teach in county school, but if a mayor is not learned, then should be refused to teach by school. This idea endows public school with more functions in politics. It also shows that ancient Chinese public schools had close relationship with politics. Actually many political related student movements took place in ancient public schools, especially in the imperial school during Han Dynasty.

Zhengtong (正統) means legitimacy, but I avoid to use the English word legitimate when no further interpretation privided, since the English word legitimate may mean legal. Zhengtong just means it's mainstream, accepted by most people, more reasonable, rational, most of time more proper, right .... But this does’t mean that those are not Zhengtong are illegal. For example, religious instructions (including of Daoism and Buddhism) were not Zhengtong (legitimate) in Chinese society, but they were legal. Generally the opinions of legitimate scholars were that religious stories, gods, doctrines ... were created or fabricated by religious founders and leaders, and the fantastic and incredible ideas of religions surely should not be taught in schools. A typical Chinese is influenced by Daoism and Buddhism, but not very many people claim they are Taoist or Buddhist. Common schools did not taught religious doctrines, and those with special interests in religions can go to temples to learn.

As for science, there are many views. I have no certain views. But we should have a proper and convenient term to express what's the status in ancient times of what we call science now. If not, then actually we are making troubles for us in our times in understanding history and past people. If we say ancient knowledge (development) in related fields is not science, then what term should we use when we refer to those things? The same is the term 大學 (daxue) or university. If we do no call ancient Chinese 大學 (daxue) "university", or if we do not call European medieval university "大學", then what term should we use when we refer to them in English and Chinese respectively? - Peducte (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the Wikipedian article 大學 in Chinese version and alike articles in versions of other languages point to "university" in English version, and here the ancient history part only includes the status in Europe, I added templates of "may not represent a worldwide view of the subject" and "may not include all significant viewpoints". - Peducte (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

See directly below. The solution to your problem is changing the Chinese article to the worldwide view, not trying to do it here the other way round. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

European origin of the university

Peducte has been spending the better part of his short WP career to forward the idea that Nanjing University was the ""oldest existing higher learning institution in the world <and that> the university extends to have more than 1700 years history, with the longest history among all universities". To this end, he has recently tagged University and List of oldest universities in continuous operation. His main, and in my view only argument, is the way the Chinese article treats the subject.

So, how real is the Chinese claim? The international standard work on the history of the university, written by experts of various countries, has this to say in its editorial line:

Rüegg, Walter: "Foreword. The University as a European Institution", in: A History of the University in Europe. Vol. 1: Universities in the Middle Ages, Cambridge University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-521-36105-2, pp. XIX–XX:

The university is a European institution; indeed, it is the European institution par excellence. There are various reasons for this assertion. As a community of teachers and taught, accorded certain rights, such as administrative autonomy and the determination and realization of curricula (courses of study) and of the objectives of research as well as the award of publicly recognized degrees, it is a creation of medieval Europe, which was the Europe of papal Christianity. This is shown in the first volume of our history.

It is, moreover, the only European institution which has preserved its fundamental patterns and its basic social role and functions over the course of history; it has indeed been strengthened and extended in these respects - as the four volumes will show. Of the three acknowledged powers of medieval European society - regnum, sacerdotium, and studium - the first, political power, has undergone profound changes. The second has, in the Roman Catholic Church, preserved its structure and expanded over the whole planet but it has lost the monopoly which it once possessed of providing the conditions of salvation. The same may be said for the other institutional and cultural creations of the Middle Ages, i.e. the distinctively European forms of organization of a money economy, the plastic arts, architecture, and music.

No other European institution has spread over the entire world in the way in which the traditional form of the European university has done. The degrees awarded by European universities - the bachelor's degree, the licentiate, the master's degree, and the doctorate - have been adopted in the most diverse societies throughout the world. The four medieval faculties of artes variously called philosophy, letters, arts, arts and sciences, and humanities - law, medicine, and theology have survived and have been supplemented by numerous disciplines, particularly the social sciences and technological studies, but they remain none the less at the heart of universities throughout the world. Even the name of the universitas, which in the Middle Ages was applied to corporate bodies of the most diverse sorts and was accordingly applied to the corporate organization of teachers and students, has in the course of centuries been given a more particular focus: the university, as a universitas Litterarum, has since the eighteenth century been the intellectual institution which cultivates and transmits the entire corpus of methodically studied intellectual disciplines.

Moreover, the university is a European institution because it has, in its social role, performed certain functions for all European societies. It has developed and transmitted scientific and scholarly knowledge and the methods of cultivating that knowledge which has arisen from and formed part of the common European intellectual tradition. It has at the same time formed an academic elite, the ethos of which rests on common European values and which transcends all national boundaries.

So the university was an "European institution". This is also Makdisi's view:

And George Makdisi: "Madrasa and University in the Middle Ages", Studia Islamica, No. 32 (1970), pp. 255-264 (264):

Thus the university, as a form of social organization, was peculiar to medieval Europe. Later, it was exported to all parts of the world, including the Muslim East; and it has remained with us down to the present day. But back in the middle ages, outside of Europe, there was nothing anything quite like it anywhere.

Many other references could be cited, since the European origin and development of the institution is generally regarded a matter of historical fact, not just interpretation, but I believe the point is made emphatically enough. Further attempts at introducing the self-promotional description of Nanjing University as "the oldest university of the world" fall nothing short of a deliberate act of historical revisionism. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree what you cited above. And also, it's a fact that Nanjing University learned from American research universities (which learned from German universities, a European pattern and European origin) when transforming from traditional type 大學 to modern type 大學. The problem is, as I said above, Since the Wikipedian article 大學 in Chinese version and alike articles in versions of other languages point to "university" in English version, and here the ancient history part only includes the status in Europe.

