University and society: A History

The University of Manitoba has been around since 1877. Well, so what?

Melissa Hiebert, staff

The essence of a university is that it is uniquely accountable to the past and to the future — not simply or even primarily to the present. A university is not about results in the next quarter, it is not even about who a student has become by graduation. It is about learning that moulds a lifetime, learning that transmits the heritage of millennia; learning that shapes the future.” —Drew Gilpin Faust, first female president of Harvard University

The pursuit of knowledge, art, and “higher” forms of consciousness has been a universal endeavour across all societies, regardless of epoch or region. The desire to learn, whether impelled by truth or necessity, yearning or fashion, explanation or imagination, expectation or imposition, preservation or transcendence, has shaped the world not only into what it is and what it will be, but also more importantly, the future of knowledge will shape and mould the course of the past. Knowledge not only has the potential to shape our view of the world, but also the world itself and our relation to it, as well as the very fundamentals of our consciousness and our insight into reality.

It is of no question then that higher education, from its conception up to the present day, has played an important part in each society. While the role of higher education may have changed in function or in design, some of the central ideas have remained constant. Now, in a time when higher education is not only crucial to the understanding of the world but irrefutably intertwined with the basic utilitarian functioning of our society, it is important to examine the current state of institutes of higher education in our modern world, and answer some of the deeper questions about the nature of their existence: what universities were, what they are, and what they should be.

The birth of the university

The term “university,” etymologically, means “the whole” (think: universe), and was coined in the 13th century, but the notion of higher education was conceived long before the recognizable modern roots of medieval European institutions. Historians claim that evidence of higher education has origins in the River Valley civilizations as early as 3000 B.C.. Often, early systems of education were controlled by priests or monks, in order to train future generations of monks. A wide variety of subjects were taught, including astronomy, architecture, medicine, and engineering, as can be exemplified in ancient scrolls and papyrus.

Around 1500 B.C., in Southern Asia, “forest ashrams” became popular models of higher education institutes, which were straw huts constructed in a forest clearing where teachers lived. Students would leave their families and go to live with the teachers (gurus). Here, they would also learn a variety of subjects.

One of the most important centres of learning in the ancient subcontinent though, was at a school called Taxila, which by the 7th century B.C. was attracting hundreds of teachers and students from all over.

In the following centuries, higher education in India as well as in Greece and other parts of the world was on the rise, which brought with it new ways of considering the world, and man’s place in it. In Greece, pre-Socratic philosophers and academics were beginning to challenge traditional views of the Homeric religion, which would eventually lead to the new foundations of western science and philosophy. At the same time, prominent teachers in India were rejecting traditional Vedic teachings in light of advances in moral philosophy. It was also around this time, due to various conquests, that information started to be shared and spread amongst the various regions.

The philosophical tradition

“In some sense, at least as historians of philosophy, (somewhat romantically) often like to think, the first university was the streets of Athens,” said Dimitrios Dentsoras, a philosophy professor at the University of Manitoba specializing in ancient and Hellenistic philosophy, “where Socrates engaged prominent political figures, promising young men, and self-proclaimed teachers of wisdom and virtue into conversations about a variety of subjects, [including] morality, what makes the good life, the character of political institutions, art, love, etc.”

Socrates, who was born around 470 B.C. and was notoriously dubbed “the seducer of youth,” is thought to be one of the fathers of philosophy, and one of the first professors in the western tradition

“Socrates proclaimed that he engaged the people of Athens into these conversations because he himself had no answers to these obviously important questions (on which one’s life and actions should be based), and would like to find some,” said Dentsoras. “Also, according to his own admission in the Apology, part of Socrates’ motivation in his philosophical investigations was the desire to make its citizens, and in particular its youth, better people.”

Ironically, Socrates was eventually tried with “corrupting the minds of the youth” and eventually sentenced to death by drinking a mixture of poison hemlock.

However, his legacy lived on. Plato, one of Socrates pupils, founded “the Academy,” a more formal institution where people gathered to hear lectures. The lectures were taught by Plato himself, and subject matter ranged from ethics and politics, to metaphysics.

