The Idea of a University

As you will know, I have written about some academics looking at the universities of the past with rose tinted glasses and looking to create a golden past that doesn’t really exist. Thus, when I learnt of Roehampton’s conference on ‘The Idea of a University’ (John Henry Newman’s work on academia) I was intrigued as to what they would present and what vision would come forward.

Now, sadly, I was unable to attend despite a number of the papers sounding interesting. In a blog about the event (which includes a variety of discussions on Catholic-related issues), there is an engaging summary. The conference seems to have discussed the changing face of the university and the challenges to it in the face of ‘globalisation, commodification and bureaucratisation’. Yet, as they point out on the blog, the man who inspired the conference (Newman) did himself not hold sufficient ‘financial or administrative acumen’ (dare one suggest ‘bureaucratic’ traits) to be a University Rector. However, one can easily see the thrust of the argument: that the number of forms, checks and balances in existence can distract from the true job of researching & educating; that defining academic importance on financial income (either to the university or society) can mean the loss of certain disciplines & contributions to civilisation.
This ties into a recent seminar I attended at the University of Westminster where 2 sociologists had analysed their changing student body. Though a little thin on actual data or analysis from the interviews, there did seem to be a feeling that things were better ‘in their day’. They quoted Churchman & King (who I must look up) as saying that there is a difference between what the public and what the academic perceive as their role (the public do not see academics as teachers rather as researchers). They went on to challenge the fact that the public sector is expected to learn from the private and, indeed stated that, central control is “not what the public that requires this at all”
I mentioned both Ken Robinson (who argues that our education system is designed to create professors and not educate the mainstream) and Bruce Macfarlane (who argues some administration is part of ‘academic citizenship’ and should not be shunned). Just as with the ‘Idea of a University Conference’, I felt that academics sometimes we feel comfortable in the idealised university of yesteryear or the utopic vision of the university of tomorrow. We are educating far more students than a generation ago (about five times as many) and institutions which were originally about teaching a few to be researchers, lawyers or clergymen, are now teaching thousands in a whole variety of careers. Universities, once institutions of academe, have been forced to take on the ‘teaching and learning’ agenda and skills have taken over knowledge.

My argument would be, far from being a bad thing, this realignment could be positive. Now I am sure the academics would say that they are not defending the past and that their view of how academia should be is for the sake of the sector rather than anything else. But, if done correctly, this shift can bring knowledge and skills to a new population. The skills gained need to be in today’s context rather than yesterdays (else institutions would only teach law, the humanities and theology as they did in the middle ages).

All this has left me wondering if a pro-modern university argument/thesis exists. When I was at the AURIL event chaired by my line manager, I was impressed by the innovative activities out there but the majority of the speakers were non-academics. Most of the academic papers produced in this area adopt a stance which questions (if not down-right condemns) certain aspects of the modern university with few suggestions on how things could be changed or what alternative courses could be taken.

You see, there are common themes I feel between these ‘Ideas of a University’; at the conference it is reported that Mike Castelli spoke on “The Idea of faith Dialogue in the University” and highlighted four pedagogical qualities for such dialogue:

- Seriousness with regard to meaning making
- Humility in our approach to dialogue and learning
- Hesitation which arises from the realization that our knowledge is partial and contingent
- Articulation in being literate and able to communicate well about our subject and ideas

The blog goes on to point out that these work for all academic disciplines and the more one things about it is true. What I would like to do is prove that these are not damaged by current trends in academia. Indeed, that these ‘skills’ and ‘attitudes to knowledge’ still prevail in academia and that the modern university brings them to a wider cross-section of society.
Now I am not well versed (yet) in the discussions around the university but I would like to see if a justified, logical and convincing argument can be made in favour of the modern, business linked, student focussed university with its insensitivities and bureaucracy. Does a pro-neo-liberal history need to be written? Do 21st century and not 18th century values need to be used to define the modern ‘Idea of a University’?