I know that the Wikipedia is not a place to create something new. As to the article Nanjing University, it's not original research on Wikipedia that "the university extends to have more than 1700 years history ...". It's recorded in the university's official history book. And actually from what I know so far, it's correct that Nanjing University is "the oldest existing higher learning institution in the world". - Peducte (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And what? You do realize that the self-promotional claim of Nanjing University is completely at odds with international scholarship, don't you? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot thoroughly understand your meaning. Whether it's self-promotional claim or not, if it's right, reasonable, tally with facts, then OK. If not then not OK. As I have said, the content was recorded in books published several ten years ago. It's not created now and by me. But I affirm that the claim of oldest higher learning institution (original text, in Chinese: 大學, translated into English: university, instead of using 高等學校, higher learning institution) is correct, based on what I have read and know so far. - Peducte (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue at hand here is that you are apparently using a source published by Nanjing University to support the extraordinary claim that Nanjing University is the world's oldest university. This raises the issue of Wikipedia policy, which allows the use of self-published sources as long as "the material is not unduly self-serving...." The claim to be the world's oldest university is clearly self serving and requires to be documented by other reliable sources. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read the article. The content "more than 1700 years history, with the longest history among all universities" is not from self-published sources, but from Chinese Encyclopedia. It's surely not self-serving. And the sentence is a translation from Chinese text, the original text uses 大學, universities is only a translation. So actually the meaning is it's the world's oldest existing 大學. Is this an extraordinary claim? In the text of article, in order ti avoid misconception and disputation, "higher learning institution" is used to interpret 大學 instead of university which is generally used in translation. - Peducte (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Again the term daxue, university ...

See also: Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation

The term 大學 (daxue) in English is university, and the term university in Chinese is 大學 (daxue). There may be many kinds of definition of 大學 (daxue) and university. Altough ancient Chinese 大學 (daxue) differ from modern Chinese 大學 (daxue), both Chinese 大學 (daxue) and European universities have been evolving in history. I know that modern university originated in Germany (Berlin University), and I think the German university also had features with origin from European universities older that it. But modern university is also very different from European medieval universities. And I think universities in recent 150 years to today still have many changes. If the term university is strictly defined as an institution with features of European medieval universities, then modern universities are not universities. On the contrary, if the term university is strictly defined as an institution meeting standards of modern universities, then European medieval universities are not universities. The same is ancient 大學 (daxue) and modern 大學 (daxue). It's all determined by the definition of the term. The problem is that the article 大學 (daxue) in Chinese version includes ancient 大學 (daxue, university) in Europe and other places, the corresponding article university only in English version only includes ancient universities in Europe, not include 大學 (daxue) in China. -Peducte (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Since there are many kinds of definition of the word university, ancient Chinese 大學 (daxue) have also been called university, as I pointed out on Talk:Nanjing University. Here again examples:

• ...The Highest Imperial University at the foot of Jiming Hill in the city had as many as 9000 students, 2000 of them foreign... (Source: Title Fifteen cities in China Author China Reconstructs Publisher "China reconstructs" magazine, 1980)
• ... An Imperial University for training officials was established in 124 b. c; three centuries later, it boasted of 30000 students.. (Source: The Encyclopedia Americana, Grolier Incorporated, ISBN 0717201198, 9780717201198 Author Grolier Incorporated)
• ...At the end of 1433 the emperor, after declining the Korean king's request to send students to attend the imperial university, bestowed upon him sets of Confucian classics and historical works ... (Source: The Cambridge history of China: The Ming dynasty Frederick W. Mote, Denis Twitchett, John King ... - 1988 )
• ...1368-98) ordered that wooden tablets be used at the Imperial University in Nanjing ... (On sacred grounds: culture, society, politics, and the formation of the cult of Confucius, Thomas A. Wilson, Harvard University Asia Center 2002)
• Some schools were official, notably the Imperial University and other schools in the capital ... (Source: Handbook of the Sociology of Education By Maureen T. Hallinan)
• ... printing and library supplies : Nanking Imperial University, Peiping Imperial University and the Classics Plant directly under the supervision of ... (Source: Title Library history review, Volumes 1-2 Published 1974)

The above use is a more general or universal definition. It's the issue about the article should be open or close/with single standard, as discussed on Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation - Peducte (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I found another old university: The University of Constantinople. It's older than universities founded in more west part of Europe. The article says it's not the first to use the term "university", and University of Bologna was the first to use the term Universitas. As I have pointed above, sometimes a term has been used for ages, but its specific meaning and content may have changed at times as it has kept evolving. And sometimes there are terms that are different, but their meaning and content may be similar or alike. I think since the University of Bologna is often regarded as the first university in traditional European view, it must had great influences on universities founded after it in latish eras. I have two questions. First, I conjecture that there must be some kinds of education institutions existed before the founding of University of Bologna and influenced the founding of University of Bologna. I mean, University of Bologna must learned from other institutions already existed when it was founded, although it's a new type, a type innovated. It's generally impossible that things can come into being based on nothing. So, what were those institutions? What’s the major differences between University of Bologna and those institutions? Another assumption, since University of Constantinople was founded earlier and also located in Europe, did University of Constantinople influenced University of Bologna or institutions before it? Second question, more related to topic here, what's the major differences between University of Constantinople and other European medieval universities besides term of name used? And was the University of Constantinople later called University (or Universitas ...) by western Europeans in European medieval era after the term University or Universitas was created and used? This can be taken as an evidence to judge whether the meaning of the term University was specific and solely used to mean the type represented by University of Bologna or not. - Peducte (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Was University of Constantinople a kind of University? I think it was, at least broadly speaking, when university is taken as a general, universal term. And another quesion, if the term University is not used for University of Constantinople, then what's the proper way to call it in English? - Peducte (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The question you're raising goes back to the historical study of universities, which in the nineteenth century faced the central problem of defining what this study was about -- how do we define universities. Historians recognized that European education underwent a fundamental change in the course of the twelfth century and that something new, the medieval university, emerged at that time. They were faced with the question of defining how the educational institutions of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, which came to be called universities, differed from the various educational institutions: cathedral and monastic schools, court schools, and various forms of ancient schools[8][9], that had existed before.