“Plato’s motivation behind the founding of the Academy can of course only be guessed at,” said Dentsoras, “but if we take what he says in his works . . . we can say that Plato envisioned a class of bright and talented young people that would be rigorously trained in philosophy and would become the city’s future enlightened prominent citizens and rulers.”

There were many philosophical schools that opened around that time around Athens. Varying schools taught different things, including biology, mathematics, and other disciplines.

Universities were incredibly popular amongst the educated (often, those who were wealthy enough to afford the luxury of an education). “Every educated person of the time felt obliged to attend one, or more, of them,” said Dentsoras, “even if there were no particular practical gain from doing so.”

Though the content of the universities differed, the general models of the universities were largely similar. According to Dentsoras, the schools always featured a master who held the lectures, and all of the schools adhered to one general theory or “worldview,” and uniformity of opinion was emphasized within the school. Students often chose a school on the basis of what school best matched their own particular worldview. Even in the earliest times of the university, universities drew knowledge from “the four corners of the world,” (or rather, the known world at the time), and were the beginnings of a global academic community; a tradition that has become crucial and perhaps at times central to the Universities of today.

Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the Hellenistic schools though, was that they were not only important shapers of one’s intellectual worldview, but also their personal one. “One did not only study in the Stoa or the Epicurean garden, one was a Stoic or an Epicurean, and this meant living like a Stoic an Epicurean. The philosophical schools, therefore, aimed at shaping people’s lives, and not only transmitting some knowledge,” concluded Dentsoras.

The middle ground

These early versions of university-like institutions served as the basis for our modern centres of higher education, but are different from the typical universities we know today. For one, there was no central body that awarded official degrees, and schools championed one specific viewpoint, that was shared by all of its students.

According to the book “Evolution of Universities and Changing Patterns of Government,” it was not until the middle ages that universities evolved into something that more characteristically resembles the universities of today. In the middle ages, universities became increasingly popular amongst the wealthy, and a university education was not only fashionable, but almost a right of passage of the elite.The dominant models of the university in the middle ages were one of three types, including the Bologna, Paris, and Oxford and Cambridge models (with most of the first North American universities initially following the Oxford model). They were distinct in the fact that neither the monarch nor pope had a hand in their development or functioning, though they did take an interest in them.

Oxford was more or less founded by those scholars unable to pass into Paris, and so these scholars gathered in the town of Oxford to study. Eventually, Oxford’s numbers grew substantially due to a dispute between the king of France and King Henry that resulted in the king of France expelling all of the English scholars from Paris.

By the year 1209, there was an estimated 3,000 students studying in Oxford. Since the town of Oxford was not a cathedral town, but rather just a centre of commerce, there was initially no bishop or chancellor to preside over the studies. Eventually, however, a chancellor was appointed in 1221, but by a notably different process than in Paris; the bishop still officially appointed the chancellor, but it became tradition for the bishop to award the position of chancellor to the master who was elected to the position by his fellow masters.

Eventually, more rigorous standards were imposed on the universities, and professors eventually had to be issued a license to teach, which perhaps served as the predecessor of the modern day degree.

As an interesting historical footnote, many of the later middle ages featured an administration system where the students held all of the administrative positions and were in sole charge of the legislative bodies. The presided over things such as the paying of professors and the length of lectures, and even administered fines to professors who failed to attend lectures or did not live up to acceptable teaching standards. However, when the municipal governments eventually stepped in and became in charge of the professor salaries and started to place non-academics in positions of governance, this power of the students waned.

In the early 1800s German universities (also based off of the Paris model) also began to gain prominence in Europe, and eventually went on to develop some key ideas which they considered central to the mandate of higher education, which revolutionized the university model on a global scale. Four of the most important ideas introduced included the focus of universities on research in all different subject areas despite practical application, research projects in which professors worked with their senior students, freedom of the student to choose his or her own program and live away from the university, and academic freedom and the freedom of the professor to teach without government interference.

