November 20052005年11月

島大学

高等教育研究開発センター
ISBN 4-902808-04-8

Senba, Yasuhara, and Hata広The Idea of a University in Historical Perspective Germany, Britain, USA, and Japan

歴史的視座からみた大学理念― ドイツ・イギリス・アメリカ・日本 ―Reviews in Higher Education 84

高 等 教 育 研 究 叢 書 84

Reviews in Higher Education 84

The Idea of a University in Historical Perspective
Germany, Britain, USA, and Japan

Edited by
Katsuya Senba, Yoshihito Yasuhara, and Takashi Hata

I
R
E
H

RESEARCH INSTITUE FOR
H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N
HIROSHIMA UIVERSITY

Reviews in Higher Education, No. 84
The Idea of a University in Historical Perspective
Germany, Britain, USA, and Japan
Edited by Katsuya Senba, Yoshihito Yasuhara, and Takashi Hata
Published by:

Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University
1-2-2, Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima, 739-8512, Japan
TEL: +81-82-424-6240, FAX: +81-82-422-7104
http://en.rihe.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/
Printed by:

Nishiki Print Inc.
7-5-33, Shoko Center, Nishi-ku, Hiroshima, 733-0833, Japan
TEL: +81-82-277-6954, FAX: +81-82-278-6954
November 2005
ISBN 4-902808-04-8

The Idea of a University in Historical Perspective
Germany, Britain, USA, and Japan
Reviews in Higher Education, No. 84, November 2005

Contents
Preface ··································································································································· ⅰGermany
The Recent Trends of Historical Research on the Founding of Berlin University
and Humboldt's Idea of a University
Masahide Miyasaka ············· 1
Historical Development of the German Idea of “the University”:
Comment on Professor Miyasaka’s Paper
Akiro Beppu ························· 11

Britain
University Reform and the Idea of a University in Victorian Britain
Lawrence Goldman ············ 19
University Reform and the Idea of a University in Victorian Britain:
Comment on Dr. Goldman’s Paper
Yoshihito Yasuhara ············ 32

USAThe History of American Professional Education
Jurgen Herbst ····················· 37
Rethinking American Professional Education:
Comment on Professor Herbst’s Paper
Toshichika Miyata ·············· 46

JapanAmerican Graduate School: Professional Training vs. Research Originality
Shigeru Nakayama ············ 49
How has Japan Introduced the Notion of a “University”?
Takashi Hata ······················ 53

Concluding Remarks
The Modernisation, State Principles and Specialisation of the University:
Comments in Perspective of “Evaluation”
Masao Terasaki ················· 65
The Coexistence of Several Ideas of a University
Kaoru Narisada ··················· 79

Outline of Conference ·········································································································· 85

Preface

This report is mainly compiled from the papers presented at the 24th annual conference of theJapanese Society for Historical Studies on Higher Education held at Hiroshima University from 23rd
to 25th November, 2001.
The main theme of the conference was “The Idea of a University in Historical Perspective”.
Today, with “university reform” advancing at such a rapid speed, we recognise how important it is tolook once more back in history at the question of “what is a university?” both as a subject of historicalresearch on the university and as a practical matter of university reform. These days, the focus of
discussion is on the various problems universities are facing, such as the evaluation of universities,
reorganisation and integration, efficient management, co-operation with industry, the ways to deal
with the IT revolution, and so on. However, it is difficult to say whether the essential problems of“why does the university exist?” and “what is a university after all?”, which lie at the heart of the
problems of reform of a university, have necessarily been sufficiently discussed. It is even possible
to say that contemporary university reforms are, as it were, “reforms without ideas and ideals”.
Leaving aside the absence or presence of ideas and ideals and of their necessity, it is obvious thatthe university reform taking place not only in Japan, but also simultaneously in every country all over
the world, is a contemporary common issue. When considering the present state of contemporary
university reform, it is essential to examine the historical development of the “idea of a university”
from an international viewpoint. To this end, we invited Dr. Lawrence Goldman from the UK andProfessor Jurgen Herbst from the USA. We discussed the four cases of Germany, Britain, the USA
and Japan since the 19th century. Even now, four years after the conference took place, the deeplyinteresting papers and debates rich in suggestions have not lost any of their color.
The editing of this report required a few alterations and corrections to place Professor Miyasaka’s
paper on Germany at the beginning, which differs from the order of the programme of the conference.
This is due to the fact that the history of the idea of a university since the early 19th century has beendeveloped with Humboldt’s idea at the center. This report is structured so as to place comments
after each of the papers on Germany, Britain, the USA and Japan and there are general comments at
the end summarising the whole papers.

iLastly, we would like to convey our heartfelt apologies to all of the participants who submitted
their papers some time ago, for the considerable time taken for this report to come to publication
because of various reasons. We would also like to express our deepest gratitude to Ms. Lynn
Harrison who kindly took the trouble of translating the papers presented in Japanese into English, and
Ms. Miharu Otono for her great help in the editing.
June 2005
Katsuya Senba
Yoshihito Yasuhara
Takashi Hataii

GERMANYThe Recent Trends of Historical Research on the Founding of
Berlin University and Humboldt’s Idea of a University
Masahide Miyasaka∗

1. Introduction
When talking about modern universities and the education and research in universities inGermany these days, it is necessary to consider Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1830), the renowned
founder of Berlin University, as the ideological source.
Humboldt’s idea of a university conferred identity on the German university model of the 19th
century onwards; and the model of the modern German university, and its education and researchphilosophy, which arose from that, is still even now internationally renowned and often quoted as thefundamental ideology of a university.
Humboldt’s idea of a university was embodied in the establishment of Berlin University in 1810,
and consequently this has come to be regarded as the first time a modern university (Klassische
Universität) was established in Germany. When Berlin University was founded in 1810, Humboldt
had already resigned as Prussian Minister for Education, but it is thought that the greater part although not all - of the fundamental philosophy behind the founding was based on New Humanism(Neue Humanisumus) rooted in Humboldt’s original ideas.
Below are some points essential to the consideration of Humboldt’s new humanistic idea of auniversity:
1. The unification of research and education;
2. The freedom of research and education;
3. Academic research not involving a utilitarian nature;
4. The evaluation of a university as a research institute;
5. Human character building through study.
The idea has spread out throughout the world, and even now is being adopted as a fundamental
idea in various countries. An international seminar “Humboldt International, the Export of the∗Professor of Humanities, Nagasaki Junshin Catholic University

1German University Model in the 19th and 20th Centuries”, co-sponsored by the Department ofHistory, Medieval History, University of Bern and the Society for University History and Science(Gesellschaft für Universitäts- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte, GUW), was held from 26th October to
1st November 1999 in the mountain village of Sigriswil in Bern Canton, Switzerland. At thisseminar, there was much lively discussion about what exactly was Humboldt’s idea of a university,
which still holds much influence as a fundamental idea for a university; and about what the Germanstyle model for a university entailed, especially the Berlin University model , which has been adopted
as a model for universities founded in various countries from the latter half of the 19th century to thefirst half of the 20th century; and also about how this university model and its fundamental ideas havebeen accepted into Western and Japanese society.
Those reports and discussions have been published in a collection of essays under the same title
as the recent seminar held in Basel, Switzerland.1 I would like to consider two themes from thedebates and reports from the international seminar in this report.
The first theme refers to the actual research on Humboldt’s participation in the founding of
Berlin University; and the second is about the establishment and transformation of Humboldt’s idea ofa university in Germany.
These two themes are not just important in understanding Humboldt’s character and his way of
thinking, but also in comprehending how Humboldt’s idea of a university and the modern German
university model - said to have developed from the founding of Berlin University - are connected tothe historical development of university organisations and philosophy over the 19th and 20th centuries
in Germany.

2. Historical Research on the Creation of Universities in 19th Century Germany andHumboldt’s Idea of a University
To begin with, I will look at the historical research on the creation of universities in 19th century
Germany and Humboldt’s idea of a university.
In recent years, based on a careful investigation of research materials, many topics have come tobe reexamined, including among them Wilhelm von Humboldt’s participation in the founding of
Berlin University; how his idea of a university has been reflected in the establishment andmanagement of Berlin University, and what the characteristics of Berlin University are, which is themodel for modernised universities in Germany.
1

I would like to introduce the details of that

Reiner Christoph Schwinges (hrsg.): “Humboldt International, Der Export des deutschen Universitätmodells im 19. und 20.
Jarhundert”, Schwabe & Co. AG, Basel, 2001.

2

investigation in this report, centering on the important works of Professor Dr. Rüdiger vom Bruch of
Department of History, Humboldt University of Berlin and Professor Silvia Paletschek of the
Department of History, University of Tübingen.2
2-1 The Details of the Establishment of Berlin University and the Historical Background
When comparing the ideas of the founding and the organisational structure of various universitiesof that time period, we find that Berlin University is a university of much originality. The reform of
the traditional German “family university” (Familienuniversität) to a full-scale “research university”(Forschungsuniversität) can be said to have accelerated with the formation of Berlin University.3
Indeed, Berlin University has played a central role in German higher education and scientificresearch since Berlin became the capital of the German Empire in 1870 from the latter half of the 19th
century to the Second World War.
When considering why Berlin University has achieved such a rapid development with its shorthistory and tradition, compared with other universities founded in the German Federation, we noticethat the reasons are closely connected to its location. Berlin University, as is widely known, was thefirst university to be founded in a big city in the German region just before the Holy Roman Empire
collapsed in the 19th century. German universities before the founding of Berlin University were
mostly established in small cities in the provinces. Berlin was the first city-scale university.
There were many complications when Berlin was chosen as the construction site for a new
institute of higher education inside Prussian territory, and Professor vom Bruch points out that inaddition, there was a series of historical coincidences.4 I would like to quote from Professor vom
2

The reexamination of Humboldt’s participation in the founding of Berlin University and the formation of his philosophy of theuniversity was taken up as the principal theme at the international seminar of modern German research institutes at the Johns
Hopkins University (USA) in 1995. The conclusions of that debate are published in Mitchell G. Ash, German Universities:
Past and Future. Crisis or Renewal?, Bergham Books, New York/Oxford, 1997, and in the German edition, Mitchell G. Ash(Hg.): “Mythos Humboldt: Vergangenheit und Zukunft der deutschen Universität”, Wien, Köln, Weimar, 1999. The following
essays are important in casting doubt on whether Humboldt’s philosophy of the university was actually his own original idea;- Rüdiger vom Bruch: ‘Langsamer Abschied von Humboldt? Etappen deutscher Universitätsgeschichte 1810-1945’, Ash(Hg.): a.a.O., 1999, S.29-57.
- Ders.: ‘Die Gründung der Berliner Universität’, Schwinges (Hg.): a.a.O., 2001, S.53-74.
- Sylvia Paletschek: ‘Verbreitete sich ein ‚Humboldt’sches Modell’ an den deutschen Universitäten im 19. Jahrhundert?’,Schwinges (Hg.): a.a.O., 2001, S.75-104.
- Peter Lundgreen: ‘Mythos Humboldt in der Gegenwart: Lehre - Forschung - Selbstverwaltung’, Ash (Hg.): a.a.O., 1999,
S.145-169.
- Marita Baumgarten: ‘Professoren- und Universitätsprofile im Humboldt’schen Modell 1810-1914’, Schwinges (Hg.): a.a.O.,
2001, S.105-130.
In this report, I chiefly refer to Rüdiger vom Bruch (2001) and Sylvia Paletschek (2001).
3
vgl.: Peter Morauw, ‘Universitäten, Gelehrte und Gelehrsamkeit in Deustschland vor und um 1800’, Schwinges (Hg.): a.a.O.,
2001, S.17-31.
4
Rüdiger vom Bruch: a.a.O., 2001, S.56-61.

3

Bruch’s essay below, and outline simply the details of the establishment of a new university in Berlin.
First of all, the discussion about establishing a new institute of higher education in Berlin had
already started at the end of the 18th century. It is said that the first proposal known to the world to
set up an institute of higher education in Berlin was drawn up by the Berlin editor Friedrich Gidike in
1778. His proposal was to integrate two powerful universities in Prussia, Frankfurt University andHalle University located on the banks of the River Oder, to make a new institute of higher education
in Berlin. However, because the religious denominations of the two universities were completely
different, it would have been virtually impossible to merge them. After that, in 1798, Ludwig von
Massow, Minister of Justice for the Prussian Empire, released a plan to integrate technical colleges
and practical colleges to place a new institute of higher research in Berlin. His plan of integration
was approved by the Prussian government in 1800, but when it was about to be put into practice in
1802, it was heavily criticised by people from various walks of life.

Due to these kinds ofcircumstances, setting up a university in Berlin was not easy.
After that, it is said that Schleiermacher, who played an important role in the establishment of
Berlin University, was also skeptical about the founding of an institute of higher research in Berlin.
In his 1808 essay “Thoughts on the Significance of German Universities” (Gelegentliche Gedankenüber Universitäten in deutschen Sinne), he proposed that the university be situated not in Berlin, but inHavelberg, a provincial city close to the border.5 According to Professor vom Bruch, the reason he
was skeptical of Berlin was that Berlin already had many research institutes other than universities,
and even if a new educational institute was built, there was a possibility that they would not be able togather enough students; and also that prices in Berlin were high and the financial burden on students
would be heavy. In addition, he gave voice to the apprehension that living in a big city would lead tothe moral downfall of students.6 Incidentally, according to Professor Paletschek’s research, althoughthroughout the 19th century there were many discussions on establishing a university in a big city, inthe first half of the 19th century the comments were decidedly skeptical, but in the latter half,comments recommending a city-scale university increased greatly.7
The first direct opportunity to set up a new university in Berlin was the defeat of Prussia in the
Napoleonic Wars and the Treaty of Tilsit, concluded in 1807.

According to the treaty, Halle

University, which had been an important institute of higher education in Prussia, became part of theWestfalen territory, and Berlin became one of the emergency refuge areas for academic researchwhich up to then had taken place at Halle University. It became highly necessary to establish a new5

ebenda, S.59.
ebenda, S.59f.
7
Sylvia Paletschek: a.a.O., 2001, S. 81f.
6

4

institution of higher education in Prussia to secure educational and research functions.
The establishment of Berlin University in 1810 shows strongly the character of society and thepolicies necessary to rebuild the Prussian state system after the defeat in the Napoleonic Wars. As aresult, the newly founded Berlin University was different from traditional German universities of thepast because of state-led university management.
So what were the advantages of constructing a university in a big city? The biggest advantage
would have been the ease of co-operation between various research institutes and cultural facilities
already established in the same city. In Berlin University, it was planned right from the start thatpeople assigned to the science academies and research institutes would give lectures at the university.
In 1809 when Humboldt presented his plan to establish a university to the Prussian Emperor, he
proposed that the university and the science academies should interchange personnel. Due to this,from when Berlin University was first established, it was able to incorporate cutting-edge research
into its university classes and research. The origin of this is “the solidarity between research andeducation”, part of Humboldt’s idea of a university. However, the close co-operation between
universities, science academies and research institutes had not been thought up by Humboldt, it had
been suggested by something already put into practice by Göttingen University. In addition to this,the university offered posts to capable researchers from outside of the university, and had a system of
appointing private lecturers (Privat Dozent), set up in order to lecture and guide students, but thissystem was not unique to Berlin University, and had already been put into practice at Göttingen
University.8
2-2 The Organisation of Berlin University and Humboldt’s Idea of a University
The next point is about how Humboldt’s idea of a university is reflected in the management andorganisational structure of Berlin University.
First of all, according to Professor Paletschek’s research on the university regulations from when
Berlin University was first founded, the purpose of university education at Berlin University, as statedin the university regulations, is for young people who have completed general education andspecialised education to complete a consistent education through lectures and seminars, and to train
capable people to be able to play an active role in various fields in the state and in the church. Thus,
it had a clear and specific purpose: to train able people to lead organisations and become the root of
8

ebenda, S.78ff. S.91, Anm. 32. According to Max Lenz, the appointing of private lecturers was permitted under the 1799
Ingolstadt University Regulations, and was allowed in Heidelberg University (1803), Landsfut Univeristy (1804) and Halle
University (1804).

5

state systems such as the state or church, or social systems, not to build character as advocated by the“general education” of Humboldt. The university regulations are said to have been principally
created by Schleiermacher’s basic philosophy towards education.9
Next, let us consider the influence Humboldt’s idea of a university had on the organisation of theuniversity.

What is especially conspicuous is the composition of teaching staff.

One of its

characteristics is that most of the scholars who became teachers at Berlin University and its
researchers belonged to other research institutes in Berlin. The researchers assigned to science
academies and research institutes at Berlin University had the right to give lectures from the beginning,
so young researchers, who stood at the forefront of research, were able to carry out research education
at the university. Due to this, the education and research at the university was lively and provided a
dynamically rapid university development.
The autonomic nature of the research institutes (Institüt) and seminars (Seminar) at the core of
Berlin University’s educational research organisation were to a certain extent respected, as Humboldt
had advocated, but in the end, the government held appointive power over instructors, and state
control was maintained. Although Humboldt himself endorsed the autonomy of education andresearch organisations inside the university, he did not touch upon the vesting of appointive power for
instructors.

As you can see, the right of self-government conferred on Germany’s traditional

universities was never bestowed on Berlin University.
The next point is the organisational structure of the university.

Professor Paletschek has

concluded that the organisational structure of Berlin University fundamentally followed the existing
old traditional university structure.10 Specifically, it was modeled on the organisation of Göttingen
University and Halle University, innovative universities of the 18th century. For its departmental
structure, it adopted the traditional four-faculty system of theology, law, medical science andphilosophy. From when it was first founded, Berlin University emphasised the superiority of thephilosophy department over the other three departments, based on the New Humanism of Humboldt
and Schleiermacher and others, but in actual university management, the superiority of the philosophy
department was never established. Far from that, much controversy occurred within the philosophy
department because of the specialising, separation and growth of the natural science and economics
departments, which had been part of the philosophy department and the medical science department.
Moreover, Humboldt suggested that the university should have its own individual domain(Domene) as the traditional financial base of the university, and rely on this as its financial system.
This shows us that Humboldt was seeking the same kind of base system for the university as those
910

ebenda, S.79.
ebenda, S.79f.

6

that had previously existed in traditional universities, and also is thought to be a manifestation of his
intention of its being financially independent from the state. However, Berlin University had a fundof government investment as its financial base, the same as other modern German universities, andHumboldt’s proposals were never realised. This financial support from the state has increased year
by year, and has played an important role in the growth of Berlin University.
2-3 The Historical Development of Humboldt’s Idea of a University
Next I would like to consider the second theme of when Humboldt’s idea of a university started
to play an important role in giving identity to German universities.
It is said that the book in which Humboldt’s university plan is outlined in most detail is “About
the inner and outer organisation of institutions of higher science in Berlin” (Über die innere undäußere Organisation der höheren wissenschaftlichen Anstalten in Berlin). However, this book was
discovered and published in 1900. Therefore, it was not until the 20th century that the “Humboldtianidea of a university” became widely known and quoted inside and outside of Germany.11
The 100th anniversary events of the founding of Berlin University in 1910 played an importantrole in the formation of the so-called “Humboldtian idea of a university”, as well as “the Humboldt
model”. In that year, various anniversary lectures and publications were issued, and generally
speaking, the development of Berlin University over the previous 100 years was taken to be positive.
It is said that “the traditional creation of Berlin University” was consciously carried out at that time.
The philosopher and specialist in education, Edward Spranger, who was a private lecturer at Berlin
University at that time, and who later became a professor, was one person who played a part in this.12
Spranger claimed that the 100 years of growth of Berlin University was due to the introduction of themodern philosophy of the university based on Humboldt’s New Humanism, and the university model.
In addition to this, Schleiermacher, Fichte and Steffens amongst others published books in succession
from 1910 to 1920. At the same time as the thoughts of these intellectuals, who participated in thefounding of Berlin University, became known to the world, the debate over the basic philosophy ofthe existence of the university became more serious. Spranger’s interpretation of Humboldt isthought to have proved useful in legitimising the context of the university as a research institution,
starting with basic research, which had rapidly developed, especially in the field of natural science.
From this, Professor Paletschek says that the earliest time Humboldt’s idea of a university as a11
12ebenda, 100.
The most representative research on Humboldt by Spranger is “Wilhelm von Humboldt und die Reform des Bidungswesens”,
Berlin, 1910. Ders.: “Wilhelm von Humboldt und die Umanitätsidee”, Berlin, 1901.

7

“Humboldtian university” or a “Humboldt model” was used with clear concept stipulations was after
1920.13
In the 20th century, Humboldt’s idea of a university as a “Humboldtian university” or a
“Humboldt model” was repeatedly used, as if his idea of a university had been accepted into allGerman universities as a basic philosophy. It is thought that another background social phenomenon
has also actively contributed to this change, apart from Spranger’s research on Humboldt.
This is the university reforms of the 1960s, correlated with the influence of the theory of theuniversity published by German intellectuals.