Various identifying features were pointed out, but the one that seemed central was the organization as a corporation of masters and students, an organization which enabled universities able to deal effectively with the powers of the church and the state, powers which sometimes threatened its intellectual and administrative autonomy. By that criterion, neither the University of Constantinople nor Nanjing University were universities at the time of their foundation. In modern times, however, they may have assimilated the structure and practices of European universities. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the knowledge. So, do you mean that an important hint of the term university is about independence of institution and academic freedom? I just read the article History of European research universities, and I know that freedom is gradually developed in Europe. I think when we say Europe universities were successful and led world universities, we only say modern European universities, the Humboldtian model, instead of European medieval universities. And from what I know it seems that European medieval universities were in some degree controlled by churches, with not much academic freedom. In ancient China, there were public 大學 sponsored by government, and there were many private 大學 (Shuyuan was a typical type, but some may be 小學 instead of 大學, and some had division of 小學). The situations including situation of academic freedom were very different from Europe. The first hint or meaning of 大學 (corresponding term of university) is higher level learning school, opposing to lower level learning school (小學) and middle level learning school (中學). As for modern 大學, we generally relate it to modern science and technology, although actually some 大學 may have no study of science and technology. However, as you pointed out, actually modern 大學 in China also adopted structure and practices of European modern universities in great extent. I agree with you, and also I have not said that the traditional Chinese 大學 including ancient Nanjing University is a kind of modern university, or European medieval type university. I also agree that traditional Chinese 大學 is not university when university is defined as European type university, whether European medieval type university or modern type university. The above discussions are still about the definition of the term, specifically the case when the term university is defined as European medieval type and modern type (and in this case higher learning institutions not belong to the type are not universities), and the problem I pointed out is still not resolved. - Peducte (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The notion that the autonomous university only emerged with the German research university has to be taken with some caution. The medieval university is the place where the corporate autonomy of the university emerged. The masters of the university were able to play different cards:

• as clerics they were able to claim clerical autonomy to limit interference by political powers -- there's a classic case from the early thirteenth century in which the Provost of Paris (a royal official) was required to recognize the immunities of the university.
• as members of a guild they were able to combine to limit interference by religious authorities.

Admittedly there were times when religious authorities placed limits on the curriculum, see for example the Condemnations of 1277, but there was in fact a wide range of intellectual speculation within limited constraints.

It could be argued that by the nineteenth century the British universities were so autonomous that they were not open to the kinds of educational reforms that were coming from the German research universities. If I recall correctly, there had to be political pressures to bring about educational reform at Oxford and Cambridge. In sum, the idea of an autonomous, self-governing, university is the product of the European middle ages. If anything, most modern universities are less autonomous than their medieval predecessors. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

As a Chinese, when I read history of education and higher learning institutions, I'm very impressed by German model by its concept of research and discovery of knowledge, and I think it's closely related to the tide of development of science in modern times. Surely I'm also impressed by some others before it including such scholars as Bacon and Newton in Cambridge University and Galileo in Italian universities, as well as such scholars as Ge Hong and Zu Chongzhi who were once in ancient Nanjing daxue, and many others.

The birth of autonomous university may be very outstanding and may be a milestone for medieval Europe in education. But for Chinese, it's not that outstanding, since traditional China was an autonomous society expect for centralized governmental system, expect for several special periods including Yuan Dynasty, Qing Dynasty (Yuan and Qing were under racial rule, which in some degree ruined the society) and PRC (as well as Taiping Heavenly Kingdom during Qing Dynasty, which is similar to the early 30 years of PRC). As for schools, private Shuyuan were autonomous academic institutions. Even for Imperial Taixue, in Han Dynasty it enjoyed freedom in great extent, and during the era most of the time it's not the government intervened the school, but the student movements struggling for right politics often arose. - Peducte (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your point about Chinese society being autonomous; but as it applies to universities, the question concerns the extent to which Chinese educational institutions were autonomous -- i.e., free from governmental control. As I understand Chinese history, the society was highly centralized with courses of study designed to prepare for centrally administered civil service examinations. Such a professional school is quite different from a university. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Civil service examinations start in Sui Dynasty in China. So schools before it were not for civil service examinations, including Nanjing daxue in southern dynasties. Shuyuan came into being in Tang Dynasty, and many Shuyuan were for civil service examinations, and in this aspect their rivals included public higher level schools. Private shuyuan were not controlled by government, while public higher level schools were sponsored by different level governments, and governments also provided money for students of public schools. But not all Shuyuan were mainly for civil service examinations. Many famous Shuyuan were actually mainly for their academic ideal and purpose, especially those still famous (although may in inexistence) today. - Peducte (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed criticism section

I have removed the Criticism section for the moment and put it in this post as a hidden section.

The section is specifically about US political issues seemingly concerning the Culture war. As such it does not belong in this article as it stands until it can be edited to include other criticisms. Even then it should be noted that criticism sections are not always best practice and it may be better to include evaluations rather than criticisms throughout the article in their relevant sections all the while adhering to NPOV. (See Criticism for more information.)

