The Purpose of University

University Hall at The Ohio State University

A thoughtful blogger, Socrates Votes, asked a question not too long ago: what’s the purpose of a university. It’s a big question (as most of Socrates Votes’ questions tend to be), but an important one. Much has been written on this subject – perhaps the best of all being Clark Kerr’s The Uses of the University. In it, Kerr adroitly chronicles the developing notions of higher education.

Cardinal Newman, speaking before a crowd of Dubliners contemplating the establishment of a new university (see Idea of University), articulated a vision in which students gathered with their masters to contemplate big questions and review classical texts. This vision was rooted in Plato’s Academy, forged by UK institutions like Oxford, and the modern version can be seen in the small liberal arts college.

Abraham Flexner argued for a university that was focused on the training of future scholars through graduate programs and the research productivity. Flexner’s notion was broadly adopted in Germany early in the 21^st century (i.e. Humbolt University). Its foundation is in the Pythagoreans of ancient Greece and its modern representations are institutions like Johns Hopkins.

Kerr himself coined the term “multiversity” to describe the hybrid intuitions’ that are today best represented by state universities. The “multiversity” seeks to provide a meaningful education, significant research and adds to the demands by adding contributions to the public at large to its grand mission. This is a uniquely American concept that has since spread. In the US, the Morrill Land Grant Colleges Act (1862) laid the foundations for the establishment of public universities. In the example of the University of Wisconsin, their motto became “Our campus the state.” Their role was not just to educate and research, but to increase the human capital of their region and develop the economy of their state. This tradition can be rooted in the Sophists of ancient Greece and is now the most dominant model for universities.

Kerr, who was the first Chancellor of UC Berkeley and later President of the University of California system, had a unique ability to offer pithy statements. (He once said the role of a university president was to provide “parking for faculty, football for alumni, and sex for students.”) To summarize these conflicting and competing traditions, he said, “A university anywhere can aim no higher than to be as British as possible for the sake of the undergraduates, as German as possible for the sake of the graduates and the research personnel, as American as possible for the sake of the public at large – and as confused as possible for the sake of the preservation of the whole uneasy balance.” (pg. 18)

So how does a university provide a balance these days? Well most institutions follow a pattern known as “40-40-20.” A faculty member’s time should be divided as follows: 40% of their time for teaching, 40% for research and 20% for public service. So if a university’s purpose is teaching, knowledge development (research) and broader service to the public, is 40-40-20 the right balance? This is perhaps the bigger question that looms over the multiversity. Those whose views are more closely associated with Newman argue that teaching needs to be a bigger priority. Those who support Flexner will argue that research needs more time. Sorely, there are few arguing in support of the needs of the public within the academy (thought spend anytime listening to discussion of higher education within state legislatures and you’ll hear this point loud and clear).

So, what would be your ideal division of labour (yes, I am Canadian and spell labour with a “u”)? Respond in the comments section.