Talk:First university in the United States

Intro
This page is an outgrowth of discussion on the Talk:University_of_Pennsylvania page. Please see it for a more detailed background of how/why this page arose. Maybe someone could move/copy some of the more appropriate text to this Talk page? -Bindingtheory 00:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem now is that the entire page reads like an advertisement for Penn. A more balanced and supported series of essays would be a tremendous improvement.

Moved from Talk:University of Pennsylvania:

 * Funny, I was doing the same thing at User:Dpbsmith/firstuniversity but didn't think it was ready for prime time. I'll probably do some merging and tinkering with yours. If you get there first please feel free to use what I've assembled here and at First university in the United States. There are three problems I see with First university in the United States currently.


 * First, we have to find a way to completely stay away from trying to adjudicate what should count as a university. We can't express our own opinion. And there's no need to. There's no need to "decide" the issue. There's no reason why four or five articles can't contain the true fact that "X calls itself the 'first university in the U.S.'". But there's some good reason for presenting in some central place a clear and neutral exposition of the actual facts that lie behind the claim.


 * And don't present it as a debate. The sources that claim "X was the first university" are not interested in laying out the terms of the debate, they are only interested in presenting a one-sided case in a way that implies that there isn't any debate. It's not as if there were general agreement on how to frame the debate.


 * Second, I don't think this should be a whole article. Gotta boil it down into at most a half-dozen paragraphs that could be a section of some other article, such as University.


 * Third, the more I look at it, personally, the better I like Johns Hopkins. Johns Hopkins is "the first thingy that dpbsmith would recognize as being a 'real' university." I'm guessing that on close examination it will turn out that there's something fluky about those early Yale Ph.D.'s. Not that they didn't issue a piece of parchment with those letters on them... but Johns Hopkins established a graduate school and started churning out Ph.D.s systematically, bigtime. Was Yale revving up the speed and Johns Hopkins just passed them (to be in turn passed by Harvard)? Or was Yale just sputtering out a stray Ph.D. here and there because some department head thought what they were doing in Europe was cool? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Facts keep getting in the way! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Graduate_School_of_Arts_and_Sciences#History — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.32.112 (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Take a look at User:dpbsmith/firstuniversity. BTW see the link there: Johns Hopkins does explicitly bill itself "the first research university in the United States". Dpbsmith (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I added Hopkins's claim to the article. -Bindingtheory 17:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just curious why the word "research" is in quotes? Is the implication that they were thought of as a research university but they were doing something other than research?--Sleeptilnoon4 (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree we shouldn't "adjudicate what should count as a university." or put our own opinion, but we should lay out what some of the definitions are that people use, and we should lay out the arguments that the schools make.


 * As far as this being its own article, I'm not sure, although I do understand why you feel it might belong on the university page. But I do think we should leave it as a separate article for the time being, until we can put it into a more coherent form.


 * Sure. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * With regard to your preference for Hopkins, it's a fair choice, but I don't think we should make a case for it more than for any other university.


 * Oh, I agree. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, the page you made is awesome. -Bindingtheory 17:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Dpbsmith (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You haven't been in Penn's library recently, have you? Someone (other than me) has been going through the older books on this topic. -Bindingtheory 23:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe Dpbsmith is partial to the Boston Public Library. And while I have no clue about whether he still uses their services, I learned from Dpbsmith that the library carries copies of Curious George. btm talk 08:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish I had convenient access to a good university library... it's the thing I miss most from my student days. I don't even get in to the BPL very often, mostly laziness I'm afraid.


 * Btm, you're telling the story wrong. I had commented that Cornell has only about half as many volumes as the Boston Public Library, someone said, yes, but, "You're not likely to find Curious George in a Cornell library, but you will find Hamilton's book on the Quaternions." I took that as a challenge, and found, as I had suspected, that Cornell's library does have Curious George... and the BPL does have Hamilton's book on the Quaternions (which is apparently quite rare... I see that used-book dealers want around $2000 for one).