The original contributor(s) to this section may wish wish to find a home for the text in Higher Education in the United States, Culture war, or even create a new article.

Criticism

Universities at present are becoming like manufacturers of a particular kind of persons, a kind of production lines. This view has often been expressed by learned people who view it as a decline in the traditional concept of university. Richard Vedder, an Ohio University professor and member of the Commission on the Future of Higher Education, has been a critic of how institutions of higher education, including the universities, are financed. According to him "tuition increases have rapidly outpaced inflation; that productivity in higher education has fallen or remained stagnant; and that third-party tuition payments from government or private sources have insulated students from bearing the full cost of their education, allowing costs to rise more rapidly..

Discrimination by university faculty

Concern over the political bias among university faculty in the U.S. has recently been a criticism of the U.S. university setting. A study published in The Forum by university professor Robert Lichter and colleagues Stanley Rothman and Neil Nevitte has shown the vast majority of American university faculties to be politically liberal and non-religious. The study raises questions over whether the political leaning of university academics affect school policies, curricula, admission and evaluation procedures. The results of the study include preliminary findings of discrimination against conservative faculty. In addition, the study finds that liberals, men and the non-religious are overrepresented at top schools, with conservatives, women and religious faculty relegated to lower-tier colleges and universities.

Recent developments on college campuses, such as the University of Delaware's Ideological Reeducation plan, and the persecution of Emily Brooker by faculty at Missouri State University have drawn the attention of the public and the media to incidents of liberal bias against conservative faculty and students. Victims note the difficulty of going up against tenured faculty and the risk of negative repercussions on their reputation and academic goals. Advocacy groups such as FIRE, NAS and the ACLU have come to the aid of students and faculty who have become victim of such groups, and with the help of legal counsel have often succeeded in defending the rights of the victims they represent. With the exception of the ACLU, such organizations did not exist during the McCarthy era; and U.S. News & World Report saw nothing wrong with the witchhunts of that era; indeed, it was an avid support of the loyalty oaths and other Red-hunting tactics of the time.

AJKGORDON«» 08:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Western World" ?

Can India and Egypt really be considered to be part of the "Western World" ? Gerald, 18-09-2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.124.37.241 (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What do we mean by a university?

The current opening paragraph implicitly defines a university by the level of teaching and research that is performed there:

A university is an institution of higher education and research, which grants academic degrees at all levels (bachelor, master, and doctorate) in a variety of subjects. A university provides both tertiary and quaternary education. The word university is derived from the Latin universitas magistrorum et scholarium, roughly meaning "community of masters and scholars".

On the other hand, the Oxford English dictionary takes a more historical line, and defines universities as an organization of teachers and students.

university, n. The whole body of teachers and scholars engaged, at a particular place, in giving and receiving instruction in the higher branches of learning; such persons associated together as a society or corporate body, with definite organization and acknowledged powers and privileges (esp. that of conferring degrees), and forming an institution for the promotion of education in the higher or more important branches of learning; also, the colleges, buildings, etc., belonging to such a body.

This distinction is an important one, as it serves to distinguish the relatively autonomous universities from those institutions under religious control (e.g., cathedral and monastic schools) or under the sponsorship of rulers (e.g., court schools). It would would provide a clear demarcation as to what we would include in the article but I'd like some comments before I attack the historical literature further. --SteveMcCluskey 19:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

While you may be correct as to the denotation of the word, in virtually all usage (at least in the U.S.), the connotation is markedly different. The connotation is that universities offer higher degrees while colleges don't. Small colleges have begun to exploit this by offering what are, in reality, undergraduate refresher courses under the title "masters" thereby self-designating themselves "universities." Academics tend to go by the Carnegie classification system (an independent body that evaluates and categorizes higher education institutions). Wikiant 13:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Carnegie classification is a useful one, but it's only valid in relation to North American universities in the last fifty years or so. This article has a broader scope and needs to define it so we can deal with such questions as whether a specific fifth-century educational institution is a "university." --SteveMcCluskey 22:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree. But we're going to have this problem whether we write from a North American perspective or a global perspective. The words "college" and "university" mean different things in vs. out of NA. Wikiant 23:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It means different things in the US than it does in Canada as well. North America doesn't share one version of English or culture. Although I suppose that responding to a point from four years ago is a bit pointless. However, it's rather tiring seeing Canada and the US referenced as if they were a singular cultural and political being. A line was drawn in the sand in 1776. It's still there today. In Canada a university is a degree granting organisation. A college is not. I'm certainly not trying to troll but please keep that in mind when you refer to "north america" in the future. Druid126 (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Boston College Name Conflict

Boston College calls itself a university but uses the word "college" in its name NOT out of a sense of tradition, as this article implies, but because there is already a university called "Boston University". The 2 are totally separate schools.

I wonder if any other institutions had this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.24.9 (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nalanda

Recently, there has been some dispute as to whether to include in this article a segment on Nalanda which characterizes it as the "first known university". According to the definition currently in use in this article, a university has a certain corporate organization, which, as explained in one of the references mentioned above (ISBN 0-521-36105-2, pp. XIX–XX) originated in medieval Europe. Therefore, it seems that Nalanda does not meet the definition, but should be discussed in the article on ancient higher-learning institutions, some of which have also retrospectively been called universities. As can be seen from this article, even if the word "university" were to be construed more broadly, there are other competitors for the title of "first known university". Spacepotato (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds about right. If we don't already have an article about the various claimants to "first university in the world," we might want to write one similar to First university in the United States to document the various claims and evidence. ElKevbo (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Origins in Eastern Europe

I have no opinion on the underlying disagreement. It appears you two have been arguing mostly with each other, you should consider a third opinion, or leave a neutrally worded request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities for fresh input. The key to a surprising number of disagreements is more eyeballs.

