(3) Has the University lost its way?

After framing the current situation of the University and discussing the main challenges it faces, this article addresses its historical evolution and the different University models that have emerged in different contexts.

1) An original ideal

The university institution, in the sense in which we know it today, emerged at the end of the 11th century, in Medieval Europe – and not in Fez – from the cathedral schools, with the name “University of Masters and Students”. Its main reason for existence was “the love of knowledge for knowledge’s sake”. The first cycles of studies were not designed to respond to the practical needs of society, and knowledge had an intrinsic value, independent of practical or economic reasons.

The ideal of “knowledge for knowledge’s sake” , regardless of its usefulness, shaped the University for centuries, following a mentality clearly opposed to that of Phaedrus (if what we do is not useful, the glory will be vain) . Paradoxically, it was this free and non-utilitarian attitude that allowed the progress of technology, and the response to countless practical problems of society, since it was this ideal that laid the foundations of the scientific spirit.

From its origins to the present day, the University has gone through different social, political, economic and epistemological contexts. The current University has deviated considerably from the original ideal, but there are familiar aspects that allow us to recognize it as a direct descendant of the Medieval University. Of all the secular institutions today, the university is perhaps the only one that continues to enjoy a high social respect, unlike, for example, military, political or religious institutions.

2) The Medieval University

Since the beginning of time, curious and interested people, with a thirst for knowledge, have gathered to study, debate and philosophize, as happened in the schools, academies and agoras of Ancient Greece. However, this does not correspond to the concept of a University, just as the madrasas of Islamic culture are not considered universities either.

The first universities (11th-13th centuries) were mainly founded under ecclesiastical authority, with a “theological” mission (God, Spirit, Truth). They remained so for around seven centuries, as was the case of Oxford (1096), Paris (1170), Cambridge (1209) and Salamanca (1218). They functioned as corporations of “teachers and students”, financed by the Church, kings and patrons. In the case of Bologna (1088) its origins are more secular. Until the mid-16th century, the teaching-learning method was Scholastic, based on Aristotelian philosophy, harmonizing Christian faith and reason. There was the Faculty of Arts, for preparatory studies, corresponding to the seven liberal arts: Trivium (grammar, logic and rhetoric) and Quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music); and there were professional faculties (Theology, Law and Medicine).

Scholasticism declined at the end of the Middle Ages (15th century), in the context of Humanism and the Renaissance, which valued observation and experience more than classical texts. However, it was later, around the 18th/19th century, that universities underwent a process of secularization and autonomy, without ecclesiastical authority. By the end of the 19th century, most of these universities were already essentially secular.

It is interesting to note that during this period under ecclesiastical authority, the University allowed modern scientific thought to flourish, paving the way for the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century. Universities were the center of knowledge in the West, being responsible for the development of law and legal thought, as well as for numerous scientific advances, such as Optics (Bacon, 1267), Heliocentrism (Copernicus, 1543), Anatomy (Vesalius, 1543) and Astronomy (Kepler, 1609).

3) The University models of the 18th and 19th centuries

During this period, three different models of University were developed in France, Germany and England, which have influenced them to this day.

According to the Napoleonic or French model (late 18th century), the University's mission is to provide vocational education. The University is an instrument for training State personnel and for training professionals with skills that are useful to meet social and economic needs, particularly in the areas of Engineering, Law and Medicine.

The Humboldtian or German model (early 19th century), devised by Wilhelm von Humboldt, argued that the University had the mission of generating and preserving “national culture”. University education should be carried out through research and through the unity of teaching and research. Teaching should be interdisciplinary, with an emphasis on humanistic education, and the University should enjoy academic freedom and administrative autonomy. The University of Berlin (1810) is the paradigm of this model.

In turn, the Newman or English model (mid-19th century) was established by Cardinal John H. Newman, while rector of the University of Dublin, through the famous essay “The Idea of ​​a University” (1852). The model argues that the University is “a place of universal teaching and knowledge” for a humanistic and comprehensive education, which does not only aim at technical and scientific professional training. The mission of the University is not to train professionals, but people, with a broader vision of all reality. It also states that “its aim is intellectual, not moral”, that is, the University should not indoctrinate. This University model emphasizes the teaching of liberal arts, that is, a curriculum with a classical and humanistic bent, which promotes the character and critical capacity of students.