One of the representative figures was Helmut

Schelsky. Schelsky, as is well-known, published Solitude and Freedom of the University: German
University and the Shape of Reform and Idea (Einsamkeit und Freiheit: Idee und Gestalt derdeutschen Universität und ihrer Reformen) in 1963, and circulated his re-interpretation of Humboldt’s
New Humanism throughout the world.14 It is said that the background behind the publication of
Schelsky’s book is that he himself was actually heavily involved in the university reforms. 15
Professor Paletschek points out that most of the books written about Humboldt’s idea of a university
in the 1960s were not written by historians, but rather by social scientists involved with university
administration and university reforms.16 The essays and books published by social scientists andthinkers have become the shape of the subject matter when discussing the consciousness of theuniversity’s existence and the way of it which arose through the growth of the student movements anduniversity reform movements which unfolded in every part of the world in the 1960s.
In Japan, when discussing Humboldt’s idea of a university, Schelsky is much quoted. The
section from one of the foremost researchers on Humboldt in Japan, Professor Teiji Nishimura’s
critical biography, Humboldt, about Humboldt’s idea of a university is principally based on the abovementioned Schelsky’s book. 17

In the future, it will be important to examine in detail when

Humboldt’s idea was introduced into Japan, in what form it was carried out, and also how this idea ofa university has come to be referred to in the social context.

In Conclusion
Above I have given a simple introduction, but to sum up I would like to quickly emphasise
Professor vom Bruch’s, Professor Paletschek’s and others’ historical research.
13

Sylvia Paletschek: a.a.O., 2001, S.100.
The Japanese translation is Daigaku no Kodoku to Jiyu (translated by Kinya Abe, et al., Mirai-sha, 1970).
15
According to Professor vom Bruch, the publication of Schelsky’s book, Solitude and Freedom of the University, wasconnected to the conception of the establishment of the new Bielefeld University.
16
Sylvia Paletschek: a.a.O., 2001, S.101f.
17
See Teiji Nishimura, Humboldt, Shimizu Shoin, 1990, pp.105-110.
148

1. According to the historical research on the founding of Berlin University in 1810 and Humboldt’s
idea of a university based on his New Humanism and the university model, at the time of thefounding of Berlin University, there is hardly any evidence to suggest that Humboldt’s originalidea of a university was directly reflected in the organisational management of the university.
There is, however, evidence to assert that Berlin University was the first of the modern German
universities, and also to claim that Göttingen and Halle Universities had already put into practiceorganisational principles, which have been thought to have been first realised in Berlin University
from Humboldt’s original ideas, for example, freedom of research and teaching, the university as aplace of original research, and others. As for organisational principles and philosophies, there isa large part of Berlin University which was organised around an already existing university model.
2. Also, when discussing the nature of the university in the 19th century, there is no evidence tosuggest that “Humboldt’s idea of a university” or “Humboldt’s model” was taken up as animportant theme.
3. Humboldt’s idea of the university has been bound up with a German philosophy of a university,and only really after the 100th anniversary of the founding of Berlin University in 1910 did it start
to play a big role in the formation of an identity for German universities, and the traditional
academic formation of Berlin University. The idea of a university based on Humboldt’s New
Humanism was used by the philosopher Edward Spranger for the purpose of conferring a
legitimisation on Berlin University’s actual philosophy of the university and on the 100 years ofgrowth.
4. The Humboldt idea of a university and university model that we know was greatly influenced by
Humboldtian theory which arose as a link in the university reforms that took place in the 1960s.
The social scientist Helmut Schelsky’s Solitude and Freedom of the University has especiallygreatly influenced the formation of the Humboldt model.
It is thought that these interpretations of Humboldt’s idea have caused a stir in 19th century
German university history research. As Humboldt’s idea of a university has been accepted as asymbol of German university education and research as a whole, various diverse historicaldevelopments which have unfolded in many parts of Germany have been covered up. In the future,
it will be necessary to conduct a detailed examination into the historical background of how the shape9

of Humboldt’s idea of the university arose and its development; and about what is the characteristic
development of each university in Germany not subsumed by Humboldt’s idea.

10Historical Development of the German Idea of “the University”:
Comment on Professor Miyasaka’s Paper
Akiro Beppu∗

Introduction
Broadly speaking, the concept of “the university” is comprised of three components: idea,organization, and function. These three components do not explain the all of the dynamics within
the university, but they do explain the basic facts regarding the university.
1) Idea
Idea is related to the ethical side of the university. Whatever the structure of the organization,
there must be a subjective rationale within the mind of each member for having become a member ofthe organization. Together with this subjective rationale, the university member also has spiritualties to the organization. These ties are neither economic nor political values, but are linked toidealistic and academic values. Moreover, these values govern the organization of the university andthe activities of its members, and must serve to elevate standards. Idea, thus, is comprised ofspiritual values.
2) Organization
Organization may be called the body or constitution of the university. Because the university
was originally an academic organization, faculties, departments and lectures form the core of theuniversity organization, and are elements of education and research. The university also has anadministrative structure. Administration is a decision-making organ with links to finance as well as
to education and research. Its structure includes faculty meetings, full staff meetings (at Meiji
University there are inter-faculty meetings and university staff meetings), a board of trustees, and aboard of regents. Organization is the most visible of the three components, as it represents the“body” of the university.

∗

Professor, School of Arts and Letters, Meiji University

113) Function
The university exists within society, and therefore fulfills a specific social function. Seen in
historical perspective, the original function of the university was to train and educate a class ofprofessionals and specialists: the medieval European university was comprised of faculties of divinity,
law and medicine. From the end of the 18th century into the early 19th century, the goal of theuniversity, particularly in Germany, was “the unity of education and research”.
This does not mean that professional training was ignored or even neglected. Rather, it wasthought that if education and research are the basic functions of the university, then the social functionof the university rests in professional training through research and education.

1. The Three “Characteristics of Idea”
The original ideal of the university becomes apparent when idea, organization, and function
operate in harmonious unity. The contents of education are stipulated and practiced according toidea, and the administration of organization is carried out according to doctrinal precepts.
I would next like to consider the three “characteristics of idea”.
First, idea is set in place when the institution is created; however, it is not in a complete or perfectform. It achieves its final form over time through the efforts of the members of the institution.
Second, because idea is formed as an historical process, doctrinal interpretations change
according to the age.

However, idea cannot be completely mutable, but must contain some

immutable elements. There is an apparent contradiction here: idea must be able to endure a wide
variety of historical interpretations while at the same time retaining an immutable set of values.
Third, doctrinal ideals are never completely attained. Complete attainment would negate themas ideals. Idea is related to the spiritual values of the institution’s members, and has the power to act
as an ethical brake at times of crisis or apathy, restoring standards to their original levels.
Having given this outline, I would now like to consider the ideas of Berlin University.

2. Three Regulations Formulated by von Humboldt at the Time of the Foundation of Berlin
University
Wilhelm von Humboldt formulated three regulations at the time of the foundation of Berlin
University, these being: 1) academic freedom, 2) the unity of education and research, 3) education
through academe.

121) Academic freedom meant “the state shall not interfere with nor regulate academics. Professors
are free to pursue education and research, and students are free to study and develop themselves”.
2) The unity of education and research meant “professors have a duty to attend equally to botheducation and research.

Professors should employ their research methods and achievements

within the field of education, and educational content should always be based on the most recent
academic achievements”.
3) Education through academe meant “as for education and study, repetition and the transmission of
conventional wisdom are not at the core of university learning; learning based on ongoing research
forms the core”.
Put in an historical context, these ideas form the ideological foundation of those who espoused
the “spirit of reform”, including Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling, Johann Gottlieb Fichte,
Friedrich Schleiermacher.

3. The Idea Manifested in the Regulations of the Faculty of Philosophy, Berlin University
The idea of Berlin University is most clearly manifested in the regulations of the Faculty ofPhilosophy, which were promulgated in 1838.
Chapter 1 - Duties and Affairs of the Faculty of Philosophy
Article 1: “Academic disciplines of professors are to include philosophy, mathematics, naturalscience, history, linguistics, and national studies”. (vide Chapter 1, Article 4)
Article 2: “Education given in the Faculty of Philosophy shall have a two-fold mission. 1)
Providing students with a general and scientific education having professional education
as its basis; that is to say, providing students with both general and supplementaryknowledge that must include research into divinity, law, and medicine. 2) Promoting
the academic disciplines of this facility for the sake of academe, and by so doing training
teachers. However, The Faculty of Philosophy will not pursue this two-fold goalaccording to two different pedagogic styles, but through unified, goal-oriented lectures
which maintain a pure scientific interest”.
These articles clearly state the ideas of “the unity of education and research” and “education
through academics”.
(vide Preussen’s 1794 work ‘Allgemeines Landrecht fuer die preussischen Staaten’, Article 1:

13

“Schools and universities are institutions of the state with the goal of providing youths with learningand productive knowledge”. Article 67: “The university shall possess every right held as a privilege
by an organization”.)

4. The Reality of Education in German Universities as Deduced from Idea and Regulations
Having presented education as the basis of idea, let us turn to the reality of German university
education.
It was thought that students had to be educated into independent academic thinking within aframework of solitude and freedom. The goal of learning was not the acquisition of unchanging,transmissible knowledge, but the search for truth by means of academic methodology.
Von Humboldt believed that “academic awareness has no duty but to truth, and truth should be
newly sought and discovered. That is to say, truth is not dependent on any one thing, nor does itexist in perfect solitude. It follows, then, that education through academics should a priori be freefrom goals, should be open to new ideas, and should be ever expanding”.
Friedrich Schleiermacher subscribed to this idea as the essence of learning: “as for the workingsof what we call academics, the student should study in order to know, within a variety of ideas andconcepts, the nature and rules of academe, and by so doing, acquire the ability to do his own research,make discoveries, and express himself”.
The words of these two men express the idea that “the student receiving an education throughacademics within the freedom of a university lies at the core of university education, and is what issignificant about studying at university”.
A highly liberal academic environment holds the definitive meaning for research, teaching, andlearning. It follows, therefore, that both doctrinally and in reality, German university education does
not have a prescribed duration of study, nor does it have prescribed classes.

In most of thedisciplines of psychology and sociology, there is neither compulsory course work nor curricula.
By participating in the academic operations, students can form their own characters andpersonalities.

This development toward self-formation is unattainable through government

regulation of the duration of study, curriculum content, and the learning process.
Development is most attainable when the process is widely and freely left up to the students andfaculty, and when regulations allow for freedom of education and research.
The present academic reality is in the process of gradual change. Even so, it may be thoughtthat the idea presented above still forms the core of mass German university education.

14

5. Characteristics of the Classical University
The classical period of the German University (from 1810 to about 1970) as represented by
Berlin University may be said to have had the following characteristics: ‘a university which values
academic achievement’ (Leistungsuniversitat); ‘a university controlled by tenured faculty’(Ordinarienuniversität); ‘large-scale management of academics’ (Grosbetrieb); ‘spiritually aristocratic
academic training’; and ‘the supremacy of the idea of the unity of education and research’.
Unlike the aristocratic university which values family lineage, ‘a university which values
academic achievement’ places the greatest significance on the academic achievements of the teachingfaculty. As a result, academic competition becomes the single standard for determining quality.
More precisely, the Professor Credential Examination (Habilitation) and the related Private Lecturer
System were introduced. Further, the practice of “Hausberufungsverbot” came about forbidding thepromotion of part-time lecturers and professors to tenured professorship at the university where they
are employed. (This practice has become a regulation within universities.) Behind this lies thebelief that the main responsibility of academe is to change its outlook from the transmission of
traditional knowledge to the creation and discovery of new knowledge.
As in the era preceding the classical age of the German university, tenured professors
monopolized the university operations, and the ‘university controlled by tenured professors’ hasendured into the present.
The trend toward ‘large-scale management of academics’ became more pronounced at the end of
the 19th century, as symbolized by the creation of ‘seminars’ and ‘institutes’.
The fourth characteristic, ‘spiritually aristocratic academic training’, without doubt helps teachersand students to create and discover new knowledge, however, as Jaspers has said, this academic
training has the aristocratic character of being carried out ‘in solitude and freedom’.
‘The supremacy of the idea of the unity of education and research’ may be restated as “teaching
while researching, and researching while teaching”. This is a classical idea that may be seen in theactivities of seminars and in engineering research institutes. The professor investigates the nature ofacademe and scientific problems, and the students debate and discuss.
The above are all concrete examples taken from the idea of Berlin University.

6. The German University Today
What are present German thoughts regarding the university? ‘The mission of the university’ inpresent German society is clearly expressed in the “University Regulatory Laws” (HRG). Article 2,15

Clause 1 decrees that “Institutions of higher education shall be devoted to the cultivation anddevelopment of arts and letters through research, education, learning and continuing education.
Institutions shall promote academic knowledge and academic methodology, and prepare students foroccupational activity”.
As is clear from the above, the idea of academe devoted to the pursuit of truth, that is, ‘academe
for the sake of academe’, has not been completely abandoned, but has come to include education as
occupational preparation.
It follows, then, that the ‘goals of learning’ have been expanded. Article 7 of the HRG states“Education and learning shall prepare the student to undertake occupational activity, and to this end
shall provide the necessary knowledge, skills, and methodology through course work; they shallfurther enable the student to undertake academic and artistic work; they shall enable the student to act
responsibly within the democratic, social, and legal framework of the nation”.
Traditional ideas still persist, notably the following two: ‘universities shall undertake research
aimed at the promotion, development, and cultivation of academe’; and ‘education and training
through academe’. These two traditional ideas form the base upon which the more recent ideas ofoccupational training and citizenship have been built. Clearly, the goals of university education have
responded to the needs of society.

7. Conclusion
The idea of von Humboldt for the university has changed with the times, undergoing a series ofreforms and renewals. However, it has remained the most definitive and powerful influence on theGerman university up to the present.
The German university (institutes of higher learning) is presently undergoing a radical series ofreform measures, and it is worth considering whether von Humboldt’s idea will survive the 21st
century.
The following are the changes presently occurring.
1) The state is abandoning university management, and is calling upon the universities tomanage themselves.
2) Together with this is the call for universities to take on a greater share of all university-related
responsibilities.
3) Efforts to obtain private funding are underway.
4) To be economically viable, universities are being asked to reduce the number of courses and16to merge.
5) The trend toward disbursing funds to universities on the basis of scholastic achievement has
grown pronounced.
6) ‘University Administrative Committees’ (Hochschulrat) modeled on the American Board ofRegents are being established.
7) The powers of university chancellors and deans have been enlarged.
8) Education and tutorials are being stressed in order to resolve the longstanding issue of
duration of study.
9) More private universities are being established, and there is a trend to private management.
These changes are bound to exert an influence on the idea of the university. How can the idea
be maintained and still respond to changes in the “zeitgeist”?

Will it be restructured?

With

universities becoming self-governing bodies, will they be able to retain the spirit of liberal researchand education? These are the questions being pondered in Germany today.
Looked at from an historical perspective, whenever the German university faced a crisis, the idea
propounded at the foundation of Berlin University, the birthplace of the classical university, was used
as a basis for consideration and discussion. We may expect the same in the future, making this ideaa worthy subject for study and reflection.

References
Statuten der koniglichen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitat zu Berlin. 1816.
Statuten der philosophishen Facultat der koniglichen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitat zu Berlin. 1838.
Beppu, A., Doitsu ni okeru Daigakukyoju no Tanjo. 1998: Sobunsha.
Takagi, H., Daigaku no Hotekichii to Jichikiko ni kansuru Kenkyu. 1998: Taga Shuppan.
Amano, M., Yuki, D., and Beppu, A., Doitsu no Kyoiku. 1998: Toshindo.
Ritter, G., Die Krisis des deutschen Universitatswesens. 1960: Erscheinungsdatum.
Moraw, P., Vom Lebensweg des deutschen Professors (Gekurzte Fassung eines Vortrages),
Forschung: Mitteilungen der DFG. 1988, S.1.
Regierungserklarung im Bayerischen Ladtag: Kultusminister Zehetmaier stellt Einzelheiten der
Hochschulreform vor (http://server.stmukwk.bayer. de).
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat-Munchen, Jahresbericht des Rektoratskollegiums vom 1 Oktober,
1995 bis 30 September. 1977, S.39.

17

BRITAINUniversity Reform and the Idea of a University in Victorian Britain1
Lawrence Goldman∗

In May 1854, during debates on the Oxford University bill then before parliament, Sir John
Ramsden, Liberal M.P. for Taunton, who had been educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, asked thefollowing questions:
In the first place…what were the Universities? Were they national establishments
or not?

Was a degree conferred by the Universities a civil or ecclesiasticaldistinction? Were the Universities mere schools for supplying clergymen to theEstablished Church, or were they institutions for the general cultivation ofknowledge and for the enlargement of the field and literature and science?2
As historians have acknowledged, the national debates in the mid-nineteenth century over the reformof Oxford and Cambridge involved ‘nothing less than different conceptions of the nature and purposesof universities’.3 Ramsden, though an Anglican himself, was concerned to open the universities tomembers of all religious denominations and hence questioned the relationship of them to the Anglican
church. But as we shall see, there were many more questions beyond those of religion in the matterof university reform. This paper, while focusing on the parliamentary debates over the reform of
Oxford in particular, will try to set out some of these questions and also consider the solutions that theVictorians offered to them. It will argue that, in the case of Oxford and Cambridge, there was no
single ‘idea of the university’ but many different ideas held simultaneously, sometimes in creative
tension with each other, and sometimes in disabling competition.
The reform of the ancient universities, carried out between the 1850s and 1880s, was largely
imposed from outside by the state. It was intended to open Oxford and Cambridge to all religious
denominations, modernise their curricula, quicken the educational life and utility of the institutions,1

Sections of this essay have been published previously as ‘Oxford and the Ideas of a University in Nineteenth Century
Britain’, Oxford Review of Education, vol. 30, 4, December 2004, 575-92 (http://www.tandf.co.uk).
Editor, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and Fellow and Tutor in Modern History, St Peter’s College, Oxford
2
Parliamentary Debates (hereafter P.D.), 3rd series, cxxxiv, 22 June 1854, 538.
3
T. W. Heyck, The Transformation of Intellectual Life in Victorian England (London, 1982), 155.
∗19

and encourage academic research. Much of this was to be achieved by the establishment within theuniversities of an academic career structure open to merit.

