Talk:Oldest public university in the United States

College of Charleston
Does the College of Charleston belong in this debate? I understand why one would be inclined to add it, with a founding in the 18th century and then becoming a public institution in the 19th century, but if founding date is the only criteria for "oldest" then clearly William & Mary precedes it.

The other three clearly have claims based on other criteria:
 * Founding: William & Mary
 * Charter as a public institution: Georgia
 * Opening as a public institution: North Carolina

And there are several other state schools that began as 18th century private institutions that would warrant inclusion if the College of Charleston does belong. (See: Rutgers University and University of Delaware, both of which pre-dated College of Charleston. Ncjon (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. I think the reason College of Charleston was added was because it converted to a public school in 1836 but William and Mary did not become publicn until 1888. Did Rutgers and Deleware became public before 1836? If they did then I can't think of any reason why College of Charleston could be considered the first public university. And does College of Charleston actually claim to be the oldest public university in the U.S.? Rreagan007 (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delaware was chartered as a public in 1833, Rutgers was later. I really can't think of any reason why it would be considered the first or oldest public university. It's younger than W&M, which has the same private-to-public pattern. It became public long after Georgia and Carolina. If we get no further responses or defenses, I intend to remove it. Ncjon (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

University of Delaware
The question is why University of Delaware is not in the list. I did not find online an information confirming that the Academy of Newark was a private school. In the same time we have a proof that John Penn issued a charter to the Academy of Newark in 1769. One may argue that at the time this school was not a college yet. It is true but from this point a view it is a good candidate for a new category in addition to three that we already have:
 * Founding: W&M
 * College Charter: Georgia
 * College Opening to the public: North Carolina.
 * Preparatory School Charter (which later merged into public university): University of Delaware — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0unce (talk • contribs) 06:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty convoluted category/explanation in order to attempt to include UDel. Is there any evidence that Delaware claims to be the oldest public university in the U.S.? Ncjon (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I work at UD and I don't know of anyone who makes that or any similar claim. (But they do push the "1743 founding" pretty hard, including naming the new student welcome/move-in weekend just before the fall semester "1743 Welcome Days.") ElKevbo (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject SC
Does this article need to be part of WP South Carolina even though CofC has been removed from the article? --96.32.181.73 (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. Ncjon (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Rutgers, CofC, and other older institutions
If the College of William and Mary (1693 founded and 1906 public) is added, there is no logical reason why Rutgers University (1766 founded, 1945 public) should not be...it predates UNC (1789) and UG (1785). Rutgers also was chartered by the state (1766, 1770) and was among the first state-supported land grant universities. I do not believe the Rutgers reference should be removed unless there's a consensus on definitions...because if Rutgers goes by some skewed criteria, then W&M logically would have to be removed.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We've been through this a few times and if consensus changes, so be it. If you're looking at the private-to-public category that would include W&M, Rutgers, UDel, etc, then W&M is by far the oldest. The consensus previously was that there were three schools based on three categories that should be included:
 * Founding: W&M
 * Charter: Georgia
 * Opening to the public: North Carolina. Ncjon (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(1) I don't see much of a "consensus" building exercise in the past discussion. Answering another editor's comment with your observation and obtaining an agreement between two users (basically by one of them going away) without any third opinions or request for comments from other editors does not constitute a solid "consensus" by any stretch of the imagination. There's not much of a "we" for "we've been through this" as evinced by the meagre offerings above. (2) This article needs a better discussion and definition of the subject--discussion on how is "oldest public university" determined? by what criteria are others excluded?...By the discussion of that criterion the alternatives ought to be (in fact, must be) discussed to explain their exclusion. (3) Quite frankly, I'm concerned that the subject isn't stand-alone notable per se that its subject isn't already and better covered elsewhere on other articles. In fact, I don't see much of a rationale for keeping this article because the entire core of it can be addressed in one sentence on the UNC/UG/W&M/Rutgers/etc. articles and a brief mention on any lists of old colleges. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you look at the history of editing of the article a number of other editors, besides myself, have removed other universities, including Rutgers, consistently over time for the same reasons cited in my earlier comments on College of Charleston. There has long been consensus as to what inclusion should be. One of the primary purposes of this article originally was to deal with constant edit warring on the North Carolina & Georgia pages because both of those schools actively claim the title of "Oldest Public University" or "First Public University." This article then created space for further explanation and to direct the editors who wanted to persistently make those changes. Others felt W&M deserved inclusion since it has the earliest founding date of any public university in the country. Your own text indicates that Rutgers does not stake a claim to being the oldest public university.Ncjon (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that Rutgers is older but doesn't emphasize it (they advertise their age in other ways) UG says they're "the birthplace of higher education"...funny that about 10 more major schools can claim that but don't. There are too many claims in this article that aren't true, one of which is that UG isn't the first state-chartered university. That distinction belongs to UPenn. The article needs a rather comprehensive revision because where it lacks causes these content disputes.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * UPenn wasn't chartered as a public institution, which is what whoever wrote the Georgia section intends that to mean. Georgia was the first state chartered public university and it's a minor cleanup issue, not one meaning that other universities warrant inclusion. Ncjon (talk)