4) Most recent university models (20th century)

Even today, the typical model of most universities is a hybrid that combines elements of the Napoleonic, Humboldtian and Newman models. However, during the 20th century, some innovations, variants or combinations of these models gave rise to other university models.

The field of Medicine was greatly influenced by the Flexner model (USA, 1910), which emphasized teaching based on scientific research and experimentation. He advocated rigorous teaching, with full-time teachers, strict conditions for student entry, and state regulation of education.

The Soviet model (20th century), adopted in communist countries, favored technical and scientific education, oriented towards the economic and political needs of the State, which exercised strong control over universities. There was a separation between teaching and research, since the focus tended to be on practical application and government objectives, rather than on the pure interest in knowledge.

The Mass model (after World War II) sought to respond to the expansion and need for massification of higher education, introducing the democratization of access, the diversification of courses, and a greater connection between the University and the job market, which became an important objective of the University.

The Neoliberal model (late 20th century) emerged in the context of globalization and the commercialization of higher education, introducing the need for financial self-sustainability, namely through partnerships with the private sector. A market logic, competitiveness, pressure for immediate and measurable results, as well as public funding models based on performance, thrive. The action plan is international and rankings are almost idolized, sometimes becoming an all-encompassing criterion.

5) 900 years of history in 3 steps

In short, in a simplified way, the University's 900-year historical journey can be described in 3 steps:

– Medieval Model: Under ecclesiastical authority, the University emerged as a corporation of teachers and students, driven by the thirst for knowledge, with a theological vocation, centered on the scholastic teaching of Law, Medicine and Arts.

– Hybrid model (Vocational + Research + Humanistic): The University expands its functions, combining simultaneously the training of personnel for the State (Napoleonic model), the creation and preservation of national culture and new knowledge through scientific research (Humboldtian model). It becomes a center of research and innovation, but also a place for the humanistic and integral education of people (Newman model).

– Entrepreneurial/Neoliberal/Global Model: The University becomes more democratic and mass-oriented, focused on the job market, with economic activity, creating value through research and start-ups, in close relationship with the private sector. It adopts a market logic, oriented towards results and evaluation by rankings. It is based on the concept of the “triple helix”, integrating academia, industry and government.

All these university models have their flaws and virtues, and they all went further and fell short in different aspects: where there was idealism, there was a lack of democratization; where there was a focus on needs, there was no independence; where there was academic freedom, there was a lack of connection to the job market; where there was efficiency, there was no humanistic horizon or critical thinking, etc. However, these models are understandable, and each one reflects the needs and context of its time. Today, however, things seem less clear…

6) University models proposed in the 21st century

If it was once easy to understand the rationale and objectives of the different university models, today things have become more complicated… There is a profusion of proposals , with some authors suggesting more than one model. On the other hand, the excess of rhetoric and clichés makes understanding difficult. Some examples:

– University 4.0 : with a somewhat unoriginal name, it promises a university that is “a champion of inclusive innovation and a driver of positive socio-economic transformation, creating thriving innovation ecosystems that deliver sustainable, local development and inclusive growth”. According to its proponents, “the fourth generation is a response to a rapidly changing, technology-driven world”. Some authors go beyond the rhetoric to put it more concretely, proposing that University 4.0 should “personalise education”; that it should confer “shorter-cycle qualifications and credentials” in addition to traditional degrees; that it should pay “greater attention to the management of students’ careers”, both as students and as alumni; and that universities should “become physical places for co-location and research collaboration with industry”.

– The Ecological University: proposed by Prof. Ron Barnett , it is a university “interdependent with the world”, which assumes an “active responsibility in multiple ecologies” — not only environmental ecology, but also six other ecologies, namely, “the economy, the ecology of knowledge, learning, culture, social institutions and human subjectivity”. It is a university linked to “sustainability and collective well-being”, acting with “critical and ethical awareness within the scope of global complexities”.

– The Civic University: this is a university committed to “citizenship, social justice and community development”. In addition to its traditional mission of transmitting knowledge, it aims above all to “transform society” through dialogue, direct public action and interaction with social actors. The Civic University aims to take an active role in public life, giving itself the capacity to respond to the problems of the global and local community.

