{"title":"哪条路是大学?","authors":"S. Brint","doi":"10.1525/gp.2023.56935","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":91118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health perspectives","volume":"203 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Which Way Universities?\",\"authors\":\"S. Brint\",\"doi\":\"10.1525/gp.2023.56935\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of global health perspectives\",\"volume\":\"203 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of global health perspectives\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.56935\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of global health perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.56935","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
我们是否正在接近大学扩张和影响的全球时代的终结?如果是,为什么?考虑中的两本书对这些问题给出了截然不同的答案。大卫·约翰·弗兰克和约翰·w·迈耶的《大学与全球知识社会》一书预计,随着世界各地大学招生人数的增长,以及大学的知识实践使人类文化生活中越来越遥远的领域合理化,大学和全球知识社会将继续扩大其影响力。约翰·道格拉斯(John Douglass)的《新民族主义与大学》(new - nationalism and Universities)提出了一个幽灵,而不是一个由狭隘的政客控制的大学部门,这些政客意图限制教授和学生的自由,并以符合其政权利益的方式指导大学的教学和研究。在这篇文章中,我认为弗兰克和迈耶在很大程度上是正确的,关于大学的持续扩张和影响,道格拉斯和他的合作者对未来的担忧是正确的。但这两本书都没有关注学术界面临的主要威胁之一:大学面临的内部失败和市场地位削弱的危险,可能与来自外部政治控制的危险几乎一样大。高选择性的学院和研究型大学仍然是国家经济和社会进步的重要工具,但对许多未来的学生来说,即使是那些生活在自由世界秩序中心国家的学生,选择性较低的机构的附加值也开始受到质疑。
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.