 * Also, just because other editors have removed other institutions does not a "consensus" make absent any attempts to discuss it (none above beyond the brief non-consensus of CofC). UPenn was state-chartered well before UG as a "university."  The fact that these issues are not discussed undermines the article's credibility in ways that are by no means "minor."--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, UPenn wasn't chartered as a public institution, which is what whoever wrote that Georgia section intended that to mean. It's minor, and now fixed. The credibility of the article is not undermined by there being three distinct claims to oldest public university -- founding, charter as a public, open to the public. None of which apply to Rutgers, Pitt, UDel, etc. or any private university, such as UPenn, that you want to bring into the discussion. Perhaps a minor explanation of the categories warrants inclusion in the introduction, but the wholesale introduction of universities that are not the first within their category or make any claim to the title is not warranted. Again, the primary purpose of this article was to explain the disputed claims between the University of North Carolina and the University of Georgia. Ncjon (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The primary purpose of the article as you narrowly construe it happens to render the article a grave disservice by that narrow focus. The disputed claims could have easily been resolved with three easy steps: (1) on the UNC article - mention the claim of "oldest public university/first to grant degrees as such" in the body, add footnote explaining "this claim is also made by UG and W&M" with that information. (2) on the UG article - mention the claim of "oldest state-chartered public university" in the body, add footnote explaining "this claim is also made by UNC and W&M" with that information. (3) on the W&M article - mention the claim of "oldest founded state university, transformed private to public in 1888/1906" and add a foonote mentioning the claim being posited by UNC and UG's claims. That consensus would have been far simpler than this useless, lacking article and the disputes that arise from its being useless and lacking. All that has been accomplished is that it created another minefield for disagreement. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your proposed solutions on those pages didn't work. People kept getting into edit wars, pretty much since those articles were created. This article solved that, for the most part. Ncjon (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, partisans consistently can be counted on for dismissing logical solutions. Nevertheless, I'd like you to address the proposed resolution I offered below several minutes ago. If you would like, I would take the day objectively revising the article (taking time away from expanding my intended startup project Hunt-Swartout Raid) to reflect that resolution if accepted. Then we can put this, past issues, and future issues to rest. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not dismissing it, and there's no need to resort to referring to another editor as a "partisan." Since you are new to this article and apparently to the long-standing dispute between North Carolina and Georgia that spurred it, I was trying to give you some background and let you know that what you propose did not work as well as you think it would. I think your proposed resolution is unnecessary and before you go making wholesale changes, why don't you give it a day or two for other editors who have tracked this article for some time to weigh in. Ncjon (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not mean "partisan" pejoratively--only in the contexts that Wikipedia does become rather tribal and territorial given people's proximity to certain subjects--alma maters, hometowns, vocations, etc. If you took offence to that, I apologize. I thank you for discussing these origins not only for my edification, but because it is necessary to get it discussed here because previous discussions didn't offer much. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ncjon on this. The other three have a clear claim of first and actively claim it. Rutgers was not first in any category, doesn't claim it, and we would have to include a whole host of other schools that were created after W&M and went public after UGA and UNC, if we are to include Rutgers. As it stands right now, Rutgers takes up more space than any other school in the article and doesn't have any claim to being first. I don't see how it belongs. Shouldn't we do some sort of request for comment or something since apparently I'm not the only one with this thought. Failureofafriend (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * None of them entirely belong, so it makes the article a little useless, I'm actually inclined to think this article runs afoul of WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BOOSTER, and a few other policies/guidelines/essays and should be deleted with the content better addressed at the various school's articles as appropriate. All this article has accomplished is moving the battlefield elsewhere--which isn't too productive a strategy compared to fortifying the relevant claim at each university's article. Rutgers is better sourced than UNC and GA and, no matter how you parse, it is still 3 decades older. The real battle is within the nuances between RU and W&M, which even as a Rutgers alum I concede W&M has an edge by 70 years, but was later than RU in offering graduate degrees. Six of one, half dozen of another. Still though, this article might be a better AfD candidate...so the debate might not merit a sorting out. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out to you above, when we had this discussion previous, this article has served to make the other universities pages stable. This article, with the ability to delve into the subject further than editors wanted on the individual university pages, was stable until the addition and instance that Rutgers belongs. Your assertion that it's simply "moving the battlefied" elsewhere is not supported by the edit histories of the individual university pages, or the one for this article. Ncjon (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I found that argument rather specious then and find it so now. If it's done well and properly sourced there shouldn't be a problem moving this material back to the respective universities. No matter what the claims of UNC and UG, they're still younger, and the shades of nuance would be better discussed at their articles. I consider it appropriate to do away with this needless territorial article that is inaccurate 75% of the time no matter from which bias you view it from, and neither sufficiently accurate or supportable that remaining 25% of the time.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We clearly disagree. All I can tell you is that if you do it the way you propose, the UNC and UGA articles will be regularly disrupted by disagreements over this issue, as it is a contentious issue between the two. My opinion has not changed that 1) this article is necessary, and 2) Rutgers claim is specious as it is younger than W&M, which is the oldest of the private-to-public universities, and Rutgers does not actively claim it. I don't think you or I are going to change each other's mind on either of those points. Ncjon (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can agree to disagree. A "university" is typically considered to be such when they offer graduate degrees--something Rutgers did before W&M, UNC and UGA. You know the battles between UNC and UGA wouldn't have been encountered if it weren't for editors partial to either side peacocking and boostering with an patently and demonstrably false claim. Rutgers claims being the birthplace of college football--in some ways it was, the rules were a hybrid animal, but that same claim could reasonably be the birthplace of college soccer.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If Rutgers doesn't claim it, then including them because you think they could claim it is original research. Rutgers was not first in any category.  I have no problem with the deletion of the article, but I could see it leading to persistent edits on the UGA and UNC pages.  The fact is that W&M is the oldest of currently public universities, Georgia was the first to be chartered as a public university by a U.S. State, and UNC was the first to open to the public as a State University.  To include Rutgers (and give them more space than anyone else) would mean we would need to include every other school that opened after W&M and became public after UGA and UNC.  I think we should request for comment, because clearly Ncjon and myself disagree.  It may lead to deletion, which is okay if people feels that needs to be done. Failureofafriend (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