However, it is unacceptable to attempt to "win" a dispute simply by continually reverting to your preferred version, all the while making comments on the article talk page that are essentially nothing more than insults. This not what is meant by "discussion". So, User:Tasho.spasev aka User:216.223.34.251 aka User:92.233.81.166 aka User:212.73.146.73, the next time you make a revert on the article talk page without a respectful, coherent, non-insulting explanation on the article talk page, I will begin to simply block your account/IP address, revert all of your edits, and if necessary long-term semi-protect the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A colleague of mine brought my attention to this disagreement. I am amongst the readers who firmly disagree with Gun Powder Ma and have to say that I am not related to any of his/her opponents. Moreover, I do not use any other IP address. Why do you think that a single person only is not happy with Gun Powder Ma?

Nowhere is it stated that the educational institutions of higher learning in medieval Eastern Europe are universities in the today's meaning of that term. That is why, these are appropriately placed in a paragraph dedicated to the pre-history of university education. Multiple references and proofs exist that the elites of medieval Central and Eastern Europe were graduated from these early educational establishments. The information in this paragraph is not at all contradictory but complementary to the single book cited by Gun Powder Ma.

Although some of the comments regarding the Gun Powder Ma's behaviour might be perceived as offensive, the insistent and rude ignorance of the medieval learning institutions based in Eastern Europe clearly implies a racist understanding of history, which is totally unacceptable in Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.120.129 (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"Racism" reloaded...is this Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde or what? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you ban the freedom of speech? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.185.203.27 (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

They likely did! At the same time when we are called to "discuss productively"?! Where to discuss please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.146.73 (talk • contribs)

You discuss it right here. Without resorting to personal attacks. Because you have again reverted the article without providing the "respectful, coherent, non-insulting explanation" I asked for, I've semi-protected the article for a month. I apologize to the productive IP editors this affects collaterally; they can use the {{edit semi-protected}} template to request edits. As I said above, I don't know who's right on the merits, but you're going to have to discuss this politely if you want any chance of your edits sticking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, stop pretending you're more than one person. It makes you look foolish. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the great benefaction not to erase our opinion this time, thereby providing us with the unique chance to discuss right here.

Yes, we are definitely several persons regardless of whether you like or dislike that! :)

More credible references complementing the list erased regularly by Gun Powder Ma:

• Ronald B. Begley, Joseph W. Koterski (2005). Medieval education. Fordham Univ Press.
• Florin Curta (2006). Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250. Cambridge University Press.
• Richard C. Frucht (2005). Eastern Europe: An introduction to the people, lands, and culture. ABC-CLIO.
• Ken Parry (2010). The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity. John Wiley and Sons.

Do you need help to find out where the questionable medieval literary schools are mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.146.73 (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Would Gun Powder Ma kindly explain why she doesn't like the text noting the contribution of these eastern European schools? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.49.171 (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Instead, Gun Powder Ma prefers to restore insistently his/her own version, taken "mot à mot" from his/her single favourite book! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.146.73 (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, a first comment, I may not have look far enough in the article history, but the references that were added to the article were the following:

• Jean W. Sedlar (1994). East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500: A History of East Central Europe – Volume III, University of Washington Press.
• Alan W. Ertl (2008). Toward an Understanding of Europe. Universal Publishers, Inc.
• H. Birnbaum (1994). On Medieval and Renaissance Slavic Writing: Selected Essays. Mouton & Co. N.V.
• M. Baker, K. Malmkjaer (2009). Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies, 2nd edition. Routledge.
• H. R. Cooper, Jr. (2003). Slavic Scriptures: The Formation of the Church Slavonic Version of the Holy Bible. Rosemont Publishing & Printing Corp.
• The History Of Higher Education http://degrees.excite.com/education/programs/other/the-history-of-higher-education/index.php (moved for clarity --Anneyh (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)) the weblink is clearly not an acceptable source for Wikipedia
• Alexander Schenker (1995). The Dawn of Slavic. Yale University, pp.185–186
• Glanville Price (2000). Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe, Wiley-Blackwell.
• Carlos Quiles, Fernando López-Menchero (2009). A Grammar of Modern Indo-European, 2nd Edition, Asociacion Cultural Dnghu.

Do I get correctly that you're adding about different references ? Do you also agree that without page numbers, we cannot check anything in 300+ pages books?

Second comment, the article we're talking about is a general article about university in general. Do you agree this is an education related subject and that there is an abundant literature on that subject? So the weblink is clearly not an acceptable source for the article, and the books that were to be included in the article do not seem focused on university, not even on education. --Anneyh (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The university originated in "medieval Europe, which was the Europe of papal Christianity". Please read List of oldest universities in continuous operation#Medieval origins which summarizes the editorial line of the A History of the University in Europe. This four-volume work was composed by many of the internationally most renowned experts on university history over a period of twenty years and is the most comprehensive scholarly treatment of the subject, translated into several languages. But, really, one can turn to any decent book on the Western origin of the university for this conclusion, as its history is pretty much accepted by all. Note that the university has in a sense become a victim of its global triumph. It has so swept away all other forms of higher education that its name has become a household name and synomous with any centre of higher learning. But just because an institution is today a university, this doesn mean that is was a university at the time of its founding. This is also true for the universities in Eastern Europe which were founded on the models of their Western European counterparts since the mid-14th century (Prague, Vienna and Cracow being the first). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A History of the University in Europe is obviously a reference that can help us in increasing the overall quality of the article, but there are certainly other valuable publications. In The First Universities, Pedersen speaks about "prehistory of universities" and the title of the first chapter is "The classical inheritance". I think we should introduce something similar. --Anneyh (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Although classic learning did play a huge part in the development of the university –Aristotle and Plato, to name two of the most important thinkers were only rediscovered for the West in the 13th and 15th c. respectively–, the classic institutions of learning did not survive into the Middle Ages in Western Europe. The university as an institution, therefore, marked a new start, about which the article already says something: Prior to their formal establishment, many medieval universities were run for hundreds of years as Christian cathedral schools or monastic schools (Scholae monasticae), in which monks and nuns taught classes; evidence of these immediate forerunners of the later university at many places dates back to the 6th century AD. There is somewhat more on the origins to be found at Medieval university. Eastern European centres of learning did not figure prominently in this process, if at all; they are dealt with at Ancient higher-learning institutions. If you could elaborate there on Petersen and only include a condensed account here, that would be fine.