These four goals as proposed by the German universities combined with the championed Oxford model (which was based off of the earlier Paris model), eventually served as the model upon which the first North American universities were based. Nine colleges were established in North America prior to the American Revolution, including three of the most prestigious ivy-league names, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, which are still among the highest ranked universities in the present day.

Our universities today: Canada falling behind in post-secondary education?

Higher education, which has come a long way since its humble beginnings in forest clearings, has since evolved into an essential part of our global society. With an undeniable linkage between a highly educated population and the prosperity of a nation,more countries than ever are attempting to develop viable strategies in order to cater the goals of universities to meet the needs of society.

However, in a time in which post-secondary education is on the rise and crucial to future success, critics have been recently accusing Canada of not being able to keep up with other nations that are engaged in rigorous discussions at the national level about the future of their post-secondary education.

“One problem, that we’ve encountered, is that . . . Canada, unlike most countries, was unable to provide the basic information required . . . to report on the state of play of a number of [post-secondary] issues in Canada,” said Robert Patry, associate director of Strategic Initiatives and Knowledge Exchange with the Canadian Council on Learning (an agency dedicated to providing information about education in order to improve effectiveness of learning in our country).

A recent report put out by the Organization for Economic Co-operation entitled “Education at a Glance” painfully demonstrated the lack of attention paid to our post-secondary institutions in Canada. Out of a total of 40 countries the report examined, Canada placed dead last in its ability to provide data on the current state of its post-secondary institutions, unable to account for more than 60 per cent of the data provided by other countries.

The Canadian government pumps $34 billion into post-secondary education every year, and yet we have little rhyme or reason in what we hope to accomplish by how the money is being spent, how our universities measure up, and how they will measure up in the future.

“We as a nation, really have to pull our socks up, and be very clear and focused in terms of what it is that we need, what our needs and objectives are, [and] how our institutions can measure up and deliver and meet those needs,” said Patry.

While more or less every developed country in the world has some kind of national strategy for addressing the challenges facing their post-secondary education in the future, Canada currently has none. As early as 1999, the European Union established the “Bologna Declaration,” in which 29 countries pledged to reform their post-secondary education structures, while maintaining the flexibility to address these problems in a way that makes sense and meets the needs of that particular country. The United States has also been developing a national strategy for post-secondary education since 2005, when the secretary of education created the Commission on the Future of Higher Education, which is also dedicated to developing a pan-national strategy for higher education.

The Canadian Council on Learning (CCL) released a report in 2006 entitled “Canadian Post-Secondary Education; A Positive Record — An Uncertain Future.” The report suggested that, although Canada has a great track record when it comes to our post-secondary education, (with a current rate of 44 per cent of people having some kind of post-secondary credentials, the second highest in the world) we “lack the mechanisms at the national level to ensure coherence, co-ordination, and effectiveness on key priorities such as quality, access, mobility, and responsiveness” in comparison to some of the other countries around the world.

“Looking at research and innovation, we already have recognition that the [research and development] component needs to be administered on a pan-Canadian basis in order to make effective uses of our resources, our talents, of our ability for our institutions to perform, said Party. “ Other countries are setting up or are creating quality offices, but we do not have that; we have a regional or provincial approach. But, [the CCL] believes that there would be advantages to look at things like this on a pan-Canadian basis.”

The challenges of higher education: where do we go from here?

There are, without question, a large number of problems facing our post-secondary institutes today that would be beneficial to address on a national level. For one, the rise of corporate investment in universities leaves them vulnerable to corporate influence and research for profit rather than public good, raising all sorts of ethical questions about integrity and academic freedom.

Economic divides throughout the world cause unequal access to higher education, on both a global scale and on local ones. Even Canada (frequently rated one of the top three countries in the world when it comes to access for post-secondary education) has a stark lack in representation of students coming from low-income families as well as aboriginal youths.

Also, problems such as “grade inflation” — the tendency towards lower standards when it comes to academic performance — and “degree inflation” — the tendency of lower level jobs to require increasingly higher levels of education ¬ are gaining attention, with some critics suggesting that the pressure our youth population today to attend university (perhaps, much like our predecessors, as a right of passage for those who can afford it) is leaving us overeducated, and even worse, mis-educated.

