International Higher Education, Winter 2002

“Pseudo U.": How Bad is the “U”?

Daniel C. Levy
Daniel C. Levy is Distinguished Professor, SUNY, University at Albany, Education Building, Albany, NY 12222, USA. E-mail: <Dlevy@uamail.albany.edu>.

"What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
-William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

In the lead article in International Higher Education, Fall 2001, Philip Altbach makes an important and provocative attack on “The Rise of the Pseudouniversities.” His “pseudouniversities” are for-profit postsecondary institutions specializing in high-demand fields. Altbach articulates arguments often made about these institutions and raises several interesting points. Unlike more zealous critics, he neither advocates closing pseudouniversities nor denies their value. But, he declares “it is time to call a halt” to allowing these institutions to label themselves as universities. Only a rash response would attempt a blanket defense of pseudouniversities or a full refutation of Altbach’s case. Given the surge of pseudouniversities, however, it is worthwhile to engage in debate about how to depict them most accurately. What follows raises doubts about the case for denying the U. in Pseudo U.Much of this debate depends on comparisons to other forms of higher education. Altbach calls pseudouniversities “an entirely new model.” Although it is appropriate to identify how pseudouniversities differ from classical universities, and to make a strong case for certain classical forms, we cannot assume that what has “been at the heart of the university” is what should remain there. Who decides what financial, governance, or curriculum changes are permissible without surrendering the university nomenclature?

More importantly, to what present reality do we contrast Pseudo U.? The bulk of public and nonprofit private institutions routinely and legally called universities cannot all be considered high-quality research universities. By the faculty or research or other standards of Altbach’s true university, woefully few institutions in the developing world merit the name. Rectors of Latin America’s national universities commonly decry the use of “university” by most public and private institutions other than their own, though even most of their institutions are Altbach-like universities in only certain respects. Nor is it just an issue of academic quality. If universities must have academic freedom, then Peking University drops off a list that also could not include any universities of the former Soviet Union. Indeed, the same fall issue of International Higher Education describes the following public university realities: ethical erosion in South Korea, declining public support and increased consultancy dependence in Australia, academic and other collapse at the University of El Salvador, and the neglect of knowledge contexts in African universities. Who may cast what stones about the U. in Pseudo U?

What is a “Real University”?
Higher education is notoriously ablaze with definitional ambiguities. If we clamp down on what is a “real” university, need we likewise figure out where to clamp down on what is “real” higher or” tertiary education or “real” research or training or “real” master’s or doctoral levels or “real” private or public institutions? There is a case for enhanced clarity on any of these scores, but the case is hardly a clear-cut one. Altbach notes exactly that when he poses the question “is there a problem?” This is a complex question. Whom must we protect from what? Recent empirical work in the United States strongly indicates that students and faculty at for-profits do not feel deceived but instead are quite satisfied. It is hard to imagine that many enter the University of Phoenix anticipating a classical university education—or that employers hire them anticipating that they have gotten a University of California–like education. We need much more research to determine the situation regarding students and for-profits elsewhere in the world. Meanwhile, we know that public university students in many countries feel deceived regarding their education and its value.

Altbach legitimately raises the issue of protecting “the traditional universities and their critically central functions.” It is often tricky, however, to distinguish between protecting such functions and simply protecting embedded institutional interests. Legislation to restrict the use of terms like university is often driven by political interests as much as any educational reason. Also, although Altbach aptly admonishes traditional universities not to surrender public missions to surging commercialism and managerialism, it would be a stretch to imagine that such commercialism is provoked mostly by the success of for-profit pseudouniversities. We might just as well hope that the latter give some latitude for the public universities to hold more than otherwise to noncommercial functions.

Government Interests in the “University”
Whatever efforts we make toward clearer labeling and distinctions within our academic work, we should be wary about the political labeling process. Initial surveying by the Educational Commission of the States indicates that most U.S. states do not have separate regulations for for-profit and nonprofit higher education institutions. More generally, compared to other countries, the United States (trusting relatively nonintrusive private accreditation agencies) has been historically less consumed by the idea of officially proclaiming what is what, including what is a university, and this posture has arguably been favorable for competition and innovation. On the other hand, where countries like Brazil have legislated the prerequisites to be a university, they have contributed to the rise of what we might call pseudo-faculties, pseudo-research, pseudo-master’s, and pseudo-full-time academic staff.

Pseudo U. does not deserve a free pass from regulation just because it does not live off public money, and it certainly should not get a free pass from the kind of scrutiny Altbach introduces. Needed now is ongoing research and debate, especially focused on the reality of Pseudo U. within the reality of the higher education overall. Meanwhile, let us remember that Shakespeare invoked the rose not to attack sloppy terminology but to uphold the preeminence of reality over labels.