Talk:University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 CIA on Campus 2 European Universities information template 3 Poll on University Naming Conventions 4 universitas, meaning corporation? 4.1 Relevant quotations 5 How to define a university system? 6 First university on the American continent 7 americocentric, of course.. 8 Sources 9 Images 10 Spam 11 Why I consider this article unreferenced 12 "Western World" ? 13 Criticism section

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. / Tupsharru 17:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] First university on the American 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)

[edit] 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!

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Why I consider this article unreferenced

This 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. Tupsharru 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)

[edit] "Western World" ?

Can India and Egypt really be considered to be part of the "Western World" ? Gerald, 18-09-2006

[edit] 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)