The focus was on secularisation,

specialisation, and the so-called ‘endowment of research’. In Oxford in the space of a generation,college fellowships were thrown open to competition; celibacy as a condition for the holding of afellowship was ended; intercollegiate lectures began to break down the educational isolation of theindividual colleges; the university’s governing structure was made more representative as the
Hebdomadal Board composed of heads of colleges was replaced by a broader Hebdomadal Council;
the professoriate was expanded; academic research was recognised as a legitimate university function;
natural science was added to the curriculum, and religious tests were abolished for matriculation,
graduation and election to fellowships. The social composition of the universities - who the students
were and where they came from - was a consideration in these changes, but was always less important
than purely institutional reform. Yet it must be emphasised that some of these aims were only
partially fulfilled; that many aspects of the universities in 1900 would still have been familiar to theundergraduates and tutors of 1850; and that the progress of these reforms was halting and erratic.
The process was begun with the establishment in 1850 and 1852 respectively of Royal
Commissions of Enquiry into the Universities of Oxford and of Cambridge. Legislation followed in1854 (Oxford) and 1856 (Cambridge). The commissions ‘stimulated and focused a debate over thenature of universities that extended through the 1850s’.4 The state returned to the offensive in theearly 1870s in the shape of another enquiry, the Cleveland Commission, into the ‘properties andincome of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge’.5 Further legislation in 1877 established theexecutive Selborne Commission which was charged with the reapportionment of revenues so thatcollege wealth might in future for used for wider, federal university purposes. Taking into accountother developments with a bearing on the ancient universities - for example, the Devonshire
Commission which enquired into ‘Scientific Instruction and the Advancement of Science’ andreported in 18736 - the process of reform came to an end three decades after it began in the early
1880s.
Contemporaries often explained the changes to Oxford and Cambridge as part of the moregeneral current of liberal reform in nineteenth-century Britain which altered many traditional
4

Ibid, 164.
Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the Property and Income of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge(Pts. I-III), Parliamentary Papers (hereafter P.P.) 1873, vol. xxxviii.
6
Royal Commission on Scientific Instruction and the Advancement of Science, 3rd report, P.P. 1873, vol. xxviii.
520

institutions, including the political system itself. When discussing the need to open Oxford tomembers of all faiths, Sidney Herbert, the former Peelite M.P. and minister, spoke approvingly of
religious liberty and believed it ‘impossible…at the present day to maintain the exclusive system
which had so long prevailed at the University of Oxford’.7 Historians have generally agreed, linking
university reform to a range of progressive changes and forces that Oxford and Cambridge could notresist, and which many of their members welcomed. Lewis Campbell, who wrote one of the firstand best accounts of university reform explained it in terms of the wider process of Victoriansecularisation.8 More recently, Arthur Engel has emphasised the professionalisation of the academic
staff and senior members of the universities.9 Martin Wiener, meanwhile, has placed the universities- along with the public schools - at the forefront of the cultural incorporation of the middle classes by
the aristocracy in nineteenth-century Britain which allowed for the smooth transmission of social
influence to the bourgeoisie and the maintenance of political stability.10 W. R. Ward, on the other
hand, in his work on Victorian Oxford, has eschewed such large contexts, and concentrated instead on
studying the internal academic politics of the university, reminding us thereby that issues of principle
concerning the nature of the university were often disguised (and sometimes, perhaps, forgotten
entirely) in local struggles for ‘donnish dominion’.11 While this internalist approach runs the risk ofdegrading all questions to struggles for local precedence and authority, it also shows that strictly
political disputes within the institutions were correlates of wider educational debates. Each faction
stood for a different type of reform and hence for a different type of university. To argue over the
distribution of power between a narrow Hebdomadal Board or a wider Hebdomadal Council, or
between the Congregation of active university teachers and the Convocation of all graduates was also
to argue over the relative merits of conservative and liberal versions of what the university should be.
One alternative to the close study of academic politics would be to focus instead on the famous
programmatic statements on the ‘nature of the university’ which this age encouraged. Newman’s
Idea of a University (1852), Pusey’s Collegiate and Professional Teaching and Discipline (1854),
Mark Pattison’s Suggestions on Academical Organisation (1868) and the Essays on a Liberal
Education edited by F.W. Farrar in 1867, were, among other texts, responding to the challenge ofdefining the purpose of universities. Yet however interesting and persuasive these texts were (and7

P.D. cxxxiv, 22 June 1854, 519.
Lewis Campbell, On the Nationalisation of the Old English Universities (London, 1901).
9
Arthur Engel, From Clergyman to Don: The Rise of the Academic Profession in Nineteenth-Century Oxford (Oxford, 1983).
10
Martin J. Wiener, English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit 1850-1980 (Cambridge, 1981).
11
W. R. Ward, Victorian Oxford (London, 1965); idem, ‘From the Tractarians to the Executive Commission, 1845-1854’ in M.
G. Brock and M. C. Curthoys, The History of the University of Oxford, vol. vi, Nineteenth-Century Oxford, Part I (Oxford,1997), 306-36.
821

remain), they can tell us little about the history and process of university reform, and about theopinions and intentions of those directly engaged in framing the changes. By turning attention to theHouse of Commons and away from the internalised disputes within Oxford, and by examining thenational political debates on the universities rather than the blueprints of lone scholars, it may bepossible to investigate ‘the idea of the university’ in the most appropriate and relevant context - thenational political developments and choices which actually shaped university reform.
It must be understood that university reform was imposed from without by the combination of
public pressure and the state. The national community had certain expectations of Oxford andCambridge which they seemed unable to meet. In a period when the calibre of secondary education
was improving in the public schools under the dual impulse of Thomas Arnold’s example at Rugby
and the growing expectation of middle-class parents that their sons would receive a university
education to fit them for entry into the professions, the pressure for reform came not just from thestate above, but from the potential customers of university education below.12 In a critique that had
almost been standardised by 1850, the universities were seen as essentially clerical institutions for the
training of Church of England clergy.13

They were dismissed for the low standards of theirscholarship and the narrowness of their curricula: mathematics and classics alone led to honours.
The absence of natural and applied science limited their contact with intellectual progress beyond
their walls and ensured that they made no contribution at all to the economic life of the nation.
College tutors controlled the teaching of undergraduates and were generally held to be defective inthat role. Many only held their college fellowships until a college living fell vacant, at which point
they would leave the university, marry and turn to parish duties. Other non-resident fellows usedtheir emoluments to train for a profession in London. There was thus no internal academic career
structure that might have encouraged higher standards.

The narrow focus on preparing

undergraduates for their examinations rather than encouraging intellectual growth and speculation
stunted intellectual life within the walls and marginalised the professors whose subjects and lectures
were usually of no relevance to ‘reading men’ studying hard for honours. Meanwhile the colleges of
the universities were bound by statutes which made the process of self-reform (even where it was
desired) extremely difficult. Above all, half the sons of the nation were debarred on grounds ofconscience; at Oxford, only those who would subscribe to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of
12

13

J. R. de S. Honey and M. C. Curthoys, ‘Oxford and Schooling’ in M. G. Brock and M. C. Curthoys, The History of the
University of Oxford, vol. vii, Nineteenth-Century Oxford, Part 2 (Oxford, 2000), 545-69.
‘At Oxford Before 1854, the Church was still everything and everywhere…’, [H. P. Liddon], ‘Recent Fortunes of the Churchin Oxford’, Church Quarterly Review, xii, April 1881, 204.

22

England could become members of the university (matriculate); and at Cambridge subscription was
required from anyone wishing to take a degree. According to Robert Collier M.P.,
Why was there this inferiority on the part of Oxford? The main cause of it was,her own exclusiveness.

She excluded not only Dissent, but the advancing

knowledge of the age and its new ideas; treated with indifference, if not with
contempt, modern science and art; and, ignoring progress, chose rather to rely on
the wisdom of the ancients…The close atmosphere of Oxford required ventilation.14
Gladstone - who drafted the 1854 Oxford University bill - called it ‘an emancipating measure’.15 Hetalked of ‘releasing its government from the fetters to which its action has been long subject’.16 It
was designed to emancipate the university from the colleges, and the colleges from the intentions andspecific benefactions of their founders, which, by the nineteenth century, were often obstacles to
educational advance and social usefulness.
The Oxford Commission, reporting in 1852, recommended ‘a centralised university run
predominantly by professors and faculties, with a much higher emphasis on research, on the
Scottish/German model’.17 As for the colleges, they should become more efficient, scholarly andmeritocratic. Their fellowships should no longer depend on the taking of holy orders; they should be
opened up to competition on the basis of ability; and some of their unnecessary positions should be
suppressed with funds thus released for the use of the university. But these radical proposals met ahostile response in Oxford itself where opinion divided three ways between conservatives, liberals anda Tutors’ Association (with whom Gladstone worked closely) in between. Gladstone was one of the
University’s two elected M.P.s at this time and also in office as Chancellor of the Exchequer in thecoalition government led by Lord Aberdeen. His intimate knowledge of the university and his
authority in national politics allowed him to frame a measure offering something to most of the groups
and interests involved - though inevitably in such an exercise, the Commission’s rigorous proposals
were diluted. On the other hand, Gladstone’s original bill did not include any provision for theremoval of the religious test on students at Oxford; this was added during debate in the House ofCommons on the bill’s second reading, and it is for this addition above all that the Oxford University
14

P.D. cxxxiv, 22 June 1854, 518. Collier had been educated at Trinity College, Cambridge (BA 1841). A Liberal, in the 1860s
he was Solicitor General (1863-6) and Attorney General (1868).
P.D. cxxxii, 7 April 1854, 767.
16
P.D. cxxxii, 27 April 1854, 954.
17
Colin Matthew, ‘Gladstone and University of Oxford’, Oxford Magazine, 2nd week, Michaelmas Term, 1999, 4.
15

23

Act of 1854 is best remembered.
These debates are justly famous. Four past and future prime ministers spoke: Russell andGladstone who favoured reform, and Disraeli and Salisbury who were against it. The latter, as Lord
Robert Cecil, actually made the maiden speech of his remarkable parliamentary career in theseexchanges.

They were supported by an able second tier of parliamentarians including Sidney

Herbert, John Bright, and Roundell Palmer (the future Lord Chancellor and university reformer of the1870s, Lord Selborne). The later stages of the second and third reading debates, once the clauseadmitting dissenters was added to the bill, were focused on that issue alone. But earlier exchanges,
while certainly concerned with the precise details of the reform of Oxford, were also concerned withbroader questions on the nature of universities. And from these speeches we can isolate several
different ‘ideas of the university’: as a national resource; as a self-governing community; as the focus
for higher research on the German model; as a nursery for statesmen and political leaders; and as thehome of a liberal education.18
That Oxford should be a ‘national’ institution was the message of many M.P.s in the debates.
But by ‘national’ they meant several different things. First and foremost, they intended that Oxford
should be open to all individuals and groups and legally exclude none; as the radical Milner-Gibson
stated, ‘it was wrong, and absolutely immoral, to exclude any portion of the people of the country
from the benefits of these institutions’.19 As John Bright argued, dissenters were not excluded ‘when
you send your tax-gatherers round, or when you ask for the performance of the duties of citizenship’.
Why, then, should they be deprived access to the ancient universities?20 But ‘national’ also implied
utility to the nation: if Oxford could not be a seminary for one denomination, it also could not remain
an intellectual ornament: ‘the question before the House’ according to Robert Collier, ‘was how thisgreat national educational institution could be made useful to the country’.21 And Roundell Palmer
went further still in the suggestion that Oxford should continually adapt to the national need: ‘The
people of this country have a right to say that a great institution like Oxford, with such magnificent
resources, ought to be capable of answering any extending demand which the wants of the country

18

Discussion of the liberal education provided by Oxford was never explicit. The debates focused on institutional changes, andwhen they touched educational questions, were usually concerned with widening the curriculum. Yet the liberal aims andvalues of an educational experience designed to build intellect, character and manliness were implicit in much that was said,
and were never questioned in the House of Commons in 1854.
19
P.D. cxxxiv, 22 June 1854, 527. Thomas Milner-Gibson was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge (B.A. 1830) and was
the Radical-Liberal M.P. for Manchester 1841-57, and for Ashton-under-Lyne 1857-68.
20
P.D. cxxxii, 27 April 1854, 983.
21
P.D. cxxxiv, 22 June 1854, 515.

24

may make upon it’.22 The people had a claim on the university, therefore. But this was not without
its advantages to Oxford, for if it could reform itself so as to win public favour, the strong desire that itshould represent the nation would give it an authority that it presently lacked in its insular andexclusive form.
The very attempt of the state to reform the university from outside gave rise to concerns about
Oxford’s independence and to the claim that a university should, by definition, be a self-governing
community of scholars. Lord Robert Cecil was concerned at setting ‘the dangerous precedent of
Parliamentary authority’ in university affairs and contended that Oxford, from which he had recently
graduated, could reform itself.23 Disraeli was less sanguine about self-reform but preferred theimperfections of the present to the impositions of government and the loss of autonomy that entailed:
If I were asked, ‘Would you have Oxford with its self-government, freedom andindependence, but yet with its anomalies and imperfections, or would you have theUniversity free from those anomalies and imperfections, and under the control ofGovernment?’, I would say ‘Give me Oxford, free and independent, with all its
anomalies and imperfections’.
Of all institutions, he argued, a university ‘should be independent and free’.24 As historians of
nineteenth-century Germany have reminded us, the superiority of German universities in this era
could not offset their reliance on the state, and the absence of true academic freedom within theirwalls, to the detriment of both the intellectual and public cultures of the Second Reich.25
This leads to a third theme in the 1854 debates: the supposed superiority of European universities
and the desire to ‘germanise’ British universities. The implicit model of the university in this case
was one dedicated to research. One M.P. commended reform because without it ‘Oxford would
never be brought to bear a comparison, as a seat of learning, with her European rivals’.26 According
to another, Edward Horsman, ‘all the most approved editions of classic writers which have been
produced in modern times are German; all the great commentators are German’.
22

Horsman

P.D. cxxxii, 7 April 1854, 725.
P.D. cxxxii, 7 April 1854, 712-14.
24
P.D. cxxxii, 27 April 1854, 974-5.
25
Fritz Ringer, The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community 1890-1933 (Cambridge, Mass.,1969); James J. Sheehan, German Liberalsim in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago and London, 1978).
26
P.D. cxxxii, 7 April 1854, 711 (Mr. Warner, Liberal M.P. for Norwich and a graduate of Wadham College, Oxford).
23

25

proceeded to explicit comparisons with Germany where universities had ‘brought a very superior
philology and scholarship to bear on the Bible; we have nothing, actually nothing, readable in thatline’.27 More frequently, the comparison with Germany was made by those who wished to see thestudy of the natural sciences developed in English universities. Most ‘germanisers’ were of theradical liberal persuasion, attracted to the professorial model of German universities as more efficientin instruction and as likely to encourage higher learning among university teachers. Yet Horsman’s
argument in 1854 was more complex and also more conservative than this: he wanted to see a renewalof scriptural and classical scholarship in order that Oxford could better defend Christianity from theforeign doctrines of materialism and atheism that were rife in contintental universities. To Horsman,a university should be a place of religion and high scholarship where the latter could be employed todefend true christian doctrines derived from God’s revelation in the scriptures.28 This was not theusual aim among those who made comparisons with German universities, and it evidently confused
many of the M.P.s in the House of Commons who expected such comparisons to end in rather
different - and progressive - conclusions.

In fact, Horsman’s arguments were very like thosedeveloped by Pusey, a Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and Professor of Hebrew, whose briefsojourn studying in Germany as a young man had also led him to fear the effects of German
scholarship on the religious temper of British universities and hence to oppose reforms that might turnOxford into a professorial - and hence a godless - university.29
Those in the House of Commons who supported the German example were then answered byDisraeli, who, in a bravura performance of eloquence, wit and historical sensitivity, developed analternative idea of the university: better a nursery for the governing elite than an academy for higher
research. Disraeli - who had not attended a university - contrasted the limitations to public andpolitical life in Germany, dominated as it was in 1854 by princes and arch-dukes and divided into a
crowd of petty states, with the opportunities made possible by Britain’s representative system ofgovernment and open, plural culture.
What sphere is there for the genius, the intellect, the talent, and the energy ofGermany but in the professorial chair? Give Germany a House of Commons, anddo you think that she would then produce those men of profound erudition, of
27

P.D. cxxxii, 27 April 1854, 940-42. Horsman was the Liberal M.P. for Stroud at this time, but of conservative views. He was
Chief Secretary for Ireland 1855-7.
P.D. cxxxii, 27 April 1854, 945-50.
29
H. P. Liddon, Life of Edward Bouverie Pusey (4 vols., London, 1894), iii, 384-5; Heyck, The Transformation of Intellectual
Life, 165.
28

26

commanding eloquence - men who can bury themselves in speculative abstractions,and produce those results of erudition, which, we are told, shake the world? The
fact is that in Germany, with a gifted population double the extent of ours, there is
no avenue for any man by which he can make the world conscious of his powers,
except by the chair of the professor.
The situation was different here:
If we have not these profound professors in England, it is because the character ofthe country is different; the character of our life is contrary to it. We are a nationof action, and you may depend upon it that…men will look to the House ofCommons, and not to professors’ chairs in the Universities.30
To ‘germanise’ the English universities would be alien to English character and taste; it would also be
difficult as scholars of such stature could not be educated and cultivated quickly. But, above all, if
the universities were reformed in this way national life would be the poorer, for the universities
provided Britain with a confident and able governing class rather than a scholarly caste - and in thatfunction they could not be bettered nor should they be changed.
Writing a few years later the young Cambridge don, Leslie Stephen, made a similar point:
England could not compete with Germany in the production of a professoriate because ‘every
ambitious young Englishman takes to the bar or politics, or some active life, and thus precisely themen most capable of distinction are generally draughted off elsewhere’. 31

When the leading

university reformer of the 1860s, Goldwin Smith, previously Regius Professor of Modern History in
Oxford, delivered a paper to the Social Science Association at its 1867 congress on ‘The Adaptationof the Old Universities to the Requirements of the Present Day’, the Daily Telegraph, usually in thevanguard of reform, gave only qualified approval. Enlarge the curriculum by all means, it replied,‘but we must not turn Oxford into a Sorbonne; nor Cambridge into a Heidelberg… the two English
universities have what is still worth more than Continental imitations could ever bring us inexchange’.32 Disraeli had reminded contemporaries that a university had more than purely academic

30

P.D. cxxxii, 27 April 1854, 970.
Leslie Stephen, ‘On the Choice of Representatives by Popular Constituencies’ in [A. O. Rutson (ed.)] Essays on Reform(London, 1867), 95.
32
Daily Telegraph, 25 September 1867, p. 4. On the Social Science Association see Lawrence Goldman, Science, Reform, andPolitics in Victorian Britain: The Social Science Association 1857-1886 (Cambridge, 2002).
31

27

functions. Universities that provided a political elite were not failing the nation; nor were theircolleges, some of which, like New College in Oxford, had been founded hundreds of years before
specifically to provide educated men for the service of church and state.
Several different ‘ideas of the university’ were expressed in the House of Commons in the springof 1854, therefore. And in a situation in which many different interests in Oxford, in parliament, in
the Church, and among dissenting communities had a strong interest in trying to influence thelegislation, it is unsurprising that the 1854 Oxford University Act was declared by John Bright - withsome contempt - to be ‘a compromise’. 33

Another Liberal complained that many clauses‘commenced with a liberal, sweeping enactment’ but ‘checks and limitations to [their] operations’
then followed so that ‘what was given with the right hand was taken away with the left’.34 As alegislative draughtsman, Gladstone was cautious and moderate, hoping to encourage the growth of aprofessorial system alongside the collegiate tutorial system.35 Arguably he did this work too well,
for a hundred and fifty years later this is indeed Oxford’s dubious and increasingly unstable
inheritance from the 1850s. As Colin Matthew put it in 1998, ‘The ambivalence of the position
Gladstone and Parliament took is with us still’.36 The Act ended subscription to the Thirty-Nine
Articles; it established an elected Hebdomadal Council; it licensed private halls of residence toencourage the expansion of student numbers and the admission of men from less affluent backgrounds.
It also established a commission which worked its way through the statutes of the colleges until 1858,
improving and modernising them as it could: some clerical fellowships were suppressed; otherfellowships were opened to competition; and surplus funds were transferred from the colleges to theuniversity to provide for ten new chairs with an annual salary of £600 each.
Yet as one historian has put it recently, ‘the Act was conservative and the Executive Commission
timid’.37 And the compromise in 1854 set the standard for subsequent university reforms and for theslow adaptation of Oxford (and Cambridge) down to 1900. Throughout this period we can see
evidence of change set beside evidence of continuity. Oxford in the 1860s was still a university formen alone; it offered only a very small range of academic courses; there was very little development
33‘But what I learn from its friends and from its opponents, and from those who do not exactly know what opinions to form
upon it, is just this - that it is a measure very much like others which we have lately had - a compromise’. P.D. cxxxii, 27
April 1854, 978.
34
P.D. cxxxii, 7 April 1854, 698. (Mr. John Blackett, educated at Christ Church, Oxford (B.A. 1841); Fellow of Merton
College, Oxford; Liberal M.P. for Newcastle-upon-Tyne 1852-56).
35
P.D. cxxxii, 7 April 1854, 768.
36
Matthew, ‘Gladstone and the University of Oxford’, 4.
37
Christopher Harvie, ‘Reform and Expansion, 1854-1871’ in Brock and Curthoys (eds.), Nineteenth-Century Oxford, Part 1(Oxford, 1997), 701.