College vs. University
Another issue...as for date of founding...William & Mary was a college, when did it start graduate/doctoral education (the hallmark of "university" status)? It is still named a "college" but because it did begin to award doctoral degrees, it is a university. Rutgers could be the older "university" by that definition. Rutgers transformed from Rutgers College to "Rutgers University" in 1925, but offered graduate/doctoral education in the mid-19th century. What about other insitutions? This issue requires definition by research in order to resolve this issue which could impact or merit inclusion. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed resolution
The major flaw in this article is that needs to better explain the ideas behind "oldest university" vis-a-vis (1) some institutions actively claim it, others don't, (2) other institutions are older but generally aren't included. So, proposal: This should be simple enough to resolve previous and current concerns and thwart future concerns.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Add the criteria and explain it fully.
 * Discuss the three claimants in one section (not independent sections) in a longer discussion of their competing claims (for instance, when did each start using it as an advertising claim?).
 * Discuss those institutions that are older, but don't qualify/claim it and why.
 * I think that would make some sense. We should probably use the article First university in the United States as an example. That article does a better job of defining and explaining the terms involved in the dispute. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, I was involved (under a former username) in some of the early disputes over First university in the United States when it was an editor was disrupting Colonial colleges about a failed Columbia-centric proposal for a "University of North America."
 * I remember that dispute. That one became incredibly bitter.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Article sadly lacking
This article should have a clear definition of "public university" in its lead. MPS1992 (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)