 * If you do have access to a university library, make a point of setting aside some time just to explore it. Be sure to do whatever it takes to get a stack permit, if you don't automatically have access to the stacks. Be sure to learn the locations of not just the main library, but the many dozen branches tucked away in ramshackle-looking quarters on the fourth floor of the Department of whatever. (Actually, pick a building at random and walk in... chances are there's a library in it somewhere). There are discoveries to be made everywhere. I remember finding the Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society in a university library just shelved in the usual way in the open stacks... going back to volume 1, number 1. Not only was it entertaining to read the actual printed pages on which Leeuwenhoek was chattering away about what he'd found, but I found it fascinating to open volumes at random at several-decade intervals and see how the writing style of scientific publication changed over the years. Before the 1800s it was lively and full of personality. Sometime in the middle of the 1800s there's a shift to the turgid, fake-impersonal, phony-objective passive-voice style. IIRC "scientific notation" of numbers makes its appearance at about that time too.


 * I found a subject entry in a university card catalog once, "Circle squarers" and, sure enough, there were a number of dead-serious books showing how to square the circle with ruler and compass.


 * What, do I digress? Dpbsmith (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The full story is quite a bit more entertaining, and I already knew that the BPL had Curious George — as any good public library has — and I would have bet more than a nickel on it (forgive me for being facetious).  Research libraries are amazing places, and almost always still much better than an online database in terms of wealth of information (it's speed and convenience where they fall behind).  As you say, exploring them is the best part.  Most of these libraries let you walk right in or sign up for a free vistor pass and you'll never know what kinds of gems you'll find just sitting in the stacks. btm talk 03:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Factoid assembly area
These are just note-taking. Anyone who thinks I am trying to assemble "a case" for or against Penn is mistaken. I probably should be doing this on a subpage in my user space, but since I've started here I'm going to continue here.


 * Factoid: Statutes of the Trustees says "On November 27, 1779, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania passed an act for the establishment of a University incorporating the rights and powers of the College, Academy, and Charitable School. This was the first designation of an institution in the United States as a University." Dpbsmith (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Factoid: http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/features/1700s/penn1700s.html says:
 * Provost Smith and the remnants of the old board of trustees of the College persisted in their efforts to regain control over College property. Finally in 1789, the Pennsylvania legislature reinstated the original charters of 1753 and 1755. This led to the existence of two institutions of higher learning and two campuses: Dr. Smith's College in the original buildings at Fourth and Arch Streets, while the University of the State of Pennsylvania moved its classes to the Philosophical Society Hall at Fifth Street near Chestnut Street. This situation, however, produced serious administrative and financial problems for both institutions.
 * A solution came about when Pennsylvania adopted a new state constitution in 1791. At that time a new charter joined the College of Philadelphia with the University of the State of Pennsylvania to form the University of Pennsylvania. The two institutions were joined, each choosing twelve men to serve on the newly constituted board of trustees. It is this institution and this board of trustees that has continued to this day.
 * Two points about this strike me. First, it seems to me that detractors could raise questions about the continuity of the institution. It would be possible to split hairs and claim that the institution that received the name "University of the State of Pennsylvania" was the earliest institution of higher learning to receive the name "university," but that that institution no longer exists and that the present-day University of Pennsylvania is not the same institution. There's even a case to be made that the present-day University of Pennsylvania was founded in 1740, but ceased to exist from 1779 to 1789. Second, medical school or not, an institution that "moved its classes to the Philosophical Society Hall" (i.e. a single building) obviously does not bear any close resemblance to a modern university, nor to eighteenth-century Oxford and Cambridge. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually the more I look into these college histories, the more I wonder about the institutional continuity of any of them. I'm willing to buy today's Harvard as a continuation of Charles William Eliot's Harvard, but is it really the same institution as John Harvard's Harvard? Dpbsmith (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Are any of us the same person we were when we were born? Or even a year ago? What does it mean to be "the same institution"? What if an institution completely changes its charter but keeps its staff and leadership intact?  What  if the charter remains the same but the entire staff changes?  Is it still the same? Serious question. -Bindingtheory 17:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "This straight razor has been in the family for six generations. Your great-great-great-great grandfather shaved with it during the Civil War." "Wow! It's really held up well, hasn't it?" "Yep, in all that time it's only needed two new handles and three new blades." See also Heracleitus, who of course observed that the cells of the liver are completely replaced by new ones every seven years, and thus it is impossible to step twice into the same liver. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Factoid. 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica says: "The university contains various departments, including the college (giving degrees in arts, science, biology, music, architecture, &c.), the graduate school (1882), a department of law (founded in 1790 and re-established in 1850) and a department of medicine (first professor, 1756; first degrees granted, 1768)."