At the same time, however, the amount of university-aged students in Canada will start to decline within the next five years, and a significant percentage of existing faculty will be nearing retirement.

“The ability of our institutions to replenish and attract qualified teachers and researchers, I think, will put tremendous stress on our institutions,” said Patry.

Also, Party mentioned that in our world, which is characterized by an exponential growth in information and technology, our challenge In the future will be to simply keep up with it all.

However, while forming committees to discuss the future goals of post-secondary education and national strategies may be unquestioningly important to the development and continuation of a strong post-secondary education system, perhaps even more important is what the goals of a post-secondary education system actually are, or what they should be.

The role of a university in society

“To create, preserve, and communicate knowledge, and thereby, contribute to the cultural, social, and economic well-being of the people of Manitoba, Canada, and the world, and to affirm the position of the University of Manitoba among the best in Canadian research-intensive institutions and to lead our nation in demonstrating a commitment to the education of a broad sector of society.” — mission statement, as taken from the University of Manitoba’s 2006-07 annual report

A quick glance at some university mission statements and philosophies will reveal several consistencies in language. Universities often suggest that their focus revolves around “the pursuit of excellence,” and more recently, “the dedication to serving society.”

In the book The University in Ruins, Bill Readings argues that often universities blindly champion the notion of “excellence,” (or “best,” as in the U of M mission statement), the meaning of which is undefined. He suggests that in a lot of our current post-secondary institutes “what gets taught and researched matters less than the fact that it is excellently taught or researched” and that conversations about higher education should revolve more around what should be taught, rather than how well it is taught.

He also makes reference to the shift from universities as cultural centres of learning towards institutions of more of a corporate nature. The historical roots of higher education (while being only readily available to those who came from wealthy backgrounds), we can discern from history, were predominantly learning-based and was pursued for the purposes of knowledge (or perhaps, fashion) even if it was not tied to any kind of practical application or financial gain. Today, it seems that students are increasingly often regarded as dutiful consumers, forking out thousands of dollars apiece in order to obtain a “wham bam, thank you, ma’am” degree in order to quickly join the labour force and make a decent living.

This quickly leads to several questions about exactly what “excellence” and “serving society” actually mean. Naturally, it is unclear as to exactly what the “well-being” of the people of Canada (and the world) entails. Does the “well-being” of the people of Canada refer to economic prosperity and equality? Does it mean responding to the demands of the labour market by properly training a future generation of labourers? Does it mean medical research that will prevent death and preserve life? Working on solutions to broader global problems, such as poverty and environmental issues? Moulding young minds for responsible participation in democratic society? Learning what “responsible participation in democratic society” actually means? Responding to people’s needs? Telling people what they need?

Many institutes might claim that all of the above are important parts of the holistic functioning of a university. However, many of these goals seem inherently contradictory. The current reality seems that economic growth lies in heavy conflict with environmental sustainability, and simultaneously responding to society’s needs while disagreeing that those needs are truly beneficial for the population as a whole seems depressingly counterproductive.

Wilhelm von Humbolt described the university as a fusion of “process and progress;” an institution that both produces knowledge as well as inculcates it. However, movement away from the traditional, “knowledge for the sake of knowledge” philosophy of higher education in favour of serving some utilitarian end parts with the traditional philosophy of a university, which was “the focus on research in all different subject areas despite practical application.” This opens some important questions about the future of less “practical” disciplines such as the humanities, as well as another important philosophical question: is knowledge valuable in and of itself? Should the reason behind a university education be, simply, to learn?

Perhaps the goal of the university in the future will not be to provide several independent goals, but rather a cohesive solution as to how each discipline fits into a compatible schematic framework that will work not only to serve all needs, cultural and economical, humanitarian and personal, but also work on defining and discovering the genuine needs of the population as a whole, all within the framework of a dynamic and embryonic society. The preliminary goal of the university, then, might be to work on an appropriate pedagogy by which future learning can be pursued, and examine not only its own methods and significance within a particular spatio-temporal framework, but also the temperament of that framework, as well as the very nature and function of knowledge itself.