When Is A University Not A University?

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by telfax, Jan 9, 2003.

Loading...
  1. telfax

    telfax New Member

    The essential elements of this board are related to distance learning - and all that this term is to do with. Major accredited (and their equivalent) universities (and other higher education establishments) offer a wide range of distance-learning programmes. However, I remain concerned about the use of the title 'university'. For me, a 'university' is about teaching (in the widest sense of the term) and scholarly activity - what some refer to as 'research'. The two go hand in hand. Some institutions that do not have the title 'university' still undertake some quality research but the term 'university' implies a certain 'gravitas' (size and income I guess). A university can still conduct research at-a-distance and many do so via modern communication systems. Indeed, I am engaged at present on a research project with colleagues across South East Asia and much of our interaction is via email and tele-conferencing. But the point is that we are still researching and writing and not just engaged in the delivery of material to students who give it us back int he forms of examination scripts.

    However, I ponder and question whether some organizations deserve the title 'university', especially in the USA. I can think of many examples but will name one or two such as Capella, Phonenix, Jones, etc. These institutions are essentially 'teaching' machines! There is nothing wrong with this activity at all. I have no problems with it other than, at present, much of what is on offer is mechanistic. We have a long way to go to truly create the interactive activity that exists in a good on-campus programme. This stated, I am also aware of students in class who do not participate because they are shy and do not have the social, political and personal confidence to join indiscussion. Yet, many of these same people will participate 'unseen' via email and often in a very vigorous way!

    I just pose these thoughts and wonder if the straight forward Phoenix type activity should actually have a different title such as 'university institute' or 'university college' or whatever. In this way it will be possible to distinguish between institutions that are truly universities and those that engage in some single university type of activity. We have adopted such an approach in the Uk to some degree.

    Just a thought!

    'telfax'
     
  2. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    In some countries, the terms "college" and university, when examined in tertiary education," have quite different meanings. Colleges are often trade schools, professional training schools (like for nursing or teaching) or even high schools. Universities are almost always degree-granting.

    In the U.S., traditionally, a college was a constituent of a university. However, this is not always true. We have colleges that are free-standing, and universities that have no constiuent colleges.

    Another common distinction is that colleges often do not award the doctorate, while universities usually do. But this, too, isn't a standard, for we see examples of the reverse.

    There has been a trend over the past few decades for colleges to rename themselves as universities. San Diego State and Chapman are two examples.

    Degree mills are almost always named universities. This is likely due to the added perception of prestige. Also, they often cater to customers in other countries, customers who want university--not college--diplomas/degrees.

    Universities have 3 traditional functions. First, they teach. A university is a community of scholars. Second, they serve. Universities should be contributing something positive to society. Third, they credential. The degrees and designations they award should be properly recognized. (Accreditation serves this purpose in the U.S.)

    All in all, there isn't enough consistency in all of this to get too worried about the exceptions. Whether a school calls itself a college, university, or institute doesn't matter as much as the activities of the school, its academics, and the value of its degrees. These are the things one should examine when assessing a degree-granting school. But in an age where diploma mills sell millions of dollars worth of fake credentials each year--credentials that apparently are quite utile in the workplace--doing even a cursory examination of a school seems to be to much.
     
  3. telfax

    telfax New Member

    Thanks...but!

    Thanks for this Rich. I donlt want this thread to get into degree mills hype. I still have major reservations about leigitimate/accredited institutions having the title 'university'. The one area tyou did not touch on in your response is that of scholarly/research activity. For me a university should encompass this. It may be only via offering doctoral programmes because the institution, or rather the people doing the supervision, are engaging in the research/scholarly process. However, this stated, it is possible for an instiution to offer doctoral programmes with doctoral faculty an dyet the faculty are no longer engaged in scholarly research.

    I guess we then get into 'types' of university which you certainly have in the USA and which we are beginning to develop in the UK. Within 10 years we'll have teaching-only institutions, reseaech only institutions and the research and teaching institutions. In many areas I actually donlt believe the research, as top rated as it is, is worth anything and we've skewed funding for higher education on a completely false and flawed recipe which academic believe to be the case but are too indifferent to stand up and compplain about!

    'telfax'
     
  4. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I disagree that all higher education institutions should model themselves on research universities. These places don't seem to be very cost-effective solutions to increasing undergraduate participation or in providing continung-education masters level work. Rather than meeting the needs of society for an educated citizenry and workforce, they may concentrate too much on educating young academic careerists to replace the professoriate.