28

of professional studies, including medicine, and little hint of the scholarly renaissance that manyreformers desired. The universities were still unconnected to the economic life of the nation; they
continued to educate a social elite; they continued to uphold the ideal of a classical education.38
Rather than decide whether teaching or research should be the dominant function of the university, thecumulative reforms left the issue open and in constant tension to the present day. And rather thandecide between colleges and the federal university, the reforms had left them in a difficult alliance.
As Michael Brock has diagnosed modern Oxford’s greatest political problem: ‘The colleges made theUniversity difficult to organise and slow to respond to new demands; they also gave theirundergraduates an experience which was both more enjoyable and more formative than anythingavailable from a centralised university less amply endowed’.39
Gladstone hoped that a reformed university would recover its influence and ‘exercise a far
greater sway than heretofore over the mind of England’.40 His approach to Oxford was rather likehis approach to the Church and all the other national institutions requiring attention after the 1820s:
moderate reforms were designed to quicken intellectual or spiritual vigour by bringing contact withnew social forces and groups, and subjecting traditional institutions to open competition. He hadlearnt this technique and these ideas from his political mentor, Peel, and they may be judged to haveworked in the case of Oxford, though at the expense of the Anglican connection which Gladstonehimself prized so highly. For if some things stayed the same, other things undoubtedly changed.
Oxford’s systems of instruction improved, and the late-Victorian university was palpably busier andmore vital than its mid-Victorian parent; it was recognised now as a national institution, its
international prestige rose, and it was on the way to becoming a truly interdenominational university.
In the ten years 1854-1863, some 63 per cent of Oxford graduates took holy orders; but between
1882-1891 this had fallen to 39 per cent.41 In Balliol College the appeal to take up secular callings
was heard earlier and more insistently from its liberal Master, Benjamin Jowett, and its leading spirit,
the idealist philosopher, Thomas Hill Green, than in other colleges. If nearly a third of its graduateswere ordained in the decade 1845-1855, by the 1890s the proportion had decreased to only one inevery twenty-five.42 The reforms of the Selborne Commission at the end of the 1870s reduced
further the number of clerical fellowships in the colleges to a level more or less commensurate withthe other academic subjects, so that, in the space of a generation, the connection with the Church had

38

M. G. Brock, ‘A “plastic structure”’, in Brock and Curthoys (eds.), Nineteenth-Century Oxford, Part 2 (Oxford, 2000), 7-9.
Ibid, 54-5.
Quoted in Harvie, ‘Reform and Expansion’, 698.
41
Ibid, 697.
42
Melvin Richter, The Politics of Conscience. T. H. Green and His Age (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), 69.
39
40

29

diminished enormously - though, as Anglican foundations, the colleges retained sentimental andhistoric links that continued to shape and influence them.
In this delicate balance between change and continuity no single ‘idea of the university’ hadtriumphed or can even be discerned. In 1900 as in 1854 there were several different ideas in creative
coexistence. Perhaps this was inevitable; the reform of an historic and organic institution like
Oxford could never have achieved anything unless it proceeded with respect for the past, and unless it
recognised that the university was a plural institution fulfilling different roles simultaneously. Hencethe reforms between the 1850s and 1880s were compromises in themselves which left several ‘ideasof the university’ in place even as they added new ideas in turn. Whether this represented a failureof nerve on the part of the university reformers, or was done by design - and there is evidence thatboth judgments are correct - we should view this historic compromise as a source of strength. The
reforms revitalised Oxford and encouraged one of the most creative phases in its history from the1870s to the First World War, during which teaching and research, secular and also religious callings,
high scholarship and public and imperial service, the education of the elite and the spread of learningto new groups, including women and workers, were all held in balance. As such, Oxford after 1854
is a model of the true pluralism and universality of any university at any time. It could not and it did
not choose between rival conceptions of its mission; rather the balance between change and continuity
suggests a subtle blending of many different ‘ideas of the university’ in Victorian Britain.
This is still the case in the contemporary university, though the attempt to sustain many different
types of academic and social activity in a single institution is becoming increasingly difficult.43
Resource constraints now bear upon Oxford and throw up difficult choices; can the university afford
to cover all corners of the map of knowledge, or should it concentrate resources and begin to
specialise? Can it continue to run, at great expense, both a tutorial and a professorial system,
employing more staff in more intensive teaching than in comparable institutions? Should it continue
to devote resources to subjects, including classics, that have lost their cultural centrality, at theexpense of new and more immediately utilitarian disciplines? Reliance on public funds, meanwhile,
throws up the problem of the university’s independence that Disraeli and Cecil could see in 1854.
Governments of the 1980s wanted Oxford to become more engaged with the economic life of thenation and hence emphasised applied rather than pure subjects. Governments of the 1990s have43

The following paragraph is based on personal experience at the administrative centre of the University of Oxford during theacademic year 2000-2001 when the author, as Assessor, was, with the Proctors and the Vice-Chancellor, one of the four
statutory officers of the university.

30

been concerned about the social composition of the student body at Oxford, which they wish to see
broadened so that the university takes more students from state (as opposed to private) secondary
schools and from social groups hitherto under-represented in the university. The social compositionof the student body has become the main concern of government almost to the exclusion of theacademic health and development of the university. And under the present university financial
regime, more public funds are being applied to the support of research than to teaching, withconsequent problems and distortions in a university which historically, has placed so much emphasison the instruction of undergraduates.

These policies have forced the university to reorder its

priorities, in the short-run at least; energies and resources that might be applied to one set of academic
purposes have to be applied to another set. Once more there is a danger that the university will haveto choose between rival functions rather than allow different activities to develop in parallel. The
problem today is to maintain the legacy that the Victorians handed down: they bequeathed several
different ideas of a university in a single institution, and it is our task to ensure that the many are not
reduced towards the one. We might be guided in this by the description of an ‘ideal university’ thatwas penned by James Bryce, a university liberal and a characteristic product of the reformed Oxford,in 1884, just at the end of this period of reform. A university, he wrote, should bea body of persons teaching the highest knowledge, that knowledge which is themost worth to man, either because it deals with their highest interests, appeals totheir noblest feelings, evokes their finest powers, or because it is at the root of theirpractical achievements, forms the basis of their control of Nature, supplies the
explanations of the phenomena of their own life, guides them in the path of moral
and social advancement…44

44James Bryce, ‘An Ideal University’, Contemporary Review, xlv, June 1884, 839, quoted in Christopher Harvie, ‘From theCleveland Commission to the Statutes of 1882’ in Brock and Curthoys (eds.), Nineteenth-Century Oxford, Part 2 , 92-3.

31

University Reform and the Idea of a University in Victorian Britain:
Comment on Dr. Goldman’s Paper
Yoshihito Yasuhara∗

Before making some comments on Dr. Goldman’s paper to provide a prime mover for the
discussion, let me introduce Dr. Goldman to you briefly. He read modern history at Jesus College,
Cambridge. He then took a Junior Research Fellowship at Trinity College, Cambridge. After
having worked as a staff tutor in history and politics at the Department of Extra-Mural Studies,
Oxford, he joined St. Peter’s college, Oxford and is now a fellow and tutor in modern history there.
He is also the editor of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. His main works include The
Dons and Workers: A History of English Adult Education 1850-1970 which was published by Oxford
University Press in 1995.

His latest work, Science, Reform and Politics: The Social Science

Association 1857-1886 was published by Cambridge University Press in 2002. One of his main
research concerns is to trace a history of English intellectuals in a wider political and social context inmodern Britain. His knowledge extends to the history of education and the history of universities aswell. He also has intimate knowledge and experience on the management and contemporary reformof Oxford as he has been appointed as an assessor of the university for the past year, an important
office of central university management along with the Vice-Chancellor and Proctors.
Now, ‘university reform’ is rapidly making its way in quite a radical form in Japan, too, which all
the academics here present know only too well. In contrast to social change such as a decline in the
proportion of 18-year olds, administrative and structural reform of the nation, reorganisation andmergers of higher education institutions, re-establishment of the National University as a quasi
corporate body, assessment of universities etc. have been discussed and projected. The key words
are accountability, competition, efficiency and ‘Value for Money’. On each theme of university
reform above mentioned, both bureaucrats and academics are of course ready to talk and discuss, andthe latter are busy in responding to national policies presented in rapid succession by the Ministry.
However, the most important matter in the contemporary university reform movement now inprogress seems to me, to cast that fundamental question once more: that is, ‘What is a university andwhat is not a university’. Historians of university and researchers working on higher education
among others cannot and should not escape from this fundamental question, I think. The theme of∗Professor, Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University

32this symposium ‘The Idea of a University in Historical Perspective’ was thus projected. Our task is
to consider this matter through discussion in a historical perspective and from a comparative point ofview.
The question of the idea of a university is a fundamental, essential question that is therefore
difficult to answer and requires some technique to approach it. The traditional, orthodox way of
approach is, of course, to extract the idea through analysis of the expressed words in texts written by
great thinkers, philosophers, intellectuals and academics. Thus, the thoughts and opinions of suchgreat figures as E. Kant, W. V. Humboldt, K. Jaspers, J. H. Newman, J. S. Mill, T. H. Huxley havebeen introduced and are well known in Japan. Another way of approach is to trace the process of
university reform in relation to a wider social reform and try to find the idea in the reform movement.
The analysis of party politics within a university where different interest groups contend with eachother could be a useful approach.
The unique way of approach Dr. Goldman has here adopted in dealing with the idea of an
English University in his paper is to focus on the debate on the proposed Oxford University Bill in theHouse of Commons in April 1854. While focusing on the parliamentary debates over the reform of
Oxford, he tries to extract the ideas of the university then discussed.

Then referring to thecharacteristic feature of the 1854 Oxford University Act as ‘compromise’ and its influence on the later
course of the reform, he argues that “there was no single ‘idea of the university’ but many different
ideas held simultaneously, sometimes in creative tension with each other, and sometimes in disablingcompetition”. There could be several different ‘ideas of the university’: as a national resource; as aself-governing community; as the focus for higher research on the German model; as a nursery forstatesmen and political leaders; and as the home of a liberal education. All these ideas were in‘creative coexistence’ in Oxford as a plural institution fulfilling different roles simultaneously. Thus
the reform of Oxford during the 1850s and 1880s made gradual progress, adding new ideas to the oldones in turn and taking a delicate balance between change and continuity, which Dr. Goldman regards
as a source of strength of Oxford.
Dr. Goldman pointed out that there were three main themes in the 1854 debates. That is (1) a‘national’ character of Oxford and its utility to the nation, (2) Oxford’s independence and autonomy,and (3) ‘germanisation’ of Oxford.
The first theme was, in other words, a question of ‘nationalisation’ and ‘democratisation’ of
Oxford, a question on how to open the door of the university to the dissenters and less-privileged
people. It was also a question on the relationship between the university and the nation. Regarding33this question, we will need to pay special attention to the different meaning of ‘national’ and ‘nation’in relation to the then British liberal state. As is well known, not only Oxford but none of the British
universities have ever been ‘universites of the state’ in a German or a Japanese sense.
This leads to the second theme of independence and autonomy of the university which relates tothe legal form and possibility of self-reform of the university. There is now a move to change theform of the Japanese national university from ‘a state university’ to ‘a quasi corporate body’. When
we consider this, there occurs the queer question of whether there was any discussion to change theform of Oxford as a ‘self governing corporate body’ into a ‘state university’ at all in the parliamentary
debates in 1854.
As for the discussion of Oxford’s independence, Disraeli’s argument was very impressive. We
should not forget that even Gladstone who was the leading figure in drafting and introducing the
Oxford Bill was once strongly opposed to Government interference.
The third theme of ‘germanising’ Oxford is a very interesting one which will be the focus of our
discussions in the later sessions as well.

Dr. Goldman points out that the desire and counter

argument to ‘germanise’ English universities was discussed not only from a point of view ofpromoting higher learning and ‘endowment of research’, but also on the basis of the defence oforthodox Christianity and of a national character of different countries. The Daily Telegraph’s
opinion that ‘but we must not turn Oxford into a Sorbonne; nor Cambridge into a Heidelberg’ reminds
us of the recent unavoidable trend of ‘americanisation’ or ‘globalisation’ of universities. Where do
we find a present Disraeli and Daily Telegraph?
Another important point which Dr. Goldman made was that a question on the aims and values ofliberal education, which has for such a long time been regarded as a unique tradition and an essence ofOxford education, was never explicitly discussed in the House of Commons in 1854. Then we willneed to ask again when, by whom and in what context the idea of liberal education was advocated andintroduced in Oxford.
Not only was the theme debated in Parliament, so impressive but so was the line-up of theparticipants in the discussion.

The first-rate politicians including four past and future prime

ministers (John Russel, Gladstone, Disraeli and Salisbury) took part in the debate. They spoke ofand debated earnestly the future of Oxford and the nation. Where did they get the knowledge andinformation on the university? Why were they so earnest in the debate on Oxford? Were they
supported by bureaucrats in preparing the draft of their speech or they did prepare it themselves?
Anyway, it must surely be a Victorian legacy to us that they argued on the idea of a university with agood deal more sophistication, as M. Sanderson suggests.

34

Finally Dr. Goldman refers to the problems of the contemporary university. Here he speaks not
only as a historian and an academic but also on his recent experience as an important university
officer (an assessor). He says that ‘the problem today is to maintain the legacy that the Victorians
handed down: they bequeathed several different ideas of a university in a single institution’. Then
how can we maintain that legacy in this rapidly changing, competitive, efficiency-oriented,
commercial, busy contemporary society?

35

USA

The History of American Professional Education1
Jurgen Herbst∗

During the last third of the nineteenth century, colleges and universities came to play a dominant,though not exclusive, role in the development of American professional education. As Sydney Ann
Halpern wrote, American university scholars had come to consider “professional training a central
function of higher education and constituted professional schools parallel to letters and sciencecolleges, as major academic divisions.

University presidents expected the faculty of these

professional schools to engage in scientific research and other scholarly activities”.2
This development occurred as part of what Christopher Jencks and David Riesman have called
the “Academic revolution”3 and what Richard Hoftstadter and Waiter Metzger in their book on
academic freedom in the United States4 have defined as the transition period between the age of thecollege and the age of the university. It also has often been described as part of the German
influence on American universities between the Civil War and the First World War.5 These American
students who had studied in Germany and began their careers as scholars in the United States set out
to model the new American university in the spirit of Wilhelm von Humboldt’s Wissenschaft. Theirand their students’ commitment to professionalism was to be guided by university inspired scientificprinciples rather than by the demands of professional practice.
Yet is has to be recognized that the “academic revolution” did not sweep over the American
academic landscape to create, as it were, a tabula rasa on which to build a completely new university
and erect a new edifice of professional education. American professional education had its origins in
the colonial period in apprenticeships and proprietary schools, and these were not obliterated by the1

This is an abbreviated version of a longer paper published in volume 21 (2001) of the History of Higher Education Annual.
Professor Emeritus of Educational Policy Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison
2
Sydney Ann Halpern, “Professional Schools in the American University”, in Burton R. Clark, ed., The Academic Profession:
National Disciplinary, and Institutional Settings (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), p. 311.
3
Christopher Jencks and David Riesman, The Academic Revolution (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1968).
4
Richard Hofstadter and Waiter P. Metzger, The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1955).
5
See my remarks in Henry Geitz, Jürgen Heideking and Jurgen Herbst, eds., German Influences on Education in the UnitedStates to 1917 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 11, and Burton Bledstein’s comment in his The Culture ofProfessionalism: The middle class and the development of higher education in America (New York: Norton, 1976), pp.
318-319.
∗37

new emphasis on university centered professional education. Native collegiate and non-college
antecedents of professional training survived into the twentieth century and became intertwined withforeign imports. Furthermore, the American university professional school became, as Robert Lynnwrote of the theological seminary, a “hybrid creation”6 - hybrid, not only in its derivation but also in
its academic purposes and social functions. First of all, its faculty members were both professional
practitioners and academic scholars.

Secondly, their commitments to both particular sectarian

doctrines or local practice and to universal scientific principles were often in conflict with one another.
And thirdly, they found themselves torn by their preference for high entrance and performancestandards for their students and by their desire to keep their profession open to members of all
segments of society. These built-in conflicts will have to be taken account of in any discussion of
professional education.
Let me first turn to the history of American professional education. Its native roots go back to
the colonial colleges. In his History of the American College and University Frederick Rudolph
noted correctly, “The university movement did not intrude the spirit of professionalism into the life ofAmerican higher education”. From the beginning, a college liberal arts education had traditionallybeen held to be the proper education for the ministry, law, and medicine, and colleges had often beenallied with theological, law, or medical schools.7 Colonial colleges also established professorships indivinity, medicine, and law. Their incumbents not only taught undergraduates but also gave special
attention to graduates who remained at the college for professional study or returned after anapprenticeship elsewhere. Harvard had appointed its first professor of divinity in 1721; William andMary, Yale, and the College of New Jersey followed during the next forty years.

Medicalprofessorships were established during the 1760s in Philadelphia and New York, and entering students
were required to have obtained a bachelor’s degree or show competence in Latin, mathematics, andnatural philosophy. During the 1770s both Yale College and the College of William and Mary
introduced medical and legal education.

Harvard granted its first medical degree in 1788. 8

Colonial colleges saw it as part of their task to provide their society with professionals educated in theliberal arts and trained in their specialities.
The most ambitious project of academically demanding professional education of high quality
6
7
8

Robert W. Lynn, Why the Seminary: An Introduction to the Report of the Auburn History Subject (typescript, 1978), p. 3.
Frederick Rudolph, The American College and University: A History (Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1990), p. 342.
See Jurgen Herbst, From Crisis to Crisis: American College Government, 1636-1819 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1982), pp. 160-165.

38

occurred as outgrowth of a revolt of conservative churchmen against the liberal theological ministerial
education offered at Unitarian Harvard. The revolt led in 1808 to the opening of the Andover
Theological Seminary, an institution that, though it was neither college nor university, could claim foritself the rank of a church-sponsored graduate institution.

It demanded of its students priorgraduation from college and offered a three-year curriculum taught by a professorial faculty of three.9
Later in the nineteenth century American colleges introduced scientific and engineering courses into
their curricula. Union College, the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the Massachusetts Instituteof Technology are examples of collegiate institutions that provided undergraduate professional
education.10
These collegiate and academically demanding instances of professional training, however, do notgive a representative picture of professional education during the post-revolutionary and Jacksonian
period. The majority of America’s ministers and preachers as well as lawyers and physicians were
not college graduates. Professional education was offered in church-sponsored divinity schools, in
proprietary medicine and law schools, and under apprenticeship arrangements in parsonages orindividual or group legal or medical practices. An end-of-the-19th-century report indicated that in
New York state the minimum standard for a license to practice medicine was the equivalent of highschool graduation, and other states required no more than a common school education, a high school
course, or some evidence of similar academic attainment. As late as 1897 even those professional
schools that enrolled college graduates did not always make that a condition of admission. In suchtheological institutions only 49 percent of the students held bachelor’s degrees. In law schools
college graduates amounted to 24 percent, and in medical schools to only 14 percent.11 The rationale
for not strictly enforcing the bachelor’s degree as entrance requirement was not academic or
intellectual but financial and demographic. Professional schools were in need of income fromstudents, and, given the demand for professionals, college graduates were in short supply. Thus there
were few voices that called for an academically more demanding training.
The European roots of professional education lead us back even further to the beginnings ofWestern universities in the medieval world. These institutions had begun, not like their 19th century
9

Donald W. Light, “The Development of Professional Schools in America”, in Konrad H. Jarausch, ed., The Transformation ofHigher Learning 1860-1930 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1983), pp. 346-349.
10
See Thomas N. Bonner, “The Beginnings of Engineering Education in the United States: The Curious Role of Eliphalet Nott”,
New York History, LXIX (1988), pp. 35-54.
11
See James Russell Parsons, Professional Education, Monographs on Education in the United States, # 10, Nicholas Murray
Butler, ed. (St. Louis: Universal Exposition, 1904), pp. 7 and 10.

39

German successors as state institutions, but as assemblies of aspiring and practicing professionals who
were incorporated by Pope and Emperor as self-governing faculties or schools for lawyers, physicians,
and theologians. They were in effect professional schools. For the preparatory training of theirstudents in the arte liberals - the languages arts - they relied on cathedral schools and on their own
non-professional arts faculties. 12

Yet with the break-up of the Roman Empire and with theReformation, the universities lost their imperial and papal protectors and their corporate autonomy.
The professional faculties now became training schools of civil servants for the territorial rulers andtheir confessional church establishments.

The arts faculties suffered from steadily diminishingprestige and sank to the level of secondary schools, the continental gymnasia illustria or the English
endowed grammar schools.13
Toward the end of the eighteenth century demands arose in Germany and other countries that theuniversities be abolished and their faculties turned into separate specialty schools.14 In France suchprogram was effectively instituted in 1806 as a state monopoly under the Imperial University.15 In
Prussia, however, Humboldt, well aware of the need for specialized professional training but also
disturbed by the fractionalizing and disintegrating effect of specialization, was concerned to preserve“the unity of knowledge” which, to him, constituted the all-embracing concept of university education.
He asked his king to join in Berlin the existing scientific academies, institutes, libraries, andcollections with the faculties of a university that was neither to exclude any subject nor limit itself topractical exercises. It was to be one organic whole, allowing each part a measure of independence
yet working cooperatively for a common purpose.16 Its organization was to conform to the proposalsof Immanuel Kant who in his “The Battle of the Faculties” had proposed that the disfunctional arts
faculty be elevated to a faculty of philosophy. Its mission was to protect the university’s freedom oflearning, teaching, and research and to serve as a unifying capstone over the specialized andgovernment service oriented professional faculties.17
12This was the vision that so inspired the

See Alan B. Cobban, The Medieval Universities: Their Development and Organization (London: Methuen & Co., 1975), andHastings Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, F. M. Powicke and A. B. Emden, eds., 3 vols. (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1951).
13
See Jurgen Herbst, “The First Three American Colleges: Schools of the Reformation”, Perspectives in American History,
VIII (1974), pp. 7-52.
14
See Charles E. McClelland, State, Society, and University in Germany, 1700-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1980), pp. 76-77.
15
See Jacques Verger, ed., Histoire des universités en France (Toulouse: Bibliothèque historique privat, 1986), pp. 261ff.
16
Application to found the University of Berlin, July 24, 1809, in Wilhelm von Humboldt, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 10(Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1903-1936), pp. 148-154.
17
Immanuel Kant, “Der Streit der Fakultäten”, in Werke in Sechs Bänden, Wilhelm Weischedel, ed., VI (Frankfurt am Main:
Insel Verlag, 1964), pp. 261ff, and Günther Bien, “Kant’s Theorie der Universität und ihr geschichtlicher Ort”, Historische
Zeitschrift, CCXIX (1974), pp. 551-577.