 * Factoid. William and Mary 1750-1799 Historical Facts. Ah. Here's the one-week lead Lloyd was talking about.
 * 1779, December 4: Under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, then governor of Virginia and a member of the Board of Visitors, William and Mary became a university. The grammar and divinity schools were discontinued, and a professorship of anatomy and medicine, and the first American chairs of law and police and modern languages were established. The elective system of studies was introduced at this time, the first such program in the United States. George Wythe, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, became the first professor of law and police, the first chair of law in North America. John Marshall, later Chief Justice of the United States, was briefly one of George Wythe's early students.
 * Of course, since the College of William and Mary's charter requires it always and forever to be called a "college," like Dartmouth, it still isn't a university, if we want to use the official name as the criterion Dpbsmith (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * but right there proves we shouldn't use the name university as the definition. Nobody (that I'm aware of) argues that Wm and Mary, Dartmouth, or Boston College are not in fact universities. -Bindingtheory 21:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know yet exactly what happened on December 4th, 1779. It is quite possible that some official document implies that there is a "university" whose name is "The College of William and Mary."


 * Factoid. As mentioned above by btm, Yale refers to the establishment of "the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences in 1847 (which, in 1861, awarded the first Ph.D. in the United States)." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Our Doctor of Philosophy article is interesting. Based on it I think you could make a case for "university as we know it" meaning "Ph.D.-granting." (Or then again, maybe not). Dpbsmith (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ph.D. factoids: This article gives dates of first Ph.Ds and number of Ph.D.'s awarded from 1861–1900 by "leading producers." Several interesting points here. Yale is first again. But Johns Hopkins was really crankin' them out, and I'm sure investigation would find that someone has made an argument for Johns Hopkins as being the first "real" university, for a suitable definition of "real." I don't know how comprehensive that list is, but Penn is conspicuously absent. When did Penn grant its first Ph.D.? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Factoids galore: University of Washington's History of Higher Education, particularly [University of the 1880 entry on this page. Very interesting. "[Johns Hopkins] founding in 1876 marked a critical year in graduate education.  Prior to this, attempts to establish graduate schools at Michigan, Harvard, Pennsylvania, and Yale,  amazingly, all failed miserably.  Johns Hopkins ... lost its position as the "premier American Ph. D. mill" to Harvard by 1902..."  Again, Penn seems conspicuously absent, or, dare I say it, a Johnssy-come-lately? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins is widely credited for bringing the German model of higher education (with a very strong emphasis on graduate studies and faculty research) to the United States. And of course, this is part of an example of one of the few paradigm shifts in the history of U.S. higher education: the post-Civil War period. btm talk 21:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe what I'm going to do is write a section for University entitled "First University in the United States" and try to glorp all this together into something cogent, while carefully explaining that it's all a game. Nobody's been able to come up with any convincing challenge to Harvard as the first college, but first university was up for grabs, and there's enough vagueness in the word "university" to give a handful of institutions a shot at it. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The idea that "university = a PhD granting institution" or "a higher learning institution that includes a graduate school" is ludicrous to say the least. In the UK for example, Ph.D-style research doctorates and "graduate studies" as we know today did not exist until the early 20th century. Before that, only  so-called "higher doctorates" were awarded, normally to middle-aged scholars, based on the ensemble of their academic work as judged by their peers. Nonetheless, long before modern-day Ph.D degrees began to be awarded, British institutions of higher learnng dating back to the Middle Ages such as Cambridge or Oxford were already long referred to as "universities". 200.177.29.51 01:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Article structure and content
As it currently stands, this article is too close to being a "personal essay" and goes much too far in the direction of making reasonable, but unsupported judgements. The article is really more like what should have been on a talk page. Here's what I think should be done. The article should get two large sections, entitled "Facts that have been used to support claims" and "Definitions and criteria that have been used to support claims." Most of my "factoids" will do in the first section. Most of Bindingtheory's current content go in the second section.