    What's more, if every university tries to be a Berkeley, you could end up spreading scarce educational funding and resources too broadly. It might make more sense to concentrate the research activity in a smaller number of institutions where a critical mass can be attained.

    You are pointing out the obvious fact that not all American higher education institutions are doctoral research universities. We already knew that. And you are suggesting that all institutions except doctoral research universities should be downgraded somehow. That's where I disagree with you.

    On the doctoral level, schools that offer doctoral degrees are already in a different category than those that don't. So changing institutional names wouldn't add anything of value.

    On the bachelors and masters level, you would be suggesting that the offerings of 1200+ schools that aren't doctoral research universities are inferior. That could be tremendously damaging.

    I think that I agree with you. But I wonder if the problem is universal, or whether some schools manage to overcome it. I also wonder if the deficiencies in many DL programs is inherent in the medium or simply the result of a lack of will. Certainly most low-interactivity programs could easily improve by using existing technology, assuming that the motivation was there.

    Of course, this is a question that applies to all of DL. It seems unrelated to your point about the use of the title 'university'.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2003
  5. George Brown

    George Brown Active Member

    Australia has recently re-visted the definition of a 'university'. Findings suggest that an Australian University will demonstrate the following features:

    *authorisation by law to award higher education qualifications across a range of fields and to set standards for those qualifications which are equivalent to Australian and international standards;

    *teaching and learning that engage with advanced knowledge and inquiry;

    *a culture of sustained scholarship extending from that which informs inquiry and basic teaching and learning, to the creation of new knowledge through research, and original creative endeavour;

    *commitment of teachers, researchers, course designers and assessors to free inquiry and the systematic advancement of knowledge; and

    *governance, procedural rules, organisation, admission policies, financial arrangements and quality assurance processes, which are underpinned by the values and goals outlined above, and which are sufficient to ensure the integrity of the institution's academic programs; and

    *sufficient financial and other resources to enable the institution's program to be delivered and sustained into the future.

    Source: http://www.detya.gov.au/highered/mceetya_cop.htm#2criteria

    I do agree with you - the word 'university' is used too liberally, with the purist definition not equalling the so called aims of some universities.

    Cheers,

    George
     
  6. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    OK telfax, tell me what you think of this. Not too far from where I'm writing this message are two schools, both extremely well known and neither one uses the word "university" in its name. The first is Boston College. It is a large school with an excellent reputation, having an undergrad component, a graduate component that includes numerous doctoral level programs, and a law school. They do gobs of research yet they are not a "university." The second school I've got in mind is Wellesley College. As one of the "seven sisters" it is among the most prestigious schools in the country. People brag endlessly when their daughters are accepted for admission. Those who graduate with good GPAs can take their pick of grad schools. They have an incredibly good faculty. Yet, they have absolutely no graduate programs. Nada, nunca, zero, zip, zilch. Strictly undergrad. So telfax, how would these schools fit into your formulation?
    Jack
     
  7. George Brown

    George Brown Active Member

    Excuse me for butting in Jack but I would suggest, in the short term, that this entity would fall under the University College model.

    Cheers,

    George
     
  8. John Spies

    John Spies Member

    I am about to start at Queen Margaret University College in Edinburgh. They have Graduate degrees as well as Doctorates. They engage in all kinds of research.
    Where do they fit in? Is the school of lesser quality since it is a 'College'? I ask, because I am about to send the check!
     
  9. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Just send it to me. No, really. No, no, it's no trouble, seriously. Oh, and make it out to the Council on Accrediting Schools and Hotels. Or just use the acronym. ;)
     
  10. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    I am told that in Canada, a college awards a diploma while a university awards a degree.

    In the United States, there is no distinction between a college and a university (at least not yet).
     
  11. Andy Borchers

    Andy Borchers New Member

    Re: Thanks...but!

    Telfax, Rich and all - I have to agree with several points on this forum. First, the choice of a name - be it "xxx college", "yyy university", etc. is largely in the hands of the institution. I'm unaware of any formal standards that determine what your name is. I've seen a lot of "colleges" become "universities" of late, for example, without significant changes in their operations.

    Nonetheless, the use of the word "university" for Jones, Capella, UoP and the like seems pretty incredible given a comparison to top universities like Harvard or the University of Chicago. The former are for-profit businesses that teach students only (and make a profit!). The later serve, I believe, a far more noble mission of expanding knowledge, serving society and teaching.
    The label "university" may be the same - but no one would confuse the two kinds of institutions.