40

American students studying in Germany during the last third of the century.
But what the American students in Germany did not or did not want to see was that during thehalf-century after Humboldt the faculty of philosophy had itself become a specialized professional
faculty for the training of Germany’s school teachers, scientists, and scholars. It no longer carried
any responsibility for the liberal arts education of its students, as that function had been assigned tothe country’s Gymnasia. While the rhetoric of the “unity of science” and Bildung - education as
character formation and cultivation - continued, in its daily work the university devoted itself to thespecialized utilitarian needs of the emerging nation state.
Besides, the university was not the only institution for German post-secondary education.
Specialized schools and institutions, independent of and separate from universities and claiming, andeventually receiving, recognition of university status, provided training in business, engineering,forestry, mining, agriculture, veterinary medicine and other professional specialties.

In theirutilitarian emphasis and their separate existence these institutions resembled the professional faculties
and schools of Napoleonic France which had replaced the French universities.

Thus RobertAnderson could state quite correctly that “what happened at the end of the nineteenth century was not
so much the triumph of the Humboldtian ideal as a new synthesis in which elements of both
Enlightenment and Humboldtian traditions were merged”.18
Just as the history of modern American professional education at the end of the nineteenth
century cannot focus solely on the appearance of university professional schools and present these as
uniformly accepted results of the transition from the age of the college to the age of the university, itcannot ignore the hybrid nature of these institutions that I mentioned above. It has to acknowledge
that once professional schools became parts of universities whose reputation depended on the research
productivity of its faculties, faculty members of professional schools were expected to devote theirenergies to advance the theoretical understanding of their craft and to engage in research andpublishing.19 But it also has to recognize that as teachers in training schools for future professionals
they had to be mindful of the demands of their students for practical information and skills, the “tricksof the trade”. Donald Light asked the relevant question: “To what extent are they [professional
18

19

Robert Anderson, “Before and After Humboldt: European Universities between the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries”,
History of Higher Education Annual, XX (2000), p. 12.
Sociologists refer to this conflict of missions as sociological ambivalence. See the essay by this title in Robert K. Merton, ed.,Sociological Ambivalence and other Essays (New York: Free Press, 1976), pp. 3-31.

41

schools] to train practitioners and to what extent are they to educate pure disciples of the profession’s
core knowledge?”20
That issue was posed at the turn of the century by the conflicting statements of Harvard’s
President Charles W. Eliot and Professor George. F. Moore of the Hartford Theological Seminary.
Commenting on the appointment of James Barr Ames in 1873 to the Harvard law school, Eliot said:
In due course ... there will be produced in this country a body of men learned in thelaw, who have never been on the bench or at the bar, but who nevertheless holdpositions of great weight and influence as teachers of the law, as expounders,systematizers and historians.21
Moore, thinking of the Hartford Seminary as a “theological university”, countered by saying in 1908:
Just as it is not the primary end of the law school, to produce men learned in thehistory and philosophy of the jurisprudence, but to train men to practice law... so it
is not the primary end of the theological school to send out men learned in thehistory and philosophy of religion, but to train men for the practice of the ministry.22
The contrast could not have been put in starker terms.
The issue, however, is by no means only of historical interest. It has remained alive to this day.
For the teachers in university professional schools it has been less a matter of having to choose than oftrying to satisfy both claims. “Janus-like”, wrote Sydney Halpern in 1987, “they sit facing, on the
one side, the university with its commitment to academic standards, and on the other, practicing
professions with guild interests and commitments to client-oriented services”. 23

Referring

specifically to university law schools, Robert Stevens wrote in 1983 that “teaching still took pride ofplace over scholarship”, and the legal literature produced by law school professors “was more likely
to be of interest to the practitioner than to the scholar”. But as the university’s notorious “publish or
perish” pressure made itself felt, he concluded, the “inherent conflict” between serving the profession
20

Light, “The Development of Professional Schools”, p. 346.
Quoted in Jerold S. Auerbach, “Enmity and Amity: Law Teachers and Practitioners, 1900-1922”. Perspectives in American
History, Donald Fleming and Bernard Bailyn, eds., vol. V (1971), p. 551.
22
Quoted in Light, “The Development of Professional Schools”, p. 350.
23
Halpern, “Professional Schools”, pp. 304-305.
21

42

through teaching its newcomers and pursuing scholarship “had developed into a massive case of
intellectual schizophrenia”.24
A second issue that historians will have to face is that of professional education’s tension
between their practitioners’ divided loyalties. On the one hand they are asked to acknowledge andabide by doctrinal and local diversity; on the other, their commitment to scholarship compels them todefend the uniform and universal applicability of the results of scientific inquiry. The case of the
Andover Theological Seminary, referred to above, illustrates the dilemma of an institution that sought
to serve two masters, the church and the academy. Can divinity schools claim their teaching to bescientific when they are asked to endorse and abide by the creeds and prayers books of theirsponsoring denominations, churches, or sects? Can they belong to the world of scholarship only
when they divest themselves of any ties to particular denominations or religions? For law schools
the question has been whether institutions that serve regional clienteles should concentrate on teaching
their students the law of their particular jurisdiction, or whether, defending the law as a science, they
are obliged to also teach jurisprudence, the history and philosophy of law, and development of legal
reasoning? 25

Historians who study nineteenth century medical education will have to wonder

whether a convincing case can be made for scientific medical education as long as physicians weredivided among themselves in various camps, the generalists, the Thomsonians, the homeopaths, andthe osteopaths?26 To be sure, when toward the end of the century the germ theory and otherdevelopments led to a marked decrease in the threat of infectious diseases, the advances inestablishing a scientific knowledge base immeasurably strengthened the scientific authority ofuniversity medical schools. As a result, medical schools in the twentieth century have been lessendangered than divinity and law schools by sectarian strife or by local and regional differences intheir curricular offerings.

Still, the presence of chiropractic herbal medicine, and varieties of

so-called non-western medicine remind us that the issue persists in medical education as well.
Finally, professional schools find themselves caught in the struggle between those of their faculty
members who argue that an open admissions policy and low accreditation standards will dilute thequality and the prestige of their school and profession and those who believe that only by upholding
such policies can their profession be a truly public profession with access open to members of all
24

Robert Stevens, Law School: Legal Education in America from the 1850s to the 1980s (Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina Press, 1983), pp. 264 and 271.
Stevens, Law School, p. 41.
26
Light, “The Development of Professional Schools”, p. 361.
25

43

social, ethnic, and racial groups. Here, the contrast between the 1910 Flexner Report on medical
education and the 1921 Reed Report on legal education is instructive.27 Abraham Flexner hadargued that the subject matter of medical schools rested on scientific investigations and required auniform application of the highest scientific standards.

Medical schools, therefore, should be

associated with a university and a teaching hospital. They should not be operated as a business forprivate profit.28 Their faculty members should consist of full-time professors committed to researchin clinical as well as scientific departments, and their students should have a minimum of two years ofcollege studies in the natural sciences.29 Alfred Reed, like Flexner commissioned by the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, did not think that all law schools had to conform to as
stringently uniform scientific standards as Flexner had demanded of medical schools. The law, heargued, was a public profession that had to respond to the country’s need of “lawyers of differingskills and qualifications serving different purposes and different elements in society.”30 There wasroom for night schools that were accessible to working people who aspired to work with individual
clients and their everyday legal problems, and there was room for university law schools that trainedcollege-educated specialist to deal with government and corporate clients.
As it was, America’s physicians endorsed Flexner’s view of their profession for much the same
reasons that America’s lawyers, as represented in the American Bar Association, rejected Reed’sreport. In both cases, professionals sought to protect scientific standards and the prestige they
conveyed on them. Critics were later to charge that the Flexner report had severely restricted the
supply of physicians and “many of the ills of inadequate medical care in the 1970s can be traced” toits success.31 Reed’s views, too, found their supporters among lawyers who, like Robert Stevens,
pointed out that if proprietary law schools had been entirely eliminated, “legal services might havebeen even more inadequately distributed in this country than they are today”.32 The conflict of views,
however, persists in both professions and was made all the more virulent as charges of anti-semitism,
xenophobia, and elitist discrimination against racial minorities and the poor entered the debates.33

27

For a far more incisive comparative analysis of the two reports than I can provide here, see Michael Schudson, “The Flexner
Report and the Reed Report: Notes on the History of Professional Education in the United States”, Social Science Quarterly(September 1974), pp. 347-361.
28
Abraham Flexner, Medical Education in the United States and Canada (New York: Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching, Bulletin No. 4, 1910), p. 173.
29
For an excellent overview and analysis of the Flexner Report, see chapter 9 in Kenneth M. Ludmerer, Learning to Heal: The
Development of American Medical Education (New York: Basic Books, 1985).
30
Quoted in Stevens, Law School, p. 116.
31
Quoted in Schudson, “The Flexner Report and the Reed Report”, p. 381.
32
Stevens, Law School, p. 116.
33
See Auerbach, “Enmity and Amity”, pp. 579-580.

44

This attempt to sketch the history of American professional schools and education, theirantecedents in Europe, and some of their past and contemporary problems, has of necessity been
limited in its scope. It has taken its examples from the traditional academic professions of theministry, medicine, and the law because their history foreordained them as the preferred candidates forinclusion into American colleges and universities.34 To what extent other professional fields andtheir educational institutions share the history and problems outlined here remains a subject for further
investigation.

What this historical survey points out is that in the United States colleges anduniversities have played a dominant role in the development of professional education.

Thisbecomes especially clear when one looks at developments in other countries where practitioners andthe state have largely determined the course of professional education.35 As to the conflicts that face
American professional education - the tension between professional and academic demands, between
particular sectarian or local and universal scientific principles, and between high performancestandards and social openness - they are likely to persist and will have to be dealt with by themembers of each new student cohort as they enter on their careers.

34

Note that Abraham Flexner, for reasons I discussed above, did not want to include schools of denominational religion as
candidates for university professional faculties. See his Universities: American, English, German (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1930), p. 29.
35
See Michael Burrage, “From practice to school-based professional education: Patterns of conflict and accommodation in
England, France, and the United States”, in Sheldon Rothblatt and Björn Wittrock, eds., The European and American
University since 1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 155: “To put it in a nutshell, professional education
in England has been dominated by practitioners, in France by the State, and in the United States by the universities”.

45

Rethinking American Professional Education:
Comment on Professor Herbst’s Paper
Toshichika Miyata∗

It is a great honor as well as a pleasure to act as a commentator for Professor Jurgen Herbst in his
lecture entitled ‘Rethinking American Professional Education’. As everyone here knows Professor
Herbst’s academic achievement is so remarkable that I do not have to repeat it. In fact, the enormous
scope of his accomplishment is far beyond my grasp. Reading only a few of his works, however,makes us see what the spirit of traditional German scholarship means. And this spirit is real: when
he writes about Wilhelm von Humboldt, he does so not only as an accomplished scholar, but also as
one who once went to a school created in the Humboldtian tradition. Professor Herbst studied
Geography at the University of Nebraska, and took his master’s degree in American Studies at the
University of Minnesota, and his Ph.D. in the History of American Civilization at Harvard. He
taught and did research work at Wesleyan University, a well-known liberal arts college, and for many
years at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, a representative state university that produced the
Wisconsin Idea.

What else could have made him more American, or more of an American

intellectual? Thus when he compares Wilhelm von Humboldt with Thomas Jefferson, he stands on
unrivaled ground.
But even with Professor Herbst’s scholarship and assiduity, it is hard to sum up the historicalfacts in a simple formula. The history of American professional education cannot be simplified, as
he says, into ‘a straight line transition’ drawn from the origins of colleges in the seventeenth century to‘the German influx at the end of the nineteenth century’. Things are ‘of greater complexity than
textbook accounts convey’.

When Professor Herbst says ‘these developments were of greater

complexity than textbook accounts convey’ there is much truth in it. But what happened during thehalf century after Humboldt started the University of Berlin in 1810 was the simple fact that thefaculty of philosophy no longer carried any responsibility for the liberal arts education; it was
regulated to Gymnasia. And this was what the American students ‘did not, or did not want to see’.
American students brought back with them an idealized picture of the German university.
Richard Ely, like many other Americans scholars, brought back from Germany ‘the spirit of
freedom’ to Johns Hopkins (Richard Ely later moved to Wisconsin). One of his students at John’s∗

Professor, Faculty of Humanities and Economics, Kochi University

46

Hopkins, Frederic Howe, describes its atmosphere as follows: ‘Teachers and students alike felt adignity and enthusiasm in their work. We wondered at the intimacy between professors and students,
at the possibility of meeting distinguished teachers as human beings’. Both professors and students
were there for the pursuit of scholarship. The worship of Wissenschaft was introduced into American
graduate schools. As for undergraduate education, Professor Herbst says that ‘from the beginning, acollege liberal arts education had been held to be the proper education for ministry, law, and medicine’.
He also refers to the fact that the majority of professionals, ministers, lawyers, and physicians were
not college graduates and got their training outside college.
Almost two centuries later, Eric Ashby writes, ‘The graduate school is the pride of American
higher education, and justifiably so. At its best it preserves some of the apprenticeship of theGerman institute: young men watching the master at work every day’. It was significant that in the
United States, this worship of Wissenschaft found its way into graduate institutions, and not into
undergraduate colleges. This ideal of master-disciple relationship makes sense in institutions where
Wissenschaft is rigorously pursued by small groups of dedicated researchers. It makes little sense inundergraduate courses of a universal higher education in which fourteen million young people areenrolled. But here, Professor Herbst points out, is another problem of maintaining professional
standards or opening access to professional schools. As Professor Herbst says, we cannot ‘speak
glibly and in general terms of professional education when practice and traditions differ among thenations and among professions’.

What happened in England was different.

When students

returned to England from Germany, they brought back the German enthusiasm for science, but it
never replaced the tradition that was traced back to John Locke and built up by such humanists as
John Henry Newman and Mark Pattison. As is often said, they do not teach great truths, but theyteach truth in a great way.
In American liberal arts colleges, graduate or professional schools, or in English undergraduate
education, ideals seem to have survived to this day. I do not know whether these are the same aswhat Wilhelm von Humboldt had in mind, let alone the unifying capstone ideal of Immanuel Kant.
As is always the case with ideals, winds blow bitterly against them. For instance, the number ofliberal arts colleges is, in a strict sense, drastically diminished. David Breneman says that their
history has been an unbroken struggle for survival. But it is hard to think that what has been
inherited in the United States and in England will disappear and become things of the past. Good
teaching always draws some graduates back to their Alma Mater. Torch bearers will keep running.
The professional school is the pride of American higher education. But it is not without its own
problems. Even with such heroic and successful surgery as executed by Flexner, aftereffects linger
and become chronic. Some are even global; we can readily refer to the similar problems here in47

Japanese medical schools. One such typical symptom is the conflict between practitioners andacademics.

But both sides, practitioners and academics, are endowed with the most needed

properties; they have social status and financial support. This is not the case with all professional
schools, of course. Professor Herbst describes historical facts related to normal schools in And Sadly
Teach. Nor is it the case with liberal arts colleges; they also have to struggle to survive. When we
extend our view to liberal education as preprofessional education, problems emerge. For instance, itis easy to see what will happen if professional and non-professional, or specialized and general
education, are placed in one institution, as they are in this country. Professional faculty always
prevails; there aren’t even conflicts.
As Sheldon Rothblatt says, liberal education is moral or socio-moral. And good professional
education is an outgrowth of good preprofessional education. In the twenty-first century, we are
obliged to think once more about the role of public morality once played by universities supported byreligion. Some scholars trace back the origin of liberal arts colleges to the cathedral school of Islam.
Education of young minds when they are in their most plastic state makes a difference, even shakes
the world. Here, once more, we probably have to recall and reflect on Humboldtian ideals.

48

JAPAN

American Graduate School:
Professional Training vs. Research Originality
Shigeru Nakayama∗

In 1957 when I was a Harvard graduate student, I saw Professor Robert Ulich and asked him how
to prepare for an oral general examination (It is called a comprehensive examination in other institutes.
It is basically the examination for Ph.D. candidacy.) on the subject of the history of the university that
he was in charge of. He used to be a university administrator of Saxonian University and was
expelled by Hitler out of Nazi Germany before he came to Harvard to teach the subject of “history andthe present state of Western universities”.
He was not in a good mood. He told me “there was no freedom on the part of students here in
the USA. What about Japanese universities?” I had a long reading list for the subject and then,wondered what he meant to say by that?
It is an established opinion among scholars in the history of education that the American graduate
school was modeled on the German doctoral system. I think otherwise. At the outset, my graduate
study was largely preoccupied with busy course-work, which is missing from the laissez-faire
European or Japanese university systems. During the first two years in an American graduate school,
we have to complete course-work with good grades. My concept from Japanese graduate study wasthat it was solely devoted to individual research. The American graduate school treated us in asomewhat humiliating way by imposing course-work and common competitive written examinations.
If a grade is inferior to a B, a student will be expelled from the school. In order to renew a full
fellowship, it is necessary to get all A grades. Accordingly, I had to work hard to fulfill thecourse-work.
What is, then, the origin of the hard training by course-work in an American graduate school?
It is not possible for it to have originated in the tradition of akademische Freiheit in the philosophicalfaculty of German universities. Otherwise, Professor Ulich would not complain about it. After thegeneral examination, an entirely different world opens for the successful Ph.D. candidate. Thereafter,∗

Professor Emeritus, Kanagawa University49

we were able to concentrate on preparing our dissertations. Residence at the home university may
not be necessary. Such a big difference suggests that the system of the American graduate school
consists of two entirely different modes - before and after the general examination.
The glory of the 19th century German universities is often synonymous with the rise of its
philosophical faculty. The course-work in American colleges and graduate schools has nothingsimilar to the academic freedom in the philosophical faculty of the German universities. In the USA,
employing competitive written examinations, they drill into students’ brains disciplined skills andknowledge.

This is not the individual freedom of academic inquiry and research of German

universities, which appreciates only original individuality, not the training of common skills andknowledge.
I think the freedom of the German university is a laissez-faire, undisciplined, amorphous
freedom in a tradition derived from the medieval Western university.

The plea for academic

freedom in German university was the result of an outcry when it was infringed by Napoleon or theGerman Empire, not a carefully designed one. It was pre-modern, existing before rational training
and happened to attain glory under a market mechanism operating in a feudalistic pluralism, as
Ben-David showed.
Then, what was the origin of such rational professional training? It may eventually go back to
the 7th century Chinese civil service examination of Confucian rationalism. For recruitment of
bureaucrats, they sought fairness in a competitive written examination excluding personal connection
and nepotism. It invited the attention of the Jesuit rationalists who came to China in the 17th century.
A system of written examinations began to be adopted in 18th century rationalistic Western society.
I presume that the written examination must have been adopted first by the newly rising technical,
professional schools (such as the ecole des ponts et shausses or ecole central, the predecessors ofecole polytechnique) rather than the old universities, the fortresses of ancienne regime. Then, West
Point imported the harsh training method of the ecole polytechnique in mathematics and highly
theoretical subjects. There is also an established opinion in the history of American education that
Harvard College followed the practice of Cambridge’s education of gentlemen but recitation ofclassics might have not been the predecessor of professional training. President Eliot of Harvard
adopted into the College and Graduate school elective courses that had been the practice of thephilosophical faculty of German universities. (At this point, I would like to seek the opinion ofoverseas scholars as to the origin of written examinations and course-work in the older educational50

institutions, as I have had no opportunity to document my conjecture from the sources available inWestern libraries.)
The immediate predecessors of course-work in the present American universities must have been
the German Technische Hochschule, following the practice of the ecole polytechnique, and American
land-grant A & M colleges. The tradition has now been taken over by the contemporary professional
schools, where individual originality is not necessarily highly appreciated but solid skill andknowledge are commonly required as a professional practice. Normally, the Master's degree is given
to such a practical qualification, but, because of the length of training, the MD is conferred at medical
schools.
For the training of common skills and knowledge, textbooks are compiled.

Writtenexaminations accompany textbooks. The American graduate school aims at training of researcherswith individual originality but along with the use of textbooks and written examinations, it requires
course-work to provide the common skills and knowledge of research professionals and as theprerequisites for future individual research.
I notice that there are certain differences of research style between American researchers withcourse-work training and European and Japanese scholars without it. From the former view point,
the latter appears to be amateuristic, while the latter views the former as being too muchprofessionalized. In the American graduate school, the paradigm common to a disciplinary group isthoroughly mastered, and professional skills are drilled in.1 Only after that, with the premise ofcommon knowledge at their research front, could they discuss the esoteric topics not understood bythose outside the discipline. In my specialty of the history of science, for example, graduate students
were required to read all of the classical paradigms of science appropriate to the history of science,starting with Aristotle, and in their discussions is the premise that all the professional discussants arefamiliar with these classics. At the same time they become familiar with disciplinary tools, such as
standard reference works and current interpretations of the subject. In Japan, in a field such as thehistory of science, which is not as yet professionalized, it is often difficult to distinguish between anamateur and a professional.

Some people appoint themselves as professionals by reproducing

text-book knowledge; they would not be regarded as professionals in an American history of science1

In the first American graduate school at Johns Hopkins, 6-hour written examination for each course was imposed at the end of
academic year, in spite of the opposition that there were no precedent in European universities. Hugh Hawkins, Pioneer,Johns Hopkins University Press, 1960, p.249

51

society, where now professionals with graduate training dominate.