You know one year ago we had this article here widely straying from topic, because every editor vied for introducing his/her most favourite supposed precursor of the university, Greek, Byzantine, Islamic, Chinese, Buddhist, Akkadian and what not institutions of learning. That made the article a real mess and it would be counterproductive to let the same process unfold again. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a good idea to introduce a small section entitled "prehistory of universities" or "prehistory of university education", hopefully not based only on the single Gun Powder Ma's book cited so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.146.73 (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you realize how absurd part of your comments is? Once you claim that the contributor's amendments and sources cited do not seem to be focussed on education, it appears that these educational institutions of higher learning in the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) and Slavia Orthodoxa (Bulgaria) did not give their students an education? Obviously, none is claiming they were universities in today's sense of the word, nor they were called universities at that time. But they were indeed institutions of higher learning – it is proven by numerous credible sources and authors worldwide (insistently being erased here by Gun Powder Ma).

Gun Powder Ma claims that "universities in Eastern Europe which were founded on the models of their Western European counterparts since the mid-14th century" – again Western "superiority".

However, in the 9th Century, the civilization of the European East was rather advanced, so that the Magnaura School of Constantinople - which the Wikipedia already refers to as a university - and the Literary Schools of Preslav and Ohrid were unique in its nature – they did not copy anybody in the West and served as a "good practices" model across Europe.

Dismissing the numerous sources provided without making an attempt to see and explore them reflects poorly on the integrity of our opponents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.156.120 (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I edited my comment above to make them less confusing (I never pretended that institutions were not teaching). Actually your comment also confuses me: I do not get why the Magnaura School of Constantinople and Literary Schools of Preslav and Ohrid which you just said were not universities but higher education institutions should get included in an article about university.

I would love to have more time for reading and be able access to all books in the world, but that's just not possible. So I would like a confirmation on which books you find relevant for this article, because my own personal assessment of the books quoted above did not convince me. For example, In Medieval education, "Interpreting Medieval Literacy: Learning and Edification in Slavia Orthodoxa (Bulgaria) and Byzantium in the 9th. 12th centuries" by TD Ivanova (p. 50-67) is very interesting, but the last sentence is "the Slavic learning practice must have been subordinated mainly to the preparation for understanding scriptures". --Anneyh (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"I do not get why the Magnaura School of Constantinople and Literary Schools of Preslav and Ohrid which you just said were not universities but higher education institutions should get included in an article about university."

Because there is already a text, which speaks about the establishments for higher education, existing in the 9th Century, and these three higher schools are definitely splendid examples for such institutions! Otherwise, your question implies that everything before the University of Bologna (including the Gun Powder Ma's paragraph) should entirely be removed. Anyway, as you mentioned before, a separate paragraph on the prehistory of university education really makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.146.73 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

" … the last sentence is "the Slavic learning practice must have been subordinated mainly to the preparation for understanding scriptures"" Congratulations for paying attention to this useful source! Please do not take this last sentence out of the overall context! Moreover, (i) a major focus on scriptures is typical for all educational institutions of the 9th century; (ii) the author speaks about common learning practices rather than advanced experience of the mentioned three institutions; and (iii) she compares the Slavic lands with Byzantium. Do not be so negative about the background of such a detailed info! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.156.120 (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is about university not higher education in general, nor eduation in the 9th century. I have the strong feeling some of the sources you cite could be helpful to develop Wikipedia, but just not this article. Including as reference to this article a text where there is not even once the word university does not make sense.

Regarding the citation of these three institutions, it does not make sense to me either, because they are not forruners of a medieval university. As far as I checked, in the present text, no center of higher education is named individually, except the Cathedral school of Paris as being the exception of a cathedral school developing into a university (actually this precise point would require a better explanation, the first sentence of the paragraph many universities had cathedral or monastic schools predecessors, and then the text in parenthesis says it's an exception). --Anneyh (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"The earliest universities were developed under the aegis of the western church ..." Bla bla bla! Unfortunately, such texts are driven not only by rude racist ignorance but also by religious fundamentalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.146.73 (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

May I refer you to the work of Professor Jerome Bump, The Origin of Universities, University of Texas at Austin where he states "The first European medieval university was the University of Magnaura in Constantinople (now Istanbul, Turkey) [now in ruins], founded in 849 by the regent Bardas of emperor Michael III, followed by the University of Salerno (9th century)*, [growing out of a Benedictine monastery], University of Bologna (1088) in Bologna, Italy, and the University of Paris (c. 1100) in Paris, France." However, since the University of Magnaura was not a western Roman Catholic foundation, I have no doubt you will summarily dismiss it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.220.238 (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• 74.xxx/212.xxx/70.xxx:

  You have a problem here, in that (a) You are never going to be able to put your preferred text into the article until you get consensus of other editors to do so, and (b) You are never going to convince editors to agree with you to gain that consensus if you continually fall back on the tired "rude racist ignorance" pablum. It appears to me you've just chased off an editor who was willing to discuss things with you; that's counterproductive for you.

