Suchergebnisse

University rankings are 'hot'. Some universities, policy makers and journalists seem to take them quite seriously. At the same time, however, they are also fiercely criticized. The best known worldwide rankings tend, for instance, to have a strong anglo-saxon bias and tend to give insufficient valorisation to human sciences.

Such reliable evidence as there is shows that, despite the increased attention given to U politics by the 3 main British parties in recent yrs, participation in S pol'al activities is slight, & genuine pol'al enthusiasm rare. Outside the party org's, the groups identified with the Universities and Left Review & the UN Students Association have, in their diff ways, achieved considerable success, but this emphasizes, rather than qualifies the estimate of the limited appeal of politics. The main reason for non-commitment among S's appears to be that they receive less encouragement to participate from their tutors who are themselves less pol'ly committed than previously, & that having grown up in WWII, they are not sustained by loyalties established when the party fight was over policies they take for granted. IPSA.

Engagement is the vogue of relevant scholars into the twenty-first century. Yet there are concerns that scholarly objectivity requires detachment from society. The American experience with scholarly engagement comes from Land-Grant universities & extension. The Land-Grant principle emerged from the mandate to the Land-Grant colleges to improve the nation's agriculture. Agricultural science has been hugely productive because of the Land-Grant principle. The principle is general to all scholarship. The Land-Grant principle gives both intellectual & political power to engagement. Scholarship is made better substantially through the test of workability, a dimension of scholarly objectivity. The scholar is also made more skillful. The engagement making possible the test of workability makes the scholarship more relevant. Institutionalized access to the workable, relevant knowledge for those who need it generates substantial political power. At a time when universities, particularly public research universities, are seeking public support for more than their teaching, the strategies suggested by the Land-Grant principle are instructive. 1 Table, 29 References. [Copyright 2003 Sage Publications, Inc.]

Are we nearing the end of a worldwide era of university expansion and influence – and, if so, why? The two books under consideration suggest very different answers to these questions. David John Frank and John W. Meyer's The University and the Global Knowledge Society anticipates continued expansion and influence as university enrollments grow throughout the world and as the university's knowledge practices rationalize ever more remote areas of human cultural life. John Douglass's Neo-Nationalism and Universities raises the specter instead of a university sector controlled by illiberal politicians who are intent on restricting the freedom of professors and students and on directing university teaching and research in ways that align with their regimes' interests. In this essay I argue that Frank and Meyer are right, for the most part, about the continuing expansion and influence of universities and that Douglass and his collaborators are right to worry about the future. But neither of the books focuses on one of the major threats to academe: universities may be in nearly as much danger from internal failings and a weakening market position as they are from external political control. Highly selective colleges and research universities remain vital instruments of national economic and social progress but the value added of less selective institutions is becoming questionable to many prospective students, even those who live in countries at the center of the liberal world order.