Talk:History of European universities

Older comments
This article gives a well-written general overview of the history of Europian research universities. One comment that I could make in terms of improving the paper is that there are certain points or ideas in the article that might make make more sense to a reader who has no prior knowledge of the history of the European university if these ideas were "fleshed out." For example, the author says that "the advancing complexity of society, the rediscovery of ancient knowledge, and the need for professional training" eventually led to the development of universities. However, he/she does not delve further into explaining these factors; what does he/she mean by saying that society was becoming increasingly complex? What ancient knowledge was actually discovered that led to the creation of universities? In another example, the author says, "Some leaders also created universities in order to use them to increase their political power and popularity.[10]" Does the author have any examples that he/she could provide? That might be helpful in understanding exactly what the author means when he/she makes a statement such as that one. Of course, this is just a suggestion, but it might make a reader with no background in this subject understand better what exactly the author means. Perhaps he/she could also discuss in further detail the actual structure of the original universities in various regions, although finding sources might be a challenge. Also the author might want to add certain dates or time periods for those readers who may not know. For example, the author mentions that humanistic ideas of the Renaissance spread during the Reformation; however, he/she does not give dates, so someone who is unfamiliar with the Reformation may not know what era the author is discussing.

These comments all stem from the same vein, that being that there are perhaps some areas that could use just a little bit more development. Otherwise, this article gives a really good background on the history of European research universities and how they changed from their initial creation to today. 128.36.39.189 03:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Jenna Friedenthal

Peer review from Christy:

Overall, I really agree with the previous writer - it was well-written, and the intro gave the necessary brief overview of the entire article. Again, a time frame is really important for the reader to understand what you're referencing in the beginning. As far as fleshing out the article, maybe you could elaborate a bit more on women's "considerable difficulties." For those readers not entirely familiar with women's educational struggles, this could be added. For your "The structure and spread of early European universities" section, I think we talked in class about the shift from merely teaching university teachers to wanting to educate people for the real world. Other motives were involved as well because of the intellectual movements of the time, such as international competition and the development of the sciences (Newton's natural philosophy/analysis takes precedence), which also influenced the changing of exam formats at Cambridge (oral to written), an important factor in the university system that we have today. I can't remember if you mentioned seminars? Again, these are merely suggestions to flesh out a well-written article.

Review by Mike:

Great job. I agree with everything said before me(with regard to fleshing the article out and dates), so I'm going to be fishing for things here. The first sentence in your overview is a bit awkward, so it may be beneficial to change it. I also think you should refer to more than just the University at Bologna in your overview, as you mention several universities when talking about the first European universities.

Peer Review by Aidan: Everyone seems to have similar ideas as to what you could possibly add to your article to provide more clarity--in terms of adding dates and possibly further explanations of some of your ideas. In your introduction I think it would be very helpful to the reader if in your first sentence you defined what a Research University is. A section of your paper that I thought was particularly strong was “The Legacy of European Universities.” This section gave a good sequential overview of the impact that the universities had and did so in an organized manner. This article is very well researched and well done.

Peer review by Tyler Scheid:

Much like the other articles I have critiqued this article has an extensive amount of citations from many sources and seems to be a very comprehensive article tracking the history and the growth of the European research universities. I enjoyed the introduction and it was very extensive for such a short amount of writing. I believe that this is the strength of this article and the concise but thorough nature of the article continued from the introduction throughout. Overall there are no major errors that need to be corrected in terms of format or explanation of different areas of the topic. One critique that I would make is that a few more primary document if possible to find, would be helpful in giving deeper insight into the history of the university. Not necessarily a quote or anything like that but a deeper look into what the life of the university students and professors was like in time that it occurred. Overall an excellent article and I do not think there is much more needed than another few proof readings.

Peer review by Matt

I thought this article was very well-written. The many sub-sections allowed for easy reading and better understanding of the ample information that was provided. Also, the order of these sections is very logical and enhanced the flow of the article. I thought the introduction was a little lengthy and maybe provided a little too much detail. Maybe if the introduction were condensed and the extra information was dispersed throughout the article, the article could be even better. I liked the final section that talked about the legacy of the universities. I think this section is very helpful for applying the topic to my personal life today.

problems with dates
The line "according to Schleiermacher in 1956" does not make sense giveb that earlier Schleirmacher is reffered to as impsiring Humbolt in 1810 (this would make him over 170 in 1956). Further more the University of London expanded higher education in the 19th century (a century earlier than stated in the article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derbyadhag (talk • contribs) 15:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Opaque sentence
Can anyone enlighten me as to what the following sentence in the article means?

"Historically, the University of Bologna, founded in 1088, is considered the “mother of European universities” — established as symbolic of Italian national unity, which detracts legitimacy from its claim as the first university proper. Said contention is challenged by the definition of “university” as a single, corporate body composed of students and faculties of the disciplines taught, rather than as a corporate body such as the University of Paris, founded in 1208, that might be considered the first university."

I believe that I possess a reasonable level of comprehension, but this makes very little sense to me. Urselius (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No explanation till today.Xx236 (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As it stands the sentence makes no sense historically either, since Italy was only unified in the nineteenth century. Looking at this edit, which produced the current phrasing, the earlier form had referred to the claim that Bologna was the mother of European universities as being the product of the national pride of the newly unified Italy.  I'll make some changes to bring it closer to the original intent.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Which period is described in the article?
20 century is mentioned in the article. A century contains 100 years, do you mean the beginning or the end of the century? How did the totalitarian regimes influence the universities?Xx236 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of European research universities. 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/20061206234457/http://www.ox.ac.uk/aboutoxford/history.shtml to http://www.ox.ac.uk/aboutoxford/history.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103231959/http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/pubs/history/index.html to http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/pubs/history/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) 17:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Article title
I suggest the article should be moved to "History of European universities". The shorter title is preferable under WP:TITLE as it is more concise and describes the contents of the article equally well.TSventon (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me.--ragesoss (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now done. TSventon (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)