  Anneyh seemed pretty open minded to me; but why should he/she attempt to work with you (for example, by discussing the reference you supply above) when all you do is make snide comments? Why would anyone work with you?

  If you're here because you would like the article changed, then you are 100% guaranteed to fail in your goal with your current approach. If you're here because a Great Wrong Must Be Righted And All The Fools Must Be Educated, then please go do that somewhere else, where you might find a more open audience. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

70.xxx Are you referring to this The Origin of Universities ? --Anneyh (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

An interesting point is the claim that no universities could exist before emerging of the term "university". Analogously, it appears that, for example, no photosynthesis existed in the nature before the term "photosynthesis" was established! :) The so-called "continuous action" is quite controversial as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.146.73 (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I do fully agree with those who say that this article is of racist nature – any information about the Chinese, Byzantine, Greek, North African, Arab or Slavic contribution to the history or pre-history of university education has been kicked out (irrespectively how credible the cited sources are)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.128.26.22 (talk • contribs) 23:59 (UTC), 22 May 2011

Neutrality of Definition Section disputed

A template questioning the neutrality of the definition section has recently been added to the article. This section is for discussion of the issues involved. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I added the template since the discussion above shows clearly that there is an NPOV issue, since this definition excludes Middle-eastern and Asian universities.

The part of the definition that is a clear POV: "For non-related educational institutions of antiquity which did not stand in the tradition of the university and to which the term is only loosely and retrospectively applied, see ancient higher-learning institutions." The fact is that there was a user who removed all information related to non-Western European universities despite the fact that there was no consensus about that (example)

For information, there is an NPOV issue related to the subject (but not directly to the article) at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#The University of Al-Karaouine and the List of oldest universities in continuous operation.

Omar-Toons (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Btw, maybe the template should be placed at the top of the article, not the section. --Omar-Toons (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has chosen to reply to Omar's comment, I would only note briefly that the definition's focus on the institutional structure of the university is one shared by the Oxford English dictionary and most historical works on the history of the university. This widely accepted definition is not intended to discriminate against non-Western European institutions, for it excludes such Western institutions as the Platonic Academy, and European cathedral and monastic schools. The point is that all institutions of higher learning are not necessarily universities. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked at some of the sourcing because of the discussion at NPOVN, and it does seem to me that there is a neutrality issue with the article. There seems to be wide consensus in the literature as to the strong influence of Arab madrassas and jamia - the only point of contention seems to be over the degree to which European universities to be considered as categorically distinct. There seems to be quite a bit of misrepresentation of sources in the article at present, so as to avoid discussion of this aspect of the historical development. Makdisi, for example who is a noted proponent of the idea that the university is a strictly European creation, is cited (indirectly) as support for the statement: "there is no actual evidence of the transmission of Arab scholarly methods discernible in medieval universities". But this seems quite different from what Makdisi actually says. He credits Arab institutions as the origin of many of the key features and concepts of European higher education, such as colleges, doctorates, institutional independence and secularism, literary humanism. I think a re-write is in order to remove some of the overly denialist content in the article at present and also to create a section or sub-section dealing with the influence of Arab higher education on European universities. --FormerIP (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The Arab influence on the medieval university is not the issue at hand. The issue is rather the very strong claim that certain Muslim mosque schools which were founded in the Muslim world before the first Christian universities were founded in the West were 1. universities and 2. the oldest universities. This is a true logical fallacy (namely a category mistake): The fact that the Christian university and Muslim madrasah were both centres of higher education does not make the madrasah any more a university than the fact that both mosques and churches are places of worship makes a mosque a church: both belong to the same category 'centres of higher education', but they are different members of this category just as mosques and churches are different members of the category 'places of worship'.

The historical reality is this: the university was the system of higher education peculiar to the Christin medieval West. Nowhere else did universities exist then. Other world regions also had centres of higher education but they were different from the university both in name and structure (just as the mosque is different from the church both in name and structure). It later was exported all over the world and has become the only system everywhere. But the fact that these early Muslim madrasahs have become today universities does not determine their status in the Middle Ages. Back then, they were a different forms of higher education, one which is peculiar to the Islamic world and is called madrasah. Wikipedia has a separate article on the madrasah, this is where all the stuff which belongs to it should go, not here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

For good or bad, the discussion is taking place at WP:NPOVN so it's best to keep it centralized there. ElKevbo (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a discussion regarding the "oldest universities" article. --FormerIP (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SteveMcCluskey. The real POV is equating the madrasah or Muslim mosque school with the Christian university. Interestingly, the same people never argue why a Christian cathedral school or monastic school, which were the closest equivalents to schools Muslim mosque schools, should not be considered a university, too. Why so? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Except this article isn't called "Christian university". This article is about universities and ought to include Muslim universities. Madrassahs did become universities, according to professor Nasr.[10]VR _talk 01:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You miss the point. Nobody doubts in the slightest that Muslim madrasahs became universities. They did so: Al-Karaouine became one in 1947 and Al-Azhar too in the 20th century. Therefore these institutions should be naturally included in the article but only from the point of time on they became universities. The real point here is rather that they should not be treated as universities centuries before they eventually became such. The problematic claim is that, say, the University of Al-Karaouine is older than, say the University of Oxford, because a prior mosque school existed at Al-Karaouine earlier than a university at Oxford. This is as illogical as claiming that, say, Washington DC, is an older capital city than, say, Cairo on the grounds that the former place has a longer settlement history. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Vice regent, which source do you refer to? I will provide it as soon as I get back to the library. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The source, p.125, says that the madrassahs became universities in the 10th century. I also think the source is scholarly.VR _talk 04:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have additional reliable sources? As I understand the discussion at WP:NPOVN, this is a minority position at best and should be treated as such.

