Talk:University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article was a Collaboration of the Fortnight from Dec 07-Dec 20, 2007..
To-do list for University: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    		This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
    This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
    Portal
    B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
    Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

    Contents

    [edit] 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

    [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)

    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)

    [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. / up◦land 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 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)

    [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

    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)

    [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)

    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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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.

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)

    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)
    • Article Nazi university exists. Germany allowed the majority of its Jewish professors to emigrate. Germany killed mostly foreign citizens.
    • 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)

    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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)