Whether the merits ofprofessionalization are still arguable, most of the field in natural sciences are already professionalized,
while in the social sciences and humanities the difference between professionals and amateurs may or
may not be clearly visible.
Within such a trend to professionalization of science, the oral debating tradition of the medieval
university is still preserved in the general and defense examinations before and after writing an
individual dissertation, at least as a matter of formality. It is the formality of public debate, by which
the qualification of degree candidates is assessed according to their individual originality. Such a
debating scholarship is running into modern academic science but is missing in the Eastern tradition.
A written examination of the Eastern tradition cannot be applicable as a qualification test for
general and defense examinations, as candidates are required to possess specialized knowledge thatcan be tested only individually. Even before the general examination, graduate students are required
to present individual papers of laboratory work and seminars.
On the other hand, modern rationalistic training in professional schools of the newly risingbourgeois class evaluates the practicability of science rather than individual originality. Modern
technology is especially appreciated for its interchangeability.

Among practical professionals,

creative individuality is not necessarily esteemed. The technical acme of a talented individual often
means a retreat from modern professional skills to pre-modern craftsmanship. In medicine too,
American medical schools train their MD candidates only in professional skills, without requiring
individual dissertations.
Bifurcational development of American graduate and professional schools has proved to berational. In such a fast moving frontier of science and technology, however, research-mindedness
should be required for high-tech high professionals. On the other hand, in Japanese graduate school,such a bifurcation has not been attained yet.

Before the eventual merging of graduate andprofessional schools in frontier science and technology, a bifurcational way of thinking must be
thoroughly considered.

52

How has Japan Introduced the Notion of a “University”?
Takashi Hata∗

1. Is the Japanese Daigaku a University?
Over the past 10 years, Japanese universities have been through various drastic changes, ranging
from the virtual abolition of general education, the introduction of the university evaluation system, tothe corporatisation of national universities. Through that process, I feel it is important to evaluate thecharacter of the university from a historical viewpoint, including among other points, the weak base ofgeneral education, and the lack of collegiality.
To begin with, the university as an organisation was introduced to Japan by the West, rather thanactually developing in Japan and other Asian countries. The Japan of the late 18th century wasforced to “westernise” through the economic and cultural pressure of various Western countries, andas part of that nation building, public education system and universities were introduced.
Altbach (1989) said that in the process of becoming independent, the university systemtransplanted to Asian countries became indigenised, but was different from European universities.1
His theory is mainly concerned with the countries which underwent colonisation and liberation after
the Second World War.
The “westernisation” of Japan was a process of nation building through the independent andselective introduction of Western systems, and indigenisation was started right from the stage ofintroduction. It is said that in that process, Japan modeled its universities on those of Germany,
England, France and the United States. However, in addition to that, as Shigeru Nakayama (1989)
has pointed out, the universities are also modeled on the institutions of higher education under theancient system of centralised administration established under the constitutional form of government(ritsuryo-sei); based on that of China (Tang period).
Toshiaki Okubo (1943),2 one of the first persons to have perceived this, describes the origin of∗Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University“Two basic realities shape Asian higher education systems - the foreign origin of the basic academic model and theindigenisaiton of the universities as part of the development process”. Philip G. Altbach and Viswanahan Selvaratnam,
Kluwer ed., From dependence to autonomy: the development of Asian universities, 1989, p.1.
2
Toshiaki Okubo, Nihon no Daigaku (Japan’s Universities), 1943. He edited the general history of the University of Tokyo(Tokyo Teikoku Ｄaigaku Gojunenshi, 1932).
153

Japanese universities as being “Daigaku-Ryo”, and notes the history of Kanritsu (National) Universityof the Meiji Era as starting from the revival of the Daigaku-Ryo. However, we cannot say that thistheory has been sufficiently evaluated, as that book unduly emphasises the inherent character of Japan,
because it was written in a period of wartime when extreme nationalism and patriotism wasencouraged. Nevertheless, the fact that the word “university” was translated as “daigaku”, is a good
indication of the ideology of the current concept that daigaku equals university.

2. The Three Stages of the School Process and the University at the PeakThe term daigaku originated with the ancient Daigaku-Ryo system, but outlasted its demise. In
the Tokugawa Era, there was a position known as “Daigaku-no-Kami (Head of the University)” in the
Rinke-Kajuku (Private School of the Hayashi family), which was supported by the 5th Shogun,
Tsunayoshi Tokugawa (1646-1709). This Rinke-Kajuku became an “educational institute” under the“Kansei-Igaku-no-Kin (Rules of Education of the Kansei Era)” (1790) drawn up by Sadanobu
Matsudaira (1758-1829, Rochu 1787-1793), and continued to exist until the end of the Tokugawa
Shogunate, when it became one of the founding schools of Tokyo University.
In June of Meiji Year 2 (1869) the Shohei School, which descended from one of the educational
institutes, was reorganised and established as a “university school” combined with an organisation for
educational administration, but was not deemed to be a “university”.
Thus, it is still unclear who translated the term “university” into “daigaku” in Japanese.
However, the credit for popularising the word could be given to Yukichi Fukuzawa (1834-1901), whoworked to facilitate the introduction of Western culture to Japan. After his first voyage to the UnitedStates of America (1859-1860), he published Seiyo Jijyo (Western Matters) Book 1 (3 volumes, 1866)
and Seiyo Jijyo Book 2 (3 volumes, 1867). In those works, he used the terms “college” and“university” to indicate the Japanese word “Daigaku”, “Daigakukko” and other institutions of higher
education. Fukuzawa’s concept of a university was based on the two or three processes of primaryschool, junior high school and senior high school: a university was the school of higher education at
the top of these. Moreover, in his eyes, the function of a university was to be the driving force
behind social movement and industrialisation, and he understood that the significance of the existenceof universities was to help further the ambitions of less affluent students.3
The assimilation and understanding of foreign educational systems and matters made rapid
progress after the Meiji Restoration and became a principal task for the Ministry of Education,

3

Seiyo Jijyo (Western Matters), Vol.Ⅱ-3.

54

Science and Culture. It started to gather information and comment on foreign educational systems
and matters in the “Mombusho-Zashi (Ministry of Education Magazine)” (starting with the April
edition of Meiji Year 6), the “Kyoiku-Zashi (Education Magazine)” and the “Mombusho-Kyoiku-Zashi(Ministry of Education Educational Magazine)”. However, articles about universities did not appear
until the “Ministry of Education Magazine” Issue No. 12 (8th July, Meiji Year 8), and Issue No. 16(14th September). The title was “Universities and Degrees in Foreign Countries”. In that article,
the terms “college”, “university” and “academy” were collectively used to describe all of Japan’ssystems of higher education, so it appeared as if the characteristics of each institution were notproperly understood.
In other words, the “university” Japan was trying to introduce in the Meiji Era was thought to bea shift away from the schools of the ritsuryo-sei (ancient constitutional form of government) and theschools under the Shogunate clan system.
Thus the fundamental characteristics of a university can be summarised as it follows:
1. The university as a union of teachers and students;
2. The professors who were employed according to their degrees (qualifications);
3. The systemisation of knowledge for education;
4. The special privileges;
5. The creation of a scholarly world intersecting that of the university.
The concept of what a university, sharing common features with modern universities, actually
was did not seem to be accurately grasped.

3. The Structure of a University
So, what do we assume that a university teaches? The university, which stands at the peak of
the three stages of education system should teach a high standard of specialised education, and that is
why it should be called a university.

According to the regulations of special schools,

Gakusei-Nihen-Tsuika (Supplement to the Second Edition of the Education System Order of 1972),“The opening of special schools which hire foreign teachers should only be for the teaching of artsand sciences such as law, medicine, astronomy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering and soforth. It is not necessary to teach other subjects like religion and ethics” (Article 189). The
Minister for Education, Takato Oki (1832-1899) said, “Our country has its own special writing,55

language, customs, and learning. Each country has its own morals, so after all, it is also necessary
for us to study subjects other than knowledge in our country. Amongst others, the subjects lacking
in Japan are industrial arts, technology, astronomy, physics, medicine, law and economics”.4
Furthermore, Oki compared Japanese and foreign education systems and found that firstly,
Japanese culture was taught in primary schools; secondly, Western-style general education was taught
in junior high schools, and thirdly, foreign language study, special preparatory study and special
vocational study were taught at schools after junior high school. This study at special vocational
schools was equivalent to university study. Oki said, “Special vocational schools are not different
from universities in Japan. Consequently, it is not essential to have rules about universities”.

4. The Actual Assimilation of the “University Concept”
The actual introduction of the university image progressed in the second decade of the Meiji Era.
With the arrival of foreigners (Fulbeck arrived in 1859 as a foreign missionary and was hired by the
Ministry of Education in 1869), and the increase in the number of Japanese going overseas, theamount of information available on systems of higher education increased. Murray drafted bills on
Japanese education and introduced many diverse types of systems of higher education, such as theprofessional school, the university and institutions for higher learning.
Moreover, foreigners employed in Japan and Japanese graduates of overseas schools themselves
started to found institutes of higher education. For example, Kobu Daigakko (the Imperial College
of Engineering) was founded in January of Meiji Year 10, based on the Zurich Federal University ofEngineering; Sapporo Nogakko (Sapporo Agricultural College), modeled on the Massachusetts
Agricultural University was inaugurated in August of Meiji Year 9, and Naimusho-KannokyokuNogakko (the Imperial College of Agriculture Tokio) was inaugurated in January of Meiji Year 11.
It is possible to suggest that the introduction and embodiment of these diverse images of higher
education institutes gave rise to the concept of a “university”. The renaming of Tokyo University in
March of Meiji Year 10 contrasted with the various other institutes of higher education. These
institutions of higher education that the government offices had were merged in Tokyo University inthe latter half of 1880s (Appendix 1).
Subsequently, Tokyo University became the Imperial University and grew.
In actual fact, people connected with universities and government authorities commonly
4

Tsuyoshi Kurasawa, Gakusei no Kenkyu, 1973. National Educational Research Institute, Nihon Kindai Kyoiku hyakunenshi;
Gakkokyoiku (1), 1973.

56

recognise that a “university” is not just an institute of higher education, but rather an institution ofhigher education providing a comprehensive system including, amongst others, the four faculties ofliterature, science, law, and medicine. That shows how far we have come along in our understandingof the concept of a “university”.
On one hand, however, people connected with private schools and advocates of a reform of theeducational system in those days were critical of the Imperial University, which was increasingly
becoming more alienated from the standards of secondary education.

They considered thedevelopment of “the idea of a university as comprehensive system” as a way of refuting the request of
the reform bills of Tanka-Daigaku (a university having only one college), Daigakko (college) andSenmon-Gakko (higher special school).
For example, at the time of the inauguration of the Diet, the opposition parties argued that thebudget of the Imperial University should be cut, and that the demand of private schools to bepromoted to universities should be accepted. The Chancellor of the Imperial University, Hiroyuki
Kato (1836-1916) countered this argument by sneering “A university must be able to teach a numberof these subjects: law, science, medicine, engineering and liberal arts”, and that is impossible forprivate schools like Doshisha and Keio (Kato 1889).5 “The idea of a university as a comprehensive
system” relates to the political context of the ostentatious position of the privileged Imperial
University which differs from that of private schools.

Consequently, the ideology of thecomprehensive university principle was not firmly established in the university. When the Ministerof Education, Kowashi Inoue (1843-1895) launched reforms, “The Discussion of Independence forthe Law College” - a theory of how to dismantle the comprehensive university - appeared from inside
the Imperial University.
In addition, in relation to the Ministry of Education theory of a “comprehensive university”, therepresentative of private schools commented in the Rinji-Kyoiku-Kaigi (Temporary Educational
Council 1917-1919),6 which authorised the system of a Tanka-Daigaku; that the Imperial University
was also essentially a Tanka-Daigaku. We can see that such opinions were in the majority: “I thinkthat although a Tanka-Daigaku cannot be called a “university”; it would be possible to call it a“daigaku” in that sense”.

5
6

Hiroyuki Kato, “Independence of Imperial University”, Tensoku, Vol. 1-2, 1889.
National Educational Research Institute, Shiryo Rinji-Kyoiku Kaigi, Vol. 4, 1979.

57

Imperial University of Tokyo (1886, Law, Medicine, Engineering, Literature, Science)
1890 Agriculture
1919 Economics
Kyoto Imperial University (1897, Science and Technology)
1899 Law, Medicine
1903 Medicine at Fukuoka
1914 Science and Technology College separated into Science College
and Technology College
1919 Economics
Tohoku Imperial University (1907, Agriculture at Sapporo)
1911 Science
1915 Medicine
1918 Agriculture College was separated.
1919 Engineering
1922 Law and Literature
Kyushu Imperial University (1911, Engineering, Medicine)1919 Agriculture
1925 Law and Literature1939 Science
Hokkaido Imperial University (1918, Agriculture)
1919 Medicine
1924 Engineering
1930 Science
Osaka Imperial University (1931, Medicine, Science)
1933 Engineering
Nagoya Imperial University (1939, Medicine, Science and Technology)
1942 Faculty of Science and Technology separated into Faculty of Science andFaculty of Technology.
Subsequently, the university law which authorised Tanka-Daigaku was the first piece oflegislation which regulated the comprehensive system of universities. Until then, the general system
lacked clarity as a principle.7
7Imperial Ordinance Relating to Universities, no.388, 1918, article 2. The university, as a general rule, shall provide forseveral faculties, but a university be formed with only one faculty, if special need be････

58

There are some exceptions such as the Tokyo Institute of Technology (instead of the Tokyo
University of Technology), but Tanka-Daigaku were for the most part, generally known as“universities”.8 In Taisho Year 7, even when Tanka-Daigaku (universities with only one college)
was systemised, the term daigaku was still used to indicate specialised education (“university”).9
This transliteration raised questions when university chancellors visited occupied Japan from theUnited States after the war.
I think it is unfortunate that the term Daigaku is translated in English as“university”. University in the United States and most of the world has come tomean a large institution of complex organisation having a graduate school. It
seems anomalous to hear the term Daigaku applied to a small liberal-art college oran institution concentrating on very worthy instruction in dairying and veterinary
medicine and the same term used for multiple-faculty institutions such as thenational, public and private universities.
definitely been agreed upon for all.

I am informed that Daigaku has

Perhaps, instead of translating it as“university”, we should adopt the Japanese word “daigaku” for English usage, justas we do with the French Lycee and the German Gymnasium.10

5. General or Liberal Education and the Private School
The introduction of universities was conducted not only through the government, but also, in thesecond decade of the Meiji Era, by those responsible for private schools. These schools aimed to
become universities by the second decade of the Meiji Era, and provided preparatory education forstudents who had completed secondary education and wanted to go on to specialised education. In
Taisho Year 7, these schools were authorised as private universities.
Private schools could be classified as such (Nagai 1965).11
1. Doshisha (Meiji Year 8), Keio Gijuku (founded in Keio Year 4, and established as a
8

The Government University of Literature and Science (Tokyo, Hiroshima), The Government University of Commerce(Tokyo), The Government University of Engineering (Tokyo).
9
In 1919, the title of “Bunka-Daigaku (College)” changed to “Gakubu (Faculty)”.
10
Raymond Walters, “RECOMMENDATION OF VISITING EXPERT ON UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION” (1949/4/6),
Trainor Papers.
11
Michio Nagai, Nihon no Daigaku, 1965.

59

university in Meiji Year 22), Tokyo Special School (Meiji Year 15), Rikkyo Institute (Meiji
Year 16), Tokyo Eiwa School (Meiji Year 19). These schools had a different ideology liberalism - from that of the national schools.
2. The traditional faction included schools such as Kotenkokyusho, Jingukogakukan (Meiji Year15) and Tetsugakukan (School of Philosophy) (Meiji Year 20).
3. Tokyo Law School (Meiji Year 12), Senshu School (Meiji Year 13), Meiji Law School (Meiji
Year 14) were of the flexible faction formed mainly by law schools.
A different aspect of these private schools was apparent in Doshisha, which set Christian
missionary work as one of its objectives. This objective had been consciously dropped by thenational schools, which aimed specifically for specialised teaching, but was introduced as a primaryfunction of the private institutes of higher education. The purpose of studying at an institute ofhigher education was, for some young people, the acquisition of general education. However, thispurpose is also evident in the civil rights movement, in which a great many young people took part.
The policy of forming schools voluntarily was included in the study movement (Katagiri 1990).12
Furthermore, it can be seen, as in the instance of Tokoku Kitamura (1868-1894, a philosopher) thatyoung people seeking education were approaching Christianity and were connected to the formationof an outlook on the world which exceeded practical learning (Irokawa 1964).13 Tamenori Yamazaki
who entered Tokyo University - the first university in Japan - and then left to enter Doshisha was themost radical example of this. In correspondence of 2nd September, Meiji Year 10 to Makoto Saito(1858-1936, an admiral, and the Minister of the Navy), he criticised the bad conduct of Tokyo
University students thus, “The reason is that in this school they put intellect at the top and put virtue atthe bottom, respect intellect and disgrace virtue. It is not only thus in this school, but appears to be atendency in the others as well” (Neesima Research Institute 1960).14
However, the road chosen by Yamazaki when he transferred to Doshisha was a hard one. It was
not only the distress caused by the interference of the Meiji government in Christianity. In order tosupervise well, it was necessary to compromise with Japanese young people who tended to favour
practical learning. In a letter Yuzuru Neesima (1843-1890, the founder of Doshisha) sent to thefinance committee of an American board in Meiji Year 12, he commented that because missionaries
attempted to teach the Bible so strongly “many young people with bright futures are losing hope and12

Yoshio Katagiri, Jiyuminkenki Kyoikushi Kenkyu, 1990.
Daikichi Irokawa, Meiji Sesishinshi, 1964.
14
Neesima Research Institute, Neesima Kenkyu, No. 22, 1960.
1360

moving away from us. They are going to schools in Tokyo, where the influence of the missionaries
is less… If we can give them a proper, high level, vocational education, rather than over-emphasising
the Christianity aspect as we tend to do, then of course the students will stay in our schools”.15

6. Secondary Schools and General Education under the Old System
General education was of course not completely abandoned in national universities. In order tofulfill the role of specialised education, senior high schools were set up as places to teach core subjects
in specialised areas. The central content of the education was foreign languages, which accounted
for approximately one-third of the time (180 hours to 270 hours a year). In addition to this, Japanese
language and Chinese classics, history, geography, ethics, mathematics, gymnastics were important
subjects. The top students also studied 3 hours a week of introductory philosophy. However, atfirst, the structure of character building under the old system of schooling did not depend on general
education. Under the old system, character building was not on the curriculum, but was rather
acquired through the dormitory system, based on the creation of elite consciousness and student
autonomy. 16

Vice-Principal Hiroji Kinoshita (1851-1910) referred to the independent

self-management which arose from the chaotic breakdown of morals in the First Higher School as“Rojo-shugi (the Principle of the Siege of the Castle)”. The self-management was achieved byemphasis on the elite consciousness, and having all the students’ board in the school, thereby puttingsome distance between them and the world.
With regard to order in the sports club, Inazo Nitobe (1862-1933; head of the First Higher
School: 1903-1913; vice-secretary of the United Nations: 1919-1926) contrasted sociality with thecreation of general education, referring to humanism through Bible reading meetings. He received
moral training at Sapporo Agricultural College from W. S. Clark (graduated from Amherst College,
Chancellor of Massachusetts Agricultural University). When Clark was on his way back to America,
he visited Doshisha to meet Neesima and even after returning to America continued to send donationsof money and plants (The Editorial Committee for the Complete Works of Joseph Hardy Neesima
1992).
15
16

Doshisha, Doshisha Hyakunenshi; tsushihen, Vol. 1, 1979.
- Masao Terasaki, “Jichiryoseido seiritsu shiron”. KKGK, No.15, 1978.
- Donald T. Roden, Schooldays in Imperial Japan, 1980.
- The Editorial Committee for the Complete Works of Joseph Hardy Neesima, The Complete Works of Joseph Hardy
Neesima, Vol. 8, 1992.
- Hiroshi Takeuchi, Gakureki Syakai no Eiko to Zasetsu, Chuo Koronsha, 1999;- Kosaku Miyasaka, Kyusei Koko shi no Kenkyu, Shinzansha, 2001.

61

With the help of Nitobe, the students came into contact with Kanzo Uchimura (1861-1930, a
Christian missionary), a graduate of Sapporo Agricultural University. The students influenced by
the humanism of Christianity pushed for educational reforms after the Second World War. For them
- the generation entering universities of the old system, one generation after the character-formation of
the Taisho Era - education could only be a form of social science and Marxism. For intellectuals ofthat time, the theme of character-building was closely bound up with how to come to terms with theEmperor system and national ideology. Christianity and Marxism offered a world view that was
relative to the emperor system. That demonstrated the ability to create general education through ahidden curriculum for university professors and students.