Incidentally, why in the hell are we having this discussion once again instead of relying on one of the discussions already held at WP:NPOVN??? It seems unproductive at best and duplicitous at worst. ElKevbo (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: User VR has been blocked indefinitely as a socketpuppet. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Had been blocked earlier, but was unblocked yesterday after discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review/unblock proposal. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Still do not know though what "p. 125" he refers to. There has been no such page cited here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I recently came across a useful discussion of the origins of the university in a source provided by User VR in the article Madrasah. In this discussion, Darleen Pryds challenges Hastings Rashdall's use of internal organic origins as the defining criterion of the university. Let me quote:

In his magisterial work on European universities, Hastings Rashdall made little effort to hide his dissatisfaction with the studia of southern Europe, specifically those in southern Italy in Spain. He judged these studia to be artificial creations of despots and compared them negatively to the evolving development of the independent corporations of scholars in the north.... For Rashdall the integrity of a university is preserved only when the institution evolved into an internally regulated corporation of scholars, be they students or masters. (p. 83)

Yet this model of the independently evolving studium, internally governed by scholars and protected from external intervention, is rare in the Mediterranean regions of Europe, namely southern Italy and the Iberian peninsula. In organization and function the southern studia differ from their counterparts in the north. At most southern universities we find a close interaction of academic and royal spheres, which in at least one case—Naples—comes close to being a fusion of the two domains. Mediterranean universities are royal institutions that train bureaucrats and supply local officials; extend the political influence of monarchs, and periodically promote the / reputations of these rulers as learned monarchs. (pp. 84-5)

Pryds reminds us of the importance of Rashdall's work to the accepted definition of the university and takes issue with his approach. This is clearly a minority point of view, but it is the view of an established scholar and published in a respectable publication:

Pryds, Darleen (2000), "Studia as Royal Offices: Mediterranean Universities of Medieval Europe", in Courtenay, William J.; Miethke, Jürgen; Priest, David B., Universities and Schooling in Medieval Society, Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 10, Leiden: Brill, pp. 83-99.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is subject to a certain cultural bias

The fact that non-Europeans used different words for things and had a different religion and culture is not really an argument. The men who fought for Genghis Khan are described as an army. Yet they certainly didn't use that word, nor were they organised on the same lines as any modern army. So bearing in mind that we're using English not Arabic, Mandarin etc why does this article define university in such parochial terms. In addition the definition as it stands is not intellectually consistent. The article simply shifts the goalposts to exclude old non-European institutions but include the modern ones. Doc Meroe (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The definition of University is a widely accepted one, which excludes all earlier institutions, both European and non-European. It can be traced back to Hastings Rashdall's 1895 Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, where he set out to distinguish universities from their European predecessors, particularly from Monastic and Cathedral schools. Most historians of universities were trained reading Rashdall, and most research into the history of universities has operated within the paradigm that Rashdall established.

That being said, I have some problems with the cross temporal and cross cultural validity of his model. Modern universities are no longer faculty governed corporations, so if we follow Rashdall strictly, we should not consider them universities. Furthermore, Rashdall did not consider educational institutions outside Western Europe.

However, finding a substitute for Rashdall's paradigm would require a lot of research into the history of earlier (and later) educational institutions and their varied and changing patterns of governance. We can't do that here, as Wikipedia isn't the place for original research. We can look into the scholarly literature, however, to see what kind of work has been done to answer the questions that concern many people here. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that the University of Oxford and University of Cambridge are still faculty governed corporations; however a definition which ends up with these being the only two universities left in the world might reasonably be considered over restrictive. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Clark Kerr's "multiversity" model has been applied by many higher ed scholars seeking to understand modern 20th and 21st century universities although I don't know if the definition has ever been strictly formalized. ElKevbo (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't require original research, it requires a literature search. In fact it doesn't even require that, it simply requires the current definition to be put into context. If it's clearly stated that the definition is as it is because institutions outside Europe weren't examined in the first instance. Then once they were examined, they were compared to a template derived from the original European study and disqualified from consideration for not matching it. Doc Meroe (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you cite reliable sources supporting that position? If so, it may be worth adding to the article. If not, it's original research. ElKevbo (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hastings Rashdall himself is the source. The book is called "The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages" an "exactly what it says on the tin" title if ever there was one. According to the book, he examined the institution in Europe and then he wrote about the institution in Europe. That's the first instance. Then several of the sources already used in this article compare institutions to Rashdall's general template in order to determine whether or not they're universities. See "A History of the University in Europe" for evidence of this. Doc Meroe (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Escalation

Just as grades have escalated, so it seems have the designations of institutions of higher education. Once, I believe, a university was an institution that granted research doctorates in a variety of arts-and-science fields as well as terminal degrees in law and medicine. Nowadays it seems the term is being applied to very modest institutions for undergraduates which also offer a masters in education. Similarly, the Ph.D. degree used to be a research doctorate requiring a dissertation; nowadays one can get a Ph.D. online in pharmacology or physical therapy with no research required. Pretty soon everyone will have a doctorate, as Kurt Vonnegut predicted, say, in real estate or insurance sales, cosmetology, or mixology.Jim Lacey (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)