– The Quadruple Helix model: advocates interaction between University-Industry-Government-Civil Society. According to this vision, the university should be integrated into an “innovation network”. In addition to the university, as a producer of knowledge and innovation; Industry finances and uses this innovation; the Government assumes the role of regulator and promoter of public policies; while Civil Society contributes to the definition of needs and “social perspectives”. There is a logic of co-creation, which presupposes an open, collaborative university geared towards responding to current problems. Some propose adding a fifth helix: naturally, the environment and “socio-ecological interactions”, with a view to sustainable development.

900 years of history have led to this type of university model. What they have in common is that they seek to maximize their “impact” on society. This is an understandable and noble goal, but the proposed path involves “institutional activism,” as if the university were a kind of NGO with direct, concrete and immediate action in society. On the other hand, since the focus is on the institution itself, students lose their centrality.

But is this the way to create a true and lasting impact? What will be the fundamental transformations in the more distant future? Will there be room in these university models to cultivate patience in thought and long-term research? Will a predetermined impact not always be limited? Historically, many of the most impactful developments have arisen, ironically, from apparently useless curiosity and the free and disinterested search for knowledge…

The University must be immersed in society, but without following social norms; it must be in its own time, but without immediacy. At first glance, these models seem to propose an altruistic University – one that is outgoing. But in reality, they can produce self-referential universities that are lost in the labyrinth of immediacy – ultimately without direction or relevance.

Regarding the essential documents produced in recent decades that frame the current University, the following stand out: Magna Charta Universitatum (1988), the Sorbonne Declaration (1998) and the Bologna Declaration (1999). More recently, what has been “declared” about the University has increasingly come down to circular and repetitive discourse. One example is the UNESCO World Conferences on Higher Education: the one in Barcelona (2022) emphasized “inclusion, diversity and sustainability”, recommended “guaranteeing equitable access to higher education” and highlighted “digital transformation and pedagogical innovation” — as had already been repeated in previous conferences.

7) When the University is left behind: an analogy with the 17th century?

A 900-year history allows us to draw analogies. In the 17th century, the emergence of Scientific Academies was a reaction to the inertia of universities, challenging their mission and role in society. At that time, the production of knowledge increasingly depended on the performance of scientific experiments. However, experimental research was, at the time, neglected by traditional universities, which still maintained the epistemological register of Scholasticism.

Given the University's inability to keep up with the evolution of scientific thought at the time, Scientific Academies began to emerge with the aim of creating and sharing knowledge with practical utility, namely through experimental research, holding conferences, own publications, etc. Thus, in 1660, the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge was born, and soon after other Academies were created throughout Europe.

The University did not keep up with the reality that was imposed at the time, and, therefore, alternative institutions emerged… Are we witnessing something similar today? What is the analogy? Could it be that today, as 350 years ago, the emergence of alternative institutions to the University indicates that the University is having difficulty adapting to its times? Or could it be that the emergence of institutions that take on tasks of the University indicate that the University should refocus its mission on what is truly exclusive and distinctive?

8) Prospects for the future

After all, does the University still make sense? Yes, without a doubt, as long as it is not redundant with companies, corporate R&D centers, start-ups, NGOs, social service agencies, charities, ideological luminaries, technical qualification centers, vocational schools, online teaching platforms…

The University makes sense, and is increasingly necessary, as long as it is a specific reality and distinct from all others, that is:

– A space for curiosity, reflection, contemplation, criticism, questioning, knowledge and the intellectual contentment that all this provokes;

– Essentially, a space where learning takes place – where teachers learn from the research they carry out; and students learn from the teaching they are offered;

– A space that favors the great objective of the “young person”: to grow and become an adult;

– A space that contributes to forming active citizens, with a comprehensive, historical, philosophical, aesthetic, scientific and holistic vision of the world;

– A space where one seeks the truth – not only with theoretical knowledge (as this, in itself, ends up leaving sadness) – but with the knowledge of good;

– In short, a space to introduce people to the whole reality.

Based on this 900-year historical journey, the main challenges that the University faces, and the new issues it faces, it will now be possible to better reflect on the proposals for the future of the University – which may be left for the next article.

The opinions expressed here are binding only on the author and not on the institutions to which he is affiliated.