7. The University as Systemisation of Specialised Education
The fact that universities were systemised as institutions of central specialised education carved adeep impression on Japanese universities. Specialised education was structured into Faculties, andthese Faculties were a necessary part of universities (Daigakurei, the Imperial ordinance relating toUniversities, 1918). Faculties were staff organisations as well as student organisations, and the factthat research and teaching were organised into Faculties created reproducible structures.17 There
were 7 Faculties; law, medicine, engineering, literature, science, agriculture, economics and business,
which were so appropriate that they are still used today for classification by the Science Council andfor grants. However, this system obstructed the firm establishment of general education after the war.
Because universities teach specialised education, graduate schools did not substantially exist. (Thehigher education schools of the old system were firmly connected to the Imperial University, and therate of entry to higher education was extremely high, so the average age of students entering theImperial University was 21-24 years old, and the average age of graduates was 24-27 years. This, itis thought, also obstructed the development of graduate schools.)
Looking at the roles and functions of that specialised education from the point of view of thedirection graduates take, shows us that law was a central choice. Special privileges were granted to
the Imperial University, which engaged overwhelmingly in the training of state bureaucrats. The
training of specialised medical staff and for teachers of secondary schools, higher education anduniversities also continued. The educational content included practical learning of law for the statebureaucrats, and pure learning for the training of academic successors.

17

Masao Terasaki , Promenade of the University of Tokyo, 1992.

62

An important point in the structure of specialised education is that of securing socially the resultof specialisation: the “degree” that characterises graduates. This process, however, was not firmly
established. In Tokyo University, Meiji Year 12 graduates were given Bachelor’s degrees, and in
Meiji Year 16 a rule was made that conferred degrees on excellent students who passed a test in
addition to the final graduation examination. However, with the establishment of the Imperial
University, Bachelor’s degrees were relegated to nothing more than just a title, and only Doctor’s
degrees were actual qualifications, which the Minister of Education bestowed. Rather than proof ofacademic ability, these degrees were a just symbol of authority. Furthermore, the conditions andqualifications of the university staff lacked clarity. University professors did not belong to one grouptraversing many universities, but were more often affiliated individually to universities.

8. Conclusion
What I have roughly outlined above is that a “university” is accepted as a daigaku, created within
Japan society rather than having naturally developed. This daigaku has gradually become closer tothe concept of a “university”.

The medieval university which evolved to become the modern

university was deeply rooted in medieval society and was a part of the social system. Without
having the ability to create the same social structure, combined with the lack of various necessary
factors, the university that Japan ultimately designed and developed was the only one necessary to themodernisation of Japanese society at that time.
In this way, the unification of various institutes of higher education under the name of “daigaku”
was one way of creating something close to a “university”. The post-war university reforms werealso part of a large-scale plan to make all the specialised schools of the old system into a “university”.
As a result, the university, which is an amalgam of the institutes of higher education with their own
various origins and philosophies, has constantly undergone the difficulties of sharing ideologies andthe worries of unifying identities.

63

64

1949

1872 Hogakko

1871 Meihoryo

1894 First Higher School

The University of Tokyo

1886 Tokyo Norin Gakko

1882 Tokyo Sanrin-Gakko

1877 Jumoku-Shikenjou

1874 Noji-Syugakujou

1877 Kobu-Daigakko 1877 Nogakko

1871 Kogakuryo

1884 Tokyo Hogakko

1874 Tokyo Kaisei-Gakko

1873 Kaisei-Gakko

1869 Daigaku-Nanko

1886 First Higher Middle School1897 Imperial University of Tokyo

1886 Imperial University

1877 Tokyo University =Preparatory School

1874 Tokyo Igakko

1869 Daigaku 1869 Daigaku
Toko×

1868 Kaisei-Gakko

1868 Igakko

1868 Shohei-Gakko

1863 Kaiseijo

1856 Bansho-Shirabesho

1863 Igakusho

1858 Shutojo

1797 Shoheizaka Gakumonjo(Appendix 1)
The University of Tokyo and its predecessors

Concluding Remarks

The Modernisation, State Principles and Specialisation of the University:
Comments in Perspective of “Evaluation”
Masao Terasaki

1. Two Papers
It is difficult to find a direct common thread running between Professor Hata’s and Professor
Nakayama’s paper. Professor Hata’s paper is about the relationship between westernisation and theprocess of making the modern Japanese system of higher education indigenous, with reference to thenaming: “daigaku” (university). Professor Nakayama’s paper outlines postgraduate education andthe possibility of professional education through comparisons of the course contents and ranking of
education in graduate schools in Japan and America.
Professor Hata’s paper deals with the practice of calling all types of Japanese undergraduate levelsystems of higher education as “daigaku” (university). He claims that from a point of view ofcomparative higher education systems theory, this naming can only be seen as a mistake, and goes on
to outline how and why this confusion arose. Professor Nakayama’s paper presents the theme of
why evaluation for certification based on “specialised disciplines” never took root in Japanese
postgraduate education, i.e. graduate education systems, despite American-style schooling having
been carefully introduced after the Second World War. There is a great distance between these twothemes. In order to find common points, Professor Hata’s paper should have dealt with the issue of
how each differing class of human ability came about in each type of university which had been
divided into classes according to results.

Professor Nakayama’s paper needed to address the

problems of the introduction and details of the graduate education system in the years up to 1890 andthe late 1940s.
I will not attempt to discuss the common points in a transversal way in these comments becauseof the reason outlined above. Instead, I would like to consider the topic of “evaluation”, one of thepoints which appears in both papers.
In modern Japanese society, the word “evaluation” has two different meanings. The first is“evaluation of the university itself”. This is evaluation of the arts, sciences and education level of auniversity (academic evaluation), as well as the social evaluation or assessment by various
administrative agencies, carried out thoroughly and powerfully in America, various countries in65Europe, but especially Britain after the Thatcher administration, and also the Netherlands, and France.
In addition, this also includes self-evaluation by faculties and other staff, and the teaching evaluation
carried out by some students, or evaluation of the curriculum.
Another point is the assessment of achievement of the students themselves, connected to theexamination system, course contents and interviews. This is part of what is called “educational
evaluation” by education scholars and elementary and junior high school teachers. I would like tofocus on these two aspects of “evaluation”, rather than randomly discussing a few points provoked by
the two papers. Professor Hata’s theme deals with the former concept, that is to say, the evaluationof the university itself or self-study, and Professor Nakayama’s paper is concerned with the second
point, especially the evaluation of grades of graduate students.

I hope the comments andsupplements on both papers will help to provide advice for them.

2. The History and Themes of Evaluation of Universities
It is possible to discuss two characteristics of the first concept in Japan, namely “evaluation of
the university”.
Firstly, it is not easy to dispel the idea established, especially before the Second World War, that
evaluation of a university and higher education institution should mainly be the work of an
administrative agency.

Before the war, relevant administrative agencies, and especially people

connected to universities at that time, could not even imagine evaluation carried out by specialists,
particularly the method of mutual evaluation by people connected to universities.
It was specialists from the U.S. in the Occupation after the war who first criticised the idea thatadministrative agencies, especially the Ministry of Education, should have the power to evaluate
universities. Under their influential guidance, two new systems were introduced. These were:
mutual evaluation by people connected to universities, and a new system of accreditation consisting ofcertifying examinations by academic members. The Japan University Accreditation Association(JUAA) was set up under the guidance of people connected to universities, and university standards
were implemented in 1947.

These standards consisted of follow-up evaluation by anon-governmental base, and had this system worked properly, it would have taken the place of the
traditional pre-1946 system.
However, in the present-day of half a century later, evaluation by administrative agencies has not66lost any of its effect and influence. Looking back over the 57-year history of JUAA, it was only
eventually in the latter half of the 1990s that many universities started to seek accreditation, and that
JUAA, the largest agency responsible for accreditation, started to grow briskly. It took almost 50
years since its inauguration for eventual understanding that recognition as a member of the
Association was a matter concerning a university’s prestige.
On the other hand, because of the low birthrate in Japan, the population of 18-year-olds willdefinitely decrease, and it is predicted that a time where all prospective university students will beable to enter university will come after the year 2007. For universities competing for enrollment,social and academic prestige will become a very important matter of concern. From this viewpoint
too, membership of JUAA will become much sought-after.
Apart from this, there are also other important reasons why understanding of accreditation,
especially follow-up evaluation, has become more widespread. This is because the wide-ranging
activity of evaluation of universities, including accreditation itself, has been legislated following thereport of the advisory council organised by the Ministry of Education, and has also been encouragedby the ministerial ordinances issued by the Ministry. Also, since the latter half of the 1990s, various
ways to distribute sources of revenue such as the budget of the national universities, and National
Treasury subsidies for private universities, have been structured to be directly linked to evaluation
including accreditation.
Furthermore, various types of university evaluation activities have successively becomecompulsory by law. That is, self-evaluation and external evaluation of universities or faculties havefirst of all become compulsory by law, and in addition each university is obliged to undergo
evaluation by institutes that have the qualifications to carry out university evaluation (Ninsho-hyoka
Kikan [evaluation agencies]). I do not have the leeway to discuss this matter in detail now, butlegislation and legislative regulations, and the initiative of central government agencies in the
background, have given authority to university evaluation activities, including accreditation, which
would have taken place in the U.S. on a non-governmental level. We can say that this is indeed aparadoxical phenomenon peculiar to Japan.

This modern Japanese pattern of the government

leading the people has also appeared in the world of the university.
The second characteristic is that the focus of evaluation is not on the quality of education andresearch, but quite often tends to be on the ranking of the organisation itself. Namely, evaluation in
the category of “evaluation of the institution” actually plays a very important role.
Of course, with the trend of globalisation, the forces of free-trade, market liberalisaton andloosening of regulations are intense, and the structure of the administration of higher education also67

has had a tendency to shift from the pattern of “prior regulations” to the pattern of “follow-up checks”.
However, even now, the pattern of administrative agencies participating in university evaluations isstill strong. This is due to the fact that it is still broadly related to the distribution of the state budget
and of Treasury subsidies to private universities, namely the distribution of financial resources.
The question of why evaluation by administrative agencies (to use a traditional Japanese term,“kan (the central government)”, especially the Ministry of Education, now the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, MEXT) is so prestigious does not necessarily require acomplicated answer.

There is a phrase “kanson-minpi” (which translates as “making much of

officialdom and little of the people”), which illustrates modern Japanese social psychology. As
Professor Hata points out, in the mid-1880s, the government took the initiative in founding
universities, and the Imperial University was founded (1886) based on those initiatives. Eventually,that university came to have a virtual monopoly over members of the government, that is, over the
training of high-ranking bureaucratic candidates from central government agencies, and this social
psychology was easily transformed into the rank gap between universities and other higher education
institutions.
In addition, government-founded universities (national universities) did not have to undergoassessments when founded, even though a system was created where only public and private
universities and higher education institutions were able to take the administrative assessment at
foundation.
In 1910, a system whereby foundations and provincial public organisations could set up
universities was created. Before that, there were public and private vocational colleges, and it
became possible to have public and private high schools at the same time as universities. In this time
period, namely the start of the 1900s to the latter half of the 1940s, just after the Second World War,the government carried out founding assessments and follow-up inspections only on public andprivate institutions, and national universities and higher education institutions were exempt.
These measures led to a way of thinking that was already well-established by the Meiji Era:
“There are two types of universities and schools; one is trustworthy from its foundation and the otheris recognised as such only after strict assessment and when it has met the necessary conditions andmade preparations”. Naturally enough, the ideas of “efforts to improve standards” and “follow-up
judgment work” were never fostered, and so no such system arose.
After the war, the Occupation under the U.S., began, and among the GHQ/SCAP staff, there
were several specialists of higher education. In the U.S., from the start of the 20th century, the68accreditation system by non-government groups developed out of competition between universities.
To the GHQ/SCAP staff from that country, the Japanese situation must have appeared exceedingly
strange. This is because each university or higher education institution did not compete on the
grounds of “birth” or “blood”, nor was there any kind of follow-up evaluation apart from a kind ofvague social evaluation. The GHQ/SCAP staff urged the formation of a university committee, andpassionately recommended the founding of JUAA as one of the most important points, and guided theestablishment of “University Standards” (1947) for the purpose of evaluating the new systems of
universities. The work of accreditation thus begun, and has at last started to gather attention now,with the loosening of regulations.
Reiterating this point, before the war the only decisive factor in securing top place by evaluationof the universities and higher education institutions was simply to be set up and run by thegovernment. It was in reality extremely difficult to break down this system in post-war Japan.
Even now, perhaps it should not be allowed to totally disappear. This is because it is correct that the
problem of judging standards is far more difficult than the question of whether a university or higher
education institution is actually a comprehensive institution or a technical training institution.
Most of Japan’s public and private high schools publish the percentage of their graduates who go
on to a higher stage of education. Still now the sole concern of how many students will enter famous
national universities pushes aside concern of students passing examinations for private universities.
As the OECD Education Investigating Commission pointed out at the beginning of the 1970s whilelooking back at university rankings, the phrase “national high-level, private low-level” has been
lurking over the last 100 years of history and has not yet died out.
The measures the Koizumi Cabinet have taken since 2003 to turn national universities into
corporate bodies, have served to make some people hope that an epoch-making transformation will
occur in modern Japanese history.
By making national universities into “National University Corporations”, national universities
will cease to exist in Japan, and the traditional 3 types of university were supposed to collapse. The
new corporations are set up by MEXT, but the everyday running is left to the discretion of each
university, and each university is provided with far more scope for handling the financial management
than it had before. The teaching and administrative staff no longer have the status of public officials,
and it has been decided that they are to be called “staff of corporations”. It has been predicted thatthe classification of universities into “national universities, public universities and private
universities” will disappear.

In addition, it is expected that many public universities will also69

become administrative corporate bodies. Thus, it is possible to see the start of the realisation of theprivatisation of higher education.
However at present, the number of people who think these predictions to be accurate is low.
Criticism of these inconsistent reforms is extremely heated.
This is because although the old national universities are now being run by corporations rather
than MEXT, each year’s budget is provided by the Treasury Department through MEXT, under thename of “Operational Grants”. Removal of the status of national public officials from the teachingand office staff means it is possible to see a reduction in the number of public officials. Thus
administrative reform has been achieved as one link of the government’s structural reform, but there
has been no change in the fact that the financial base is still a burden on the National Treasury.
Moreover, the assessment of the total amount has a decidedly overwhelming influence on the
Treasury. Thus, it is clear that this is totally different from “privatisation” of the fundamental
financial bases. I am forced to conclude that this privatisation is extremely inconsistent. There has
also been criticism of “the birth of suspect private universities” especially from among the leaders ofprivate universities.
On the other hand, we must not overlook the appearance of new systems of evaluation here.
Every year, an “Annual Plan” concerning the research, teaching and management of each National
University Corporation is requested, and, based on that plan, a central organisation, the “National
University Corporation Evaluation Committee”, appointed by the Minister of Education, starts
evaluation. The final evaluation is handed down every six years, and in some cases can eveninfluence the survival of the university. It is predicted that the new evaluations will be by far stricter
than the traditional “Assessment of the Estimates” requested by MEXT.
Furthermore, it is said that MEXT is demanding that the target of this “Annual Plan” bepresented as far as is possible as numerical data. There have been strong doubts as to whether the
institution of numerical targets and evaluation of their achievability and unachievability, and of theuniversity, especially when it applies to the evaluation of research and teaching, will prove to be a big
hindrance on university activities.
Therefore, values capable of being numerically quantified (for example, the number of theses
and academic conference papers published, the acquisition of research fees for the evaluation ofresearch, the number of applications to programmes and courses, the number of registered students,
the numerical values for class results for the evaluation of education) have been especially prioritised,
and it has become possible to belittle quality evaluation. Even more dreadful is that research and70

education in basic fields is looked down upon and is starting to decline. As the introduction of
external investment is difficult, small-scale National University Corporations have had somehow to
prepare themselves for these kinds of increasing risks.
The formation of National University Corporations has changed the framework of the 130-year
old Japanese university. National regulations on the ideal of the university have been thoroughly
removed, even more so than at the time of the university reforms after the Second World War. The
formation of National University Corporations was supposed to be a reform to encourage theindependent management of universities. However, due to the lack of the most important condition that of university financial independence - we are unable to avoid the birth of what some people call“suspect private universities”. However, in order to secure a source of revenue, there is a danger
they will be forced to accept “methods of evaluation by results”, and “the principle of taking
efficiency very seriously”.
The newly emerged National University Corporations are extremely far away from the“privatisation”, which is the most suitable equivalent for the Japanese term, “mineika”.

3. “Examinations” Going Large-Scale in Elementary Schools
I would like to move on to the problem of the second concept of “evaluation”, namely“assessment of academic achievement”.
Why have examinations for certification not become firmly established in Japan? Professor
Nakayama’s paper deals with this question, and takes into consideration the problem of
professionalisation of research in Japan, and is full of stimulating points. In addition, it is a paperrich in suggestions for the organisers of education policy, who are planning the expansion of graduate
schools for professional training.
I would like to add some comments to the question of examinations that Professor Nakayama
considers as the foundations of his paper.
Firstly, “examinations” emerged on a wide social scale in Japanese society at the end of the 19th
century, and it is an important fact that they were first of all firmly established in elementary schools.
Of course, in the Edo era the feudal schools that samurai children attended adopted a system ofvarious examinations, in which oral testing took place. In the private academies, such as Tekijuku in71

Osaka, of which one of the students was Yukichi Fukuzawa, and the Kangien opened by Tanso Hirose
in Hita in Kyushu, there were even systems of advancing or failing a grade based on assessment of
academic achievement. However, these systems were implemented only for the education of alimited number of people, and did not have any influence on Japanese people as a whole. In theyears before and after 1871 (Meiji 4), various examinations were carried out in government andprivate institutions of higher education and private academies. However, these too, were limited
from a point of view of social influence.
Examinations only really became widespread after 1872. In that year, the government issued alaw on educational systems, “Gakusei”, and adopted the ideal of “compulsory education”. It ordered
the local authorities to start work on building elementary schools. More than 10,000 schools wereimmediately built, and they took up the system of advancing the students up a grade once every half ayear. In order to evaluate the students for advancement, the schools made it a rule to adopt a test or
examination system. This premise of “In learning, there are definitely steps, and these steps must be
tested by examinations” was a philosophy for learning, and this philosophy was clearly stated in themain text of the “Gakusei”. It is not clear from which country the government obtained the idea of
this system, but the leaders of that time used the literature of the U.S. and European countries forreference, and the translations of the literature of the Netherlands and France contained detailed
descriptions of examination systems.
Examinations, especially those used to advance students to the next grade, were implemented
strictly and on a large-scale in elementary schools throughout the country. We can find various
records and documents of examinations and tests preserved in the archives of elementary schools or
administration organisations in Japan. Examinations were open to the public in villages and towns.
Most examinations were written, but there were also some oral examinations. Children took theexaminations watched over by their parents or relatives, and also sometimes by influential people ofthe towns and villages, village mayors, police officers, and in some places, administration officials of
the prefectural or metropolitan government; and their results were often published. The children
sometimes failed a grade or had to repeat the grade according to their results, but on the other hand,advancing to the next grade or even skipping a grade was of course possible. The “graduation
certificate”, given out now for the first time when graduating school, was given out when a course of
study was finished, once every six months.
The topic of the history of examinations as part of the history of modern Japanese educational
culture is a deeply interesting one. However, I would like to focus on the problem of social impact.
First of all, the impact of examinations suddenly appearing all over the country immediately after
the Meiji Restoration was enormous. Ordinary people had faith that examinations would “measure72the achievement of learning with scores”. Measuring each child’s results and deciding their grade oflearning by examinations was a powerful means of popularising the concept of replacing “social
status” which had decided children’s lives and careers up until the Edo era. They were an effective
method of “civilisation”, and secured advancement and success in life for children and young people,
breaking down the feudal system, symbolising the drive towards modernity. Examinations were asplendid social undertaking.
Secondly, as Professor Nakayama has pointed out, the content of the examinations was tomeasure the accuracy of the knowledge one had already learned, and the level of memorisation. For
example, examiners asked, “What is the big lake at the southwest corner of Totominokuni(present-day Shizuoka Prefecture) called?” and children answered “Hamanako Lake”. Examiners
then pressed them with further questions such as, “How big is that lake from north to south?”, “Howbig is that lake from east to west?”, and so on to check if the children could answer. If they asked“Who broke the seige at Orleans in the Anglo-French War?”, children answered “Jeanne D’Arc”, butaccording to the examination records of Toyama Prefecture (1878), not even one child present at theexamination could answer whether that person was a woman or a man.
Regardless of Professor Nakayama’s view, it is not so important that the controlling form of theexaminations was “paper tests”. The characteristics of a simultaneous, uniform examination can be
amply demonstrated by oral examinations. The most important point was that these examinations
were not about human capacity or virtue, but rather about intellect. Knowledge, which was replacing
social status, was becoming the base of promotion and encouragement of new industry, and forenhancing the wealth and military strength of the country - the shape of Japan after the Restoration
was being widely suggested to ordinary people through the principles of opening elementary schools
to the public by examinations.
In 1900, the legislation on compulsory education in Japan was completed entirely. In 1903,
three years later, the percentage of school attendance for both boys and girls was over 80%. It was
an obligation to the state for citizens - parents - to send their children to school. However, to help
realise that obligation, it was the duty of the relevant local authorities to the Emperor to make all thechildren who came to school graduate. So it was in this period that the concept and system of
examinations took root. In the end, examinations were deemed to be unsuitable for elementary
schools because of the danger of children failing or repeating a grade, and the word itself disappeared
from all laws concerning elementary schools. In elementary schools, some tests were given as
occasion demanded, but these were hereafter called “evaluations” or “achievement tests”.
However, examinations have not totally disappeared from the Japanese education world.