Bindingtheory's stuff needs to be revised so that it is more in the nature of simply quoting and paraphrasing the definitions that universities have used, and less musing on what a disinterested observer might think.

I'm going to put in section titles now, but both sections are works in progress. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

University of Pennsylvania
Re recent edits to the Penn portion of the "Official designation as a university" section:

a) Please do not just copy Mark Frazier Lloyd's text from http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/genlhistory/firstuniv.html into this article without proper attribution.

b) Lloyd's text is an argument (a fairly good one), presenting several reasons why he thinks Penn is justified in calling itself "America's First University." This article tries to separate out the elements of such arguments into their component facts, present those facts individually, and let the reader decide whether they add up to "first university."

Thus, the section on "official designation as a university" should contain only information relating to when Penn was officially designated a university. Lloyd's suggestion that it de facto became a university when it founded its medical school is relevant, but it doesn't belong in this section. This section discusses when institutions were first called universities. Lloyd's point about the medical school is already presented in the section on Establishment of quarternary-education schools, Issuance of any kind of "doctoral" degree.

In the United States, "university" has never had a clear definition&mdash;as explained in the opening part of this article. Lloyd's use of phrases like "by definition" simply don't hold water. For example, Lloyd says "In the Anglo-American model, a college, by definition, is a faculty whose subject specialization is in a single academic field." Tell that to Dartmouth College and the College of William and Mary.

Because the definition of "university" is vague, it is unlikely that there can ever be a definitive, objective determination of which school is "the first university." All there can be is agreement on individual facts. For example, I think there can be agreement that Yale granted a Ph. D. degree earlier than Penn, but it is unlikely that there would be agreement that this makes Yale an "older university" than Penn.

Dpbsmith (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the Cornell edit is silly. The fact that the title "University" was in use before Cornell was established in the late 19th Century proves this. That is one inaccurate source. Just because some guy made a mistake you are going to include it? In that case I have numerous articles that state "Penn, Harvard, Yale and Princeton" are members of the "Big Four" and one article stating they were members of the "IV League." Should I create a "Big Four" page? -- User:Mcorcoran


 * I think it's silly, too. But it objectively makes Cornell a university that have been claimed by someone to be the "first university in the United States." The source is supposed to be an historian, and though I haven't checked the book, I have no doubt it rests on that historian's personal judgement as to what makes something a "real" university.


 * You'll notice that I haven't included any facts supporting Cornell's claim, because I don't know what they are... and at the moment I haven't the foggiest idea what they could be.


 * As for "Big Four," do what you like as long as it's well-sourced and neutral. In the case of the "Big Four," that would mean pointing out that a) it's in much less frequent use and much less-well-defined than the Big Three; b) there's at least one source (Frank Deford's remarks) about there not being a Big Four; c) the college said to be the fourth member of the Big Four varies. I think the case for an article on Big Four (universities) is very marginal. If it is reasonably thorough, neutral, comprehensive well-sourced I would not nominate it for deletion and if nominated would vote to keep it. It makes more sense to have this as a separate article, rather than as an assertion in university article X that "X is a member of the Big Four," because in a separate article the competing claims (and IMHO the weakness of all such claims) can be presented compared. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Cornell
I put in Cornell's note that it was "Once called 'the first American university' by educational historian Frederick Rudolph."" because, well, it fooled me. I thought this was yet another claim to being the "first university in the United States." Discussion at Talk:Cornell University convinces me that that is almost certainly wrong, and that "first American university" is supposed to convey something different from "America's first university." Rather than let this possibly-misleading statement hang there, I'm putting in an explanation based on the remarks of choster and btm, who've read Rudolph's book, and sticking a fact tag on it immediately as a reminder that it needs to be better sourced:
 * Cornell University says it was "Once called 'the first American university' by educational historian Frederick Rudolph." However, Rudolph did not mean that Cornell was the first university in America, but rather that it was in the vanguard of sweeping changes, brought about by with the Land Grant movement which created a characteristically American style of institution: coeducational, nonsectarian, egalitarian, and with a curriculum not focussed on the Latin and Greek classics.[citation needed]

btm mentions [the Yale Report of 1828 and Rudolph's American College and University: A History. I've ordered the latter through interlibrary loan and hope to be able to give a better reference soon... Dpbsmith (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I should note that the quote you've added to this article is in Rudolph's book "Curriculum", ISBN 1555425356. btm talk 00:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Separate section for Lloyd's argument
I still want to separate facts from arguments.