    As for research and service - these should be essential missions of all higher education institutions. One of the things that troubles me in the for-profit world is the fact that they don't have research missions. I find it difficult to separate teaching students from the creation of new knowledge. Indeed, if one teaches at a for-profit school what would be the basis for re-tooling of the person's "intellectual engine" over time? Scholarship is very valuable in this regards.

    Service is another area of concern that I have with the for-profit crowd. I've pointed out in the past, for example, the extensive services that Nova Southeastern provides in medical, psychological and special education needs in south Florida. For-profits don't do this sort of thing - because it isn't in their mission either. Non-profits certainly have a broader set of stakeholders to serve - including society in general.

    Regards - Andy



    QUOTE]Originally posted by telfax
    I still have major reservations about leigitimate/accredited institutions having the title 'university'. The one area tyou did not touch on in your response is that of scholarly/research activity. For me a university should encompass this. It may be only via offering doctoral programmes because the institution, or rather the people doing the supervision, are engaging in the research/scholarly process. However, this stated, it is possible for an instiution to offer doctoral programmes with doctoral faculty an dyet the faculty are no longer engaged in scholarly research.

    I guess we then get into 'types' of university which you certainly have in the USA and which we are beginning to develop in the UK. Within 10 years we'll have teaching-only institutions, reseaech only institutions and the research and teaching institutions. In many areas I actually donlt believe the research, as top rated as it is, is worth anything and we've skewed funding for higher education on a completely false and flawed recipe which academic believe to be the case but are too indifferent to stand up and compplain about!

    'telfax'
    [/QUOTE]
     
  12. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    I don't think you're butting in as I think everyone can post to any of the threads. At the same time, and I'm sorry to display my ignorance like this, but I have no idea what the "university college model" might be and how this might be relevant. We're talking about the names of schools, not their organizational models. Also, I don't know what you mean by "this entity,' as I mentioned what I consider to be two very different entities. The main idea behind my posting is that we have examples of two very different "colleges," one that fits telfax' definition of a university and another that fits only some of the criteria. It would seem to indicate that the language used in the names of these schools does not, by itself, indicate anything in particular.
    Jack
     
  13. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    I sort of wonder if Boston College would have morphed into Boston University if the name didn't already reside on Commonwealth Avenue? Of course, Boston College isn't even really in Boston, but that's another issue.

    Another pretty good school not far from here that awards doctorates and conducts research is Dartmouth College. Then we have Amherst College, which doesn't award any graduate degrees, but is the top liberal arts college in the country.


    Bruce
     
  14. Mike Albrecht

    Mike Albrecht New Member

    And then there is Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which is neither a univeristy or a college, and offers all sorts of degrees. And on this side of the country there are California Institute of Technology and the Rand Graduate School. Are these not really universities and thus there degrees of lesser quality, I do not think so.

    This is a very interesting topic. In some states (Michigan and California for example) there are regulations stating that for a public (read state) school to use the term univeristy the school must offer degrees in at least two areas (perfer three) with one being liberal arts and the other business or engineering (i.e. must show breadth in the school programs).
     
  15. sulla

    sulla New Member

    Educating is serving society too. And I do not necessarily agree with lumping all non-profits and for-profits in two categories.
    The comparison between a top university like Harvard and Nova is, like you said, incredible.

    I'm concerned with the quality of education that a school has to offer. As for non-profits, I haven't heard many good things about Nova's undergratuate programs and their almost 90% admission rates. I have heard much better feedback about Touro than Nova, and Touro is a much smaller school (and very new). I've also heard stories that schools like Capella are not only very rigurous, but are much more responsive to the student's needs than Nova.

    The only decent thing I heard about Nova is their med school.

    Nova just appears to be more like those large no-name universities that claim to be non-profit but one has to wonder where all that money goes other than for beautiful buildings, statues, waterfountains, etc. I hope they get their record straight and start investing more in providing quality education for their undegrad and graduate programs.

    Just my thoughts

    -S
     
  16. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    What? No pre-- I mean proscriptions??? --Marius
     
  17. roysavia

    roysavia New Member

    to ME AGAIN,
    Yes you are correct. In Canada, colleges are not degree granting institutions. This however, is now changing. As of September 2002, community colleges in Ontario, Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan have been authorized to grant A.S. and B.A. degrees. There is a catch to this.
    If you attend a community college for the purpose of obtaining a degree, your will spend your first two or three years studying material at the "college" level. During your final year you are required to take courses at the "university" level (usually done in partnership with a GAAP university.
    By 2005, most Canadian colleges will receive government authorization to grant degrees. Having said this, I really can't say whether this new system is going to lure prospective students away from traditional Canadian universities.
     

Share This Page