Download Would the university be a business organization like the others?

Article 1
Universidade em Debate
ISSN 2318-700X
Licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons
doi: 10.7213/univ.debate.01.001.AO01
Would the university be a business
organization like the others?
Clemente Ivo Juliatto
Post-doctorate at Harvard University, as a Fulbright Scholar, and University of London; doctorate in
Organization and Management of Universities at Columbia University in New York. Rector of Pontifical
Catholic University of Parana (PUCPR), Curitiba (PR), Brazil.
Contact: [email protected]
Abstract
This article highlights some differences between the university and the other companies. It analyzes the past of
academia, reviving the thoughts of several scholars in the theme. It examines the purposes of academic organization, particularly its speci�ic mission of preparing skilled manpower for the labor market, training for citizenship
and increasing cultural standards and awareness. It emphasizes the university’s medium and long term labor and
responsibility, in contrast with companieswhich aim at rapid growth and �inancial pro�its in a short period of time.
This paper also reports that, at the present moment, in various places, there is an inappropriate economical wave
whichaffects the academic management. This article also comes to conclusion that the university is a sui generis
institution which, despite showing some characteristics commonly found in a company, must have its own administration with the use of more qualitative than quantitative methods. However, that does not release the university
from expressing concern about the effectiveness, reliability and high performance of the administration.
Keywords: University. Business organization. Mission. University administration.
Would the university be a business organization like the others?
If we say that the school is a temple, the university is a cathedral. If we say that at school
we acquire knowledge, at the university we
learn to be wise. (Quote found in the campus
of Assumption University, Bangkok, Thailand).
The economic stream strongly contaminates
some university administrators and threatens
the university which is fundamentally not pro�itbased. It is rather a social institution. I feel the
need to write about the administration of a university in order to give my contribution and share
what I have learned in many years of studies and
management, geared directly to the implementation, growth and improvement of an academic
institution. It has been noticeable the existence of
a strong wave and a lot of pressure on academic
managers, drawn primarily from educated people,
perhaps in economics or business administration
or even in other areas, which in-depth seem unaware of what a university stands for and yet work
in the academic environment. Those people want
to install the same principles and type of management that is applied in commercial or industrial
companies as if the academic institution were just
like any other company. To re�lect over this reality on how business and universities have similar
and different management patterns at possible
approaches is the goal of this article.
I always recall what philosopher Karl Jaspers
used to say about universities being the place
where Society and Government allow the �lourishing of the most ludic conscience of its time (Jaspers,
1965, cited by Santos, 2005, p. 188). Those words
demonstrate the importance and the particularity of the university as a social institution. I recall
the words of John Henry Newman (1996) who, in
1852, claims to be the university aims to provide
expanding way of seeing things, the openness of
mind, the habit of thinking and the capacity for
social and civic interaction. That purpose is really
more connected to the mission of a university and
less to the one of a pro�itable company, which aims
at meeting other social needs.
23
Once Thomas Jefferson realized the social role of
a university, he considered more important having
founded the University of Virginia than having become President of the United States for two terms.
The purposes of the university as an institution
Recently, it has been placed into discussion the
roles of a university as a company, a research university, a modern university and a contemporary
university. For some, it may even seem that the
university should be a different institution from
the one that it has always been. It is evident that
the university has to adapt to time and society to
serve it well, since, just like society, it is also wavering and changeable. Indeed, it was to provide
good service to society that it was created. The
academia is the home of knowledge, the place par
excellence for its cultivation and sharing. Still, one
should not forget the original concept of the university as an institution, "community of teachers
and disciples united in the pursuit of truth", which
already implies the