Since Penn uses "America's first university" as a slogan, and since it Lloyd has a quasi-official, short, succinct argument supporting that slogan, there is a case to be made that Lloyd's argument in full belongs in this article. However, I'm putting it in a separate section because it mixes two different issues, 1) providing postgraduate education, and b) officially receiving the name "University," and because it is an argument, intended not as a neutral presentation of facts but as a marshalling of facts in support of a point of view.

The following comments are intended to show not that Lloyd is wrong, but that his presentation is non-neutral.

Lloyd says


 * In the Anglo-American model, a college, by definition, is a faculty whose subject specialization is in a single academic field.

Unfortunately, there is no clean, bright-line "definition" of either "college" or "university," particularly in the United States. And there is no "Anglo-American model" since American universities were not closely similar to British universities. Vaguely similar, yes. Intentionally architecturally similar, yes. He's calling on general knowledge and opinion here. You'll notice that he does not cite any source as a definition of the word "college."

If "college" were defined as "an institution that offers baccalaureate but not doctoral degrees" and "university" as "an institution that offers both baccalaureate and doctoral degrees" then things would be clear, but if you check you will find that dictionaries do not, not, not do this, because the words are much too fuzzy and flexible to be pinned down that way. Let's look at one such definition (AHD4):


 * 1a. An institution of higher learning that grants the bachelor's degree in liberal arts or science or both. b. An undergraduate division or school of a university offering courses and granting degrees in a particular field. c. A school, sometimes but not always a university, offering special instruction in professional or technical subjects. ... f. Chiefly British A self-governing society of scholars for study or instruction, incorporated within a university.

Notice how the dictionary gives four different definitions, which have a vague fuzzy similarity to Lloyd's but by no means a clear coincidence. "Liberal arts or sciences or both." Hmmmm. Both? Then a college is not restricted to a "single" academic field? Or are the arts and sciences a single field? If so, then how come they have different degrees? Oh, wait, some schools issue the same degree for both? But others don't?

How about "a school, sometimes but not always a university, offering special instruction in professional or technical subjects?" Oh, then "special instruction in professional or technical subjects" could be offered by a college without automatically disqualifying it as a "college" and turning it into a "university?"

Now, as to Lloyd's point about the name. There is a very tricky issue that needs to be described carefully. If we accept Penn's founding date and the normal description of its origins, Penn is the descendant of the College of Philadelphia. But if this is true, then the first institution in the U. S. to be formally chartered with the name "University" was not the College of Philadelphia, but its rival, the University of the State of Pennsylvania. Does it matter, since they merged in 1791 to become the "University of Pennsylvania?" Maybe not, but I am not sure this is really the same thing as saying that the institution which is present-day Penn received the name "University" in 1779. To his credit, Lloyd acknowledges this issue (without, of course, stressing it).

Does that make any difference? Probably not, for the only competing claim would seem to be William and Mary's, and they sort of botched that by insisting on retaining the name "college." I still haven't found out the details of what exactly happened on December 4, 1779; the William and Mary website description sounds like it might or might not have become a "de facto university" in Lloyd's terminology on that date. The question, though, to which I currently don't know the answer, is this: when "under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, then governor of Virginia and a member of the Board of Visitors, William and Mary became a university," does this mean that some formal document exists that applies the word "university" to the college?

I'm not being very serious about any of this, just trying to show that Lloyd's argument is synthetic, and presented in a way that makes it seem simpler, clearer, and more conclusive than the facts behind it. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The College of Philadelphia and the University of the State of Pennsylvania were always the same institution. The latter name was given to the college by the state because of Smith's loyalty to the British government. The College was unwilling in this matter but had no choice. Most of the college at the time were aginst breaking off from the crown.