73

Conversely, they are clearly apparent in institutes of secondary and higher education. They areparticularly symbolised best by the selective examinations of each stage in school, namely “entrance
examinations” or “final examinations”.

Those examinations, as I have outlined before, haveinherited the characteristics of the simultaneous uniform examinations. They are absolutely not
examinations which evaluate composition writing or various kinds of imaginative skills, creative
thinking, or individual knowledge which surpasses insight.
Japanese examinations, with their history outlined above, have completely inherited the character
imprinted on them from conception and popularisation. The demonstration of such abilities such ascomposition skills, and the ability to express oneself is hardly required at all. This trend wasintroduced after the war from the American method of making examination papers with a choice of
two answers. From the end of the 1970s, this method rapidly picked up more and more speed
because of the spread of the computer-scored answer sheet method. Introduction of nationwide
common tests for all applicants for national universities made swift handling of large quantities ofanswer papers necessary. There was absolutely no necessity to write sentences on the answer sheet.
The only technique for dealing with the examinations was to pick the “correct answer” from a few
choices.
On the one hand, the knowledge internalised by children or young people who had taken or gone
through the examinations became an important base of support for Japan through its modernisation.
In the period of industrialisation, especially, the existence of an overwhelming majority ofhomogenous intellect was indispensable. The shape and distribution of “intellect” through modern
Japan’s tests fulfilled this request totally.

4. Assessment of Academic Achievement in Universities and Graduate Schools
The structure of evaluation before a student enters university has to change dramatically after the
students enter university. Arts and humanities programmes and courses have to focus on theses andend of semester reports. Science programmes place more weight on experiments and practicaltraining and their evaluation. This base requires composition skills, logical thinking, imaginativeand conceptual thinking. This is vastly different from the way of studying that took place up to andthrough secondary education.
Universities started to make an effort to bridge this gap at the start of the 2000s. It became
necessary to make an effort to reform university curricula with such projects as: “Co-operation
between high schools and universities”, “enriching induction”.

74

Along with this, a “making

evaluation stricter” plan was advocated in order to correct the leniency and unfairness of marking ofreports and essays which sometimes occurred. Incidentally, these are all points of issue emphasisedin the reports of the advisory council commissioned by the Ministry of Education to improve
university education from the end of the 20th century to the beginning of this century.
Conditions at the undergraduate level change greatly for the graduate school stage. There is anabsence of a systematic curriculum in graduate school education. As Professor Nakayama haspointed out, there really does exist an absence of the acquisition of professional qualifications as apremise for learning and for the subjective evaluation of research ability. There has been no notable
improvement in the last half century, since the postgraduate system was inaugurated. Why? That
answer is not simple.
To begin with, there exists a closed, hierarchical system of human relations. By the time we getto the postgraduate level, elementary students are in the minority, and so teaching staff, assistants andother staff members in charge of educational guidance, have a deeper relationship with each other.
What arises from that is a special Japanese type of human relations, “familism”. This tends to leadto a narrowing of the research domain and flimsy intellectual freedom.
Just before the new postgraduate system came about, an American group called “the Scientific
Advisory Group”, wrote the following in their report when they came to Japan:“Graduate students belong to one professor, and all their work is to conduct
research or semi-independent research under that professor’s guidance. A strong
family-type loyalty is transplanted onto the professor. One professor and his or
her students form a “family-style” unit, and it appears that this exerts aninappropriate influence on most of the ambitions or activities of the scientists.
This leads to activities being concentrated on a very narrow field, and this leads to adecisive lack of depth in training and interest. ･･･････ Many of the universities
have preparatory courses, and the students are able to spend their whole student
lives in one school. Students who have graduated from this type of school feel afierce loyalty to their alma mater, and there is a tendency to form academic cliques
which have no discernible merits. The most important problem for students is
obtaining admission to these types of schools. After admission it is expected thathe or she will continue to obtain the highest degree he or she desires. No very
serious hurdles seem to be interposed at the intermediate stage”.

75

In one of the last sentences of the above quotation, “after admission it is expected that he or she
will continue to obtain the highest degree he desires”, I think “degree” should not have been translated
as “tokoro” (place) - at that time Ministry of Education gave this word to it - but rather as “gakui”(academic degree), which seems to read better with the following sentence, “no very serious hurdles
seem to be interposed at the intermediate stage”, Professor Nakayama also touches on this question
when he asks, “Why are there no hurdles to obtaining a doctorate in Japan?”
Leaving aside the problem of the rapid expansion of master’s courses, there would be few people
who would deny that the defects that the American researchers pointed out here still remain in
post-graduate education, especially at the master’s level. It can be said that this is a Japanese local
custom which has intruded into the modern system of postgraduate education.
The narrowing of human relations, the formation of academic cliques and the lack of fluidity of
research places are all factors in the way learning in graduate schools has become fixed and unmoving.
These are also most important factors in the obstruction to implementing educational courses
systematically.
The relevant authorities of the American occupation army, after pointing out the passage quoted
above, helped set up JUAA, and recommended a complete transformation of the postgraduate
education system. Their recommendations focused on the adoption of an intermediate degree - themaster’s, the introduction of a system of units or credits, and the clarification of the character of thedegree.

Despite this, however, the solution to the problem targeted - that of systemising

postgraduate education and opening up the training of researchers - was difficult. I cannot delve
deeply into the question of why these systematic characteristics remain here. This is bound up withthe problem of Japanese traditional culture and social psychological “koso” (the deepest stratum), andis a broad-reaching problem that even affects the way researchers and university professors are
employed as well.
However, it is evident that these characteristics do not conform to the national open system of“qualification systems”, and “professions”. They also do not conform to a de-personalising system,
for example, Professor Nakayama’s “requirements for finishing a degree”, and Harvard Graduate
School’s general examination, that is, “candidate selection examinations for the awarding of a degree(or profession)”.
To break down this wall, there are limits to what individual efforts can do. Student financial
discontent is rising because the fees for graduate school are high but the academic results are low.
Social psychological unrest is also spreading over the increase in the number of students who fail to
get a degree. Even so, the external reason that foreign students are increasing may demonstrate a76

larger power.
Ironically speaking, the trend towards the expansion of graduate schools for specialised
professions may be one way of creating a chance to break down that wall.

5. Conclusion
I have added some comments on some points of Professor Hata’s and Professor Nakayama’s
papers, including: the absence of evaluation of universities and higher education from theirinauguration, the building of universities on the initiative of the central government, the problems ofnational universities now becoming corporate bodies, the historical circumstances which led to thede-systemisation of postgraduate education.
I was unable to touch directly upon the topic of the ideal of the Japanese university, which was
the question of the whole seminar, and especially on the problem of the concept of nationalism.
However, I hypothesise that in the almost 130-year history of modern Japanese universities and higher
education, the question of nationalism as an ideology directly controlling university research and at
the actual scene of education, is far smaller than we imagine.
Of course, in the fields of social science such as economics, history, and law, there was noresearch into theories refuting the idea of “kokutai” (national polity): those kinds of teaching activities
are strictly forbidden, and academic freedom was suppressed. The freedom of students to study, too,
was not secured, apart from the special privileged freedom given to a very small group of elite
candidates from university students under the pre-war system. The power of state suppression andoppression of student movements obstinately continued.
However, did these things overturn the whole state of affairs, given normal researchers, normal
students, normal research lives and normal study places? It is perhaps more correct to say that it waslaw and order and activities maintaining public safety in the advanced modern Japanese nation, rather
than various kinds of suppression and oppression and nationalistic control. It is thought that in an
everyday sense, the study lives of students and the research lives of teachers were different from thatof the closed compulsory education system. As they were opened up by American and European
arts and sciences and westernisation, they made it their mission to aim for that level and makeceaseless efforts to bring in a new system and compete.
The first article of the law on Teikoku University (1886) declares that universities must meet the“needs of the state”. However, even under that system, students strived to bring in American andEuropean university systems and prepare to make a modern university. They devoted themselves to77

academic research with an awareness of international academic world standards.

The modern

Japanese arts and science research - the “Meiji academism” that Professor Nakayama often refers to,
was able to advance through the nationalistic ethos and consistent beliefs of the scientists. On theother hand, there is history that suggests the modernisation of universities and genuine research wererequested by the state. The modern Japanese university and higher education, supported by a base ofelementary and secondary education, in actual fact loyally met their demands from an early time.

Notes
Information on the introduction of examinations into elementary schools in the Meiji Era:
・ Terasaki, M., ed. Senbatsu to Kyoso [selection and competition], Tokyo: Tokyo Horei, 1994. Vol.
6 of Nihon no Kyoiku Kadai [the issues of Japanese education], ed. H. Sato and M. Terasaki, 10
vols. 1994-2002.
Information on the process of introducing graduate schools:
・ Kaigo, T and Terasaki, M. Daigaku Kyoiku [university education]. Tokyo: University of Tokyo
Press, 1969. Vol. 9 of Sengo Nihon no Kyoiku Kaikaku [educational reforms of postwar Japan],gen. ed. T. Kaigo. 10 vols. 1969-1976.
・ Japan University Accreditation Association (JUAA), Daigaku Kijun Kyokai 55 Nenshi [the55-year history of the Japan University Accreditation Association], Tokyo: JUAA, 2005.
Data on university evaluation in present-day Japan:
・ Terasaki, M. “Nihon ni okeru Daigaku Hyoka - Hihanteki Tenbo [university evaluation in Japan a critical view]”, Shinjidai wo Kirihiraku Daigaku Hyoka [university evaluation to open the newage], ed. Y. Hada. Tokyo: Toshindo, 2005, 213-232.

78

The Coexistence of Several Ideas of a University
Kaoru Narisada∗In the 19th century, one theory emerged from all of the debates over university reform inGermany, which said that the most important mission for universities and people connected to themwas “pursuit of the truth”. As a result, a high level of research ability was required of these people,
and along with that, the phrase “the unity of research and education” became popular, and it was
believed that only excellent researchers were to be excellent educators.

In addition, for both

university teachers and students, just being loyal to one’s own intellectual pursuits raised the idea of“academic freedom” up high, and the various powers and authorities outside the universities had the
maximum respect for universities, and for the concept of “academic freedom”. That kind of “idea ofa university”, coupled with the competitive environment that existed between universities everywherein Germany, led to the considerable expansion of academic research at German universities
throughout the 19th century, and Germany became a mecca for scientific research. At that time, W.
von Humboldt founded Berlin University (1810), and led the remarkable growth of German
universities. To that end, the idea of a university which emphasises research is sometimes known as“Humboldt’s idea”. This is the general story behind the expansion of German universities in the
19th century and the “idea of a university” which supported this expansion.
Professor Miyasaka reported in his “The Recent Trends of Historical Research on the Foundingof Berlin University and Humboldt’s Idea of a University”, that recent historical research has started
to criticise and revise the commonly accepted theories outlined above. Professor Miyasaka asserts
that, according to recent historical research, it was more probable that a university was established in
Berlin, the Prussian capital, as a emergency refugee measure, so to speak, following the defeat ofPrussia in the Napoleonic Wars, rather than being built as a result of the discussions over university
reform led by German intellectuals with Humboldt at their center.
This is not the only revision; amongst others is the view that the establishment of Berlin
University was based on contingent factors rather than conceptual ideas. “Humboldtian idea” itself∗

Professor, Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences, Hiroshima University

79was created out of the discourse over what place the centennial of Berlin University should be given
in history. This Humboldtian idea was exported all over the world, and was utilised as the basis ormodel whenever a modern university was founded or equipped in areas other than Europe. That is tosay, Humboldtian idea was not created by Humboldt himself, but rather shaped by the hands ofsubsequent generations. Furthermore, advancing a few decades to the university reform movementsof the 1960s, Schelsky’s widely read book, Solitude and Freedom of the University: German
University and the Shape of Reform and Idea (Einsamkeit und Freiheit: Idee und Gestalt derdeutschen Universität und ihrer Reformen, 1963) firmly established Humboldt’s idea and the image ofthe German university based on that idea, as quoted in the opening paragraphs of this paper, but theopinion of recent historians suggest that the book is based on the practical motivation of the writer
himself, who was concerned with university reform, and he cannot be called a pure historicalresearcher.
Generally, views of history and historical opinions are inevitably accompanied by criticisms,
revisions and corrections. There is even debate over whether the Scientific Revolution of the 17th
century and the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century which widely divide European history,
really provoked enough change to actually call them “revolutions”. However, Professor Miyasaka’sreport came like a bolt out of the blue at least for this writer.
Professor Beppu, responsible for commenting on Professor Miyasaka’s report, claims, based on
his many years of achievements in the field of historical research on German universities, that there isnothing even remotely surprising about the “the recent trends of historical research” in Professor
Miyasaka’s report. Professor Beppu cites the example of the Rules of Faculty of Philosophy, Berlin
University (1838), and argues that it was actually Humboldt’s idea which guided the founding of
Berlin University, and that Solitude and Freedom has continued to illustrate the distinctive
characteristics of German universities until recently.
It was thought that a fierce debate would rage between Professor Miyasaka and Professor Beppu,
pulling in other participants, but due to the time constraints and the limitations of using Japanese andEnglish simultaneously, it was indeed a shame that the debate did not deepen enough. I am looking
forward to the publication of this book which will be a good chance to develop the discussion over thefundamental questions of the history of German universities.
Critical points concerning Humboldt’s idea, that is to say, the idea of the German university have80

been raised above, but we can see a common point in all of the following reports: the Goldman reporton universities in Victorian Britain, the Herbst report on American specialised work training, theNakayama report on the American graduate school education system and the Hata report on historicalchanges in the concept of “universities” in our own country. This common point is the coexistenceof various types of “the ideas of a university”.
Dr. Goldman’s report examined the debate about the Oxford University Bill in Parliament inEngland in 1854, and explained “there was no single ‘idea of a university’ but many different ideas
held simultaneously, sometimes in creative tension with each other, and sometimes in disablingcompetition”. That is to say, with reference to Oxford University in the Victorian era, several ideasof the university (and their corresponding social functions), coexisted with each other. For example,
these included the university as a resource for the people, the university as an autonomous community,
the university at the center of advanced research, the university as a place to train political leaders, andthe university as a place for general education.
Professor Herbst discussed the history of specialised work training (the training of doctors,
teachers and ministers, and so on) in America, and explained the problems of the double work strategy,
brought about by unavoidable circumstances, of the professors of schools for specialised training.
They firstly, have to make an effort to research and publish in order not to be beaten by thosecolleagues who have academic tendencies, and secondly, have to satisfy the needs and demands ofthose students who enter in the hope of gaining practical specialised work. The professors have been
forced into difficulties brought about by the two frequently opposing ideas of practical education for
specialised work training, and academic research.
Professor Nakayama, while delving into his own personal experience as a graduate student at
Harvard University, discussed the American graduate school as a place for professional training, andat the same time, as a place for original research. We can of course say that professional schools
such as medical schools and law schools are places for strict professional training, but graduate
schools also train students for disciplines through strict coursework in the beginning after admission.
In American graduate schools, the idea of training specialists (specialised work) through professional
training has developed from a multi-layered structure of the idea of advanced, original training.
Professor Hata explained how it came about that “daigaku”, the Japanese translation of“university” which has become firmly entrenched since the Meiji Era, has subsumed various institutes

81

of higher education. In the history of universities in our country, various types of education institutes
with differing organising bodies and social functions have all aspired to the authoritative title of“daigaku”, which denotes institutes of higher learning, and are in the process of grasping the chance
to realise that “dream”. As a result, even if there is a possibility to discuss for the individual
university “the Founder’s Idea of the University”, there is seldom the chance to debate “the idea of auniversity” in general as in “what is a university” apart from with people who are interested inuniversity history. Perhaps it is better to say that a single “idea of a university” should not exist atall.
Looking at Miyasaka’s presentation on the question of Humboldtian philosophy in German
universities, Goldman’s report on the absence of one “idea of the university” in Oxford University,and Herbst’s and Nakayama’s reports on American graduate schools being places of professional
training as well as places of research, it seems natural that there is not only one single “idea of auniversity” in our country as well. (We must give thought to whether there is any difference
between not having only a single “idea of a university”, and it not existing at all.)To use a cliche, throughout the long history of the university, the process of adapting to thecircumstances of each country, and fulfilling various functions has led to the coexistence of several“ideas of a university”.
In fact, Dr. Goldman argues that “(the Victorians) bequeathed several different ideas of auniversity in a single institution, and it is our task to ensure that the many are not reduced towards theone”, and I am absolutely of the same opinion. For example, research and education, and specialised
education and general education are frequently said to be in opposition to each other, and pull against
each other in the context of “the idea of a university”, but if we actively accept the coexistence ofseveral types of “ideas of a university”, we can avoid this unproductive opposition.
However, it is essential for universities to have rich resources (personnel, finances, facilities) inorder to allow several types of “ideas of a university” to coexist, and to function properly. Apartfrom Oxford University, Harvard University or Tokyo University, it is the truth that generally most
universities are doing the best they can with limited resources.

On that point, the world’s

universities are facing a reduction in public resources, and there are apprehensions that the present
situation of inclination towards academic capitalism will not permit the coexistence of several “ideasof a university”.

82

On top of the limits on public funds applied to universities, a certain rationality in the way todiscriminate between universities must be accepted as university policy to plan the effective
distribution of resources. Our country’s university policy of encouraging “universities shining withindividuality” is a reflection of those circumstances.

83

Outline of Conference

The Japanese Society for Historical Studies on Higher Education
24th Annual Conference
Main Theme: The Idea of a University in Historical Perspective
Date: 23-25 November, 2001
Venue: Faculty Club, Hiroshima University

Programme
Friday, 23 November, 2001
13:0013:30-

Registration
Welcome Session
Opening Address: Katsuya Senba (Hiroshima University)
14:00-17:30 Presentation
Chair: Kazuki Ohkawa (Waseda University), Akiro Beppu (Meiji University)・ ‘Yon-shu’ at Entrance Examination for High Schools under the Old System of Education:
From the Late Taisho Era to the Early Showa Era
Takehiro Yoshino (Research Fellow, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science)・ BASHIMA Seiji’s Studying Abroad to the University of Heidelberg
Yasuhiko Araki (Kinki University)
・ Emerging and Expanding Process of Female Faculty Members in American Universities:
With Focus on the American Association of University Women
Tatsuro Sakamoto (Soka University)
17:30Administrative General Meeting
18:30Welcome Dinner

Saturday, 24 November, 2001
9:30- 9 :40
9:40-10:50

10:50-11:00

Opening Adderess: Katsuya Senba (Hiroshima University)
Session 1: Britain
Lawrence Goldman (St Peter’s College, Oxford)
Commentator: Yoshihito Yasuhara (Hiroshima University)
Chair: Sekio Hada (Nihon University)
Break

85

11:00-12:15

12:15-13:45
13:45-15:00

15:00-15:15
15:15-17:30

18:30-

Session 2: Germany
Masahide Miyasaka (Nagasaki Junshin Catholic University)
Commentator: Akiro Beppu (Meiji University)
Chair: Yoshimitsu Matsuura (Meiji Gakuin University)
Lunch
Session 3: USA
Jurgen Herbst (Professor Emeritus of Educational Policy Studies, University of
Wisconsin-Madison)
Commentator: Toshichika Miyata (Kochi Medical School)
Chair: Akira Tachikawa (International Christian University)
Break
Session 4 - 5: Japan
Shigeru Nakayama (Professor Emeritus, Kanagawa University)
Takashi Hata (Hiroshima University)
Commentator: Masao Terasaki (Obirin University)
Chair: Tatsuro Sakamoto (Soka University)
Reception Dinner

Sunday, 25 November, 2001
Guided Tour to Hiroshima University Campus

86November 20052005年11月

島大学

高等教育研究開発センター
ISBN 4-902808-04-8

Senba, Yasuhara, and Hata広The Idea of a University in Historical Perspective Germany, Britain, USA, and Japan

歴史的視座からみた大学理念― ドイツ・イギリス・アメリカ・日本 ―Reviews in Higher Education 84

高 等 教 育 研 究 叢 書 84

Reviews in Higher Education 84

The Idea of a University in Historical Perspective
Germany, Britain, USA, and Japan

Edited by
Katsuya Senba, Yoshihito Yasuhara, and Takashi Hata

I
R
E
H

RESEARCH INSTITUE FOR
H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N
HIROSHIMA UIVERSITY