Oldest university in continuous operation
This page appears when you click on the United States in the List of oldest universities in continuous operation, but it doesn't actually say which U.S. university has been in continuous operation the longest. This is obviously a different question from the earliest founding date or the earliest transformation to a university. Most of the colonial colleges seem not to have operated during parts of the Revolution, and some old institutions (Columbia, Penn, Rutgers, and W&M at least) have had gaps in operation of four years or more before 1890. Is there a U.S. university that has graduated a class each year since before 1771 (Dartmouth College)? Did Harvard continue to operate during the Revolution, or perhaps Brown? --Editing 21:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a good example of "gotcha" criteria. Uh oh, William and Mary didn't graduate any students in 1791, therefore they aren't continuously operating, therefore their claim to be the oldest whatever is no longer valid.  07:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.219.158 (talk)

'Requirements weren't then..
This clause comes off as unnecessary in an encyclopedic article: although requirements weren't the same then as they were now

I have removed it and reworded the sentence slightly to make it more objective and to remove some POV. Ante lan  talk  19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no definition of bright-line definition
"In the U.S. there is no bright-line definition of what entitles an institution to be considered a university versus a college,"   What is this supposed to mean ?? Eregli bob (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Georgetown
None of the claims made on behalf of Georgetown are backed by sources cited.

Georgetown itself makes only the claim that "Founded in 1789, the same year the U.S. Constitution took effect, Georgetown University is the nation's oldest Catholic and Jesuit university."About Georgetown.

The History section of the "About Georgetown" page makes no mention of any history prior to 1788, and does not say anything about the graduate school being founded in 1820 or granting a degree in 1821. Neither does the web page of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

First University in America
Although Harvard, Yale, Penn & the College of William and Mary are in contention for the title of "First University in the United States," the United States itself did not exist when they were founded. Possibly for that reason, some contributors speak of "The First University in America." But none of these US institutions could be "The First University in America."

The first university in North America was the Royal University of Mexico, now the National Autonomous University of Mexico, chartered by the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V in 1551 and opened in 1553.

The first university on the American mainland was the University of San Marcos in Lima, which received its charter from Charles V a few months earlier in 1551 and opened a few days earlier in 1553. If a medical school is required for a real university, its Faculty of Medicine opened in 1573.

But the first university in the Americas was the University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, now the Autonomous University of Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic, which was originally a Dominican seminary but received a charter from Pope Paul III to become a university in 1538. NRPanikker (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's actually HARVARD UNIVERSITY. It was founded 1636, and it's NOT WILLIAM & MARY. Gingerandfred (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.228.187 (talk)

RPI
Removing:
 * Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute claims to be the oldest technological university in the English-speaking world.

The topic of this article is the first university in the United States, not the first technology university or the first medical school or the first college of optometry. Perhaps a section on alleged firsts in various specialties might be interesting if someone wanted to make it fairly comprehensive. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a great essay!
I love the way it synthesizes a lot of original research, makes novel claims, and explicitly instructs the reader to make up his/her mind about a controversial topic.

Sure isn't an encyclopedia article! 07:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.219.158 (talk)

Is this whole article perhaps intended as an object lesson on "what not to do"? Next we should have an article about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin -- not just a history of the phrase, but an actual debate on what the number is! Paul (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The topic is the "first university," not the first college
I'm moving this item here:
 * It may also be noted that Washington at Chester, now known as Washington College, was the first institution of higher learning accredited after the Declaration of Independence was signed. The school takes claim that they are the first college in the United States of America, in a literal sense.

The topic is not the first college in the United States or the first institution of higher learning in the United States, but the first university in the United States.Dpbsmith (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Copying in "First "research" university" section
The section titled "First "research" university in the United States" is quite compelling; however, much of the text is copied verbatim from this reference. It would be wonderful if the content could be preserved while the text is edited so as to avoid plagiarism. Tesseran (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE material sourced to university itself
Any Wikipedia editor may challenge a primary source as, well, primary. In this article there is already too much text regarding the University of Pennsylvania, and especially bad/unencylopedic/POV-pushing/quotefarm/ugly/WP:UNDUE/primary is the gigantic quote from UPenn's own archives. This cannot be allowed to stay. Abductive (reasoning) 22:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion and you're certainly entitled to try to make your case but you shouldn't edit war.
 * Why exactly do you object to this particular source when so many others in this article are so similar? By removing that source and the accompanying text, you've not only made an inconsistent judgment about the acceptability of "primary" sources (I'm not completely convinced that source is indeed primary) but you've also removed a significant bit of information that is directly on target and informative for readers of this article.
 * If your only objection is to the long quote then please feel free to edit it. And if you want to take out a huge chunk of the way-too-long-and-detailed Penn info elsewhere in the article, please do so! ElKevbo (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not an opinion; you cannot use biased sources to advance a claim. Even without the pointless, lengthy quote from the biased source, look how much extra text UPenn gets compared to the other schools in the article. There is a WP:POLICY called WP:UNDUE that Wikipedia and its editors are supposed to follow. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course we can use biased sources! WP:NPOV only applies to articles, not to sources.  If we couldn't use biased sources then we'd have very few sources to work with at all!
 * I again ask why you singled out this one specific source - which is also used elsewhere in the article - as unacceptable when identical sources from other universities are used throughout the article. And why did you single out this one specific passage for deletion instead (a) editing it so it would be a shorter summary of the quotation or (b) editing or deleting the much longer and much more problematic section about Penn (which seems to be one of your central complaints about this article and one that I think it entirely justified)?
 * So we're completely clear, my concerns about your edits are that you (a) targeted this specific section instead of the one that is much more obviously problematic when editing this section a little bit and editing or deleting the other material would have been a much better approach; (b) declared this source unacceptable when it's used elsewhere in the article, is virtually identical in sourcing and tone to many other sources used in the article, and is not inherently problematic; and (c) edit warred to maintain your edit when there is absolutely no justification for you doing so. ElKevbo (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Too much weight, giant quote. The UPenn material takes up much too large of a chunk of the article. You can't see that? Abductive  (reasoning) 16:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, we agree that there's way too much material about Penn in this article. I'm saying that removing one quote, albeit a large one, doesn't address that issue.  And removing the quote on the basis of it originating in a primary source is inconsistent with the rest of the article which uses other primary sources in the same manner (and the particular source used in this quote!).  This is particularly troublesome as the quote you removed is a much more succinct summary of Penn's argument than the giant section that is still in the article.
 * I recommend removing or dramatically trimming the giant Penn section and using this quote to help write a much, much shorter one. It's neither necessary nor desirable to use the full quote but a short part or parts of it might be appropriate and useful.  ElKevbo (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on First university in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120322173926/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Universities to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Universities
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060220062014/http://www.wm.edu/law/about/firsts.shtml to http://www.wm.edu/law/about/firsts.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on First university in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102034009/http://webapps.jhu.edu/jhuniverse/information_about_hopkins/facts_and_statistics/johnshopkinsfactbook.pdf to http://webapps.jhu.edu/jhuniverse/information_about_hopkins/facts_and_statistics/johnshopkinsfactbook.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060910183249/http://www.wm.edu/vitalfacts/eighteenth2.php to http://www.wm.edu/vitalfacts/eighteenth2.php
 * Added tag to http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k55861&pageid=icb.page248474
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://grad.georgetown.edu/pages/history.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722203532/http://www.news.harvard.edu/guide/intro/index.html to http://www.news.harvard.edu/guide/intro/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Original Research?
The section on UPenn seems unnecessarily long and filled with original research. I recommend to cut it down significantly so as to not be arguing a point, but as succinctly summarize their claims and citing secondary sources.

It does seem that this article has been hotly contested since it was created 12 years ago, and at no point was it made truly good. Not sure if a topic like this would actually be able to be written in an encyclopedic manner... ChunyangD (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There is some ancient discussion way above that indicate that some of the Penn material may have originally been in that university's article. I have no objections to anyone making it more concise.
 * I disagree with the idea that this article isn't in good shape and cannot be written "in an encyclopedic manner." It's not Pulitzer Prize material or even Good in Wikipedia terms but it's an okay article about a clearly notable topic.  It can easily veer into original research if we don't ensure that material is well-sourced and directly linked to this topic but it's an okay article on a notable topic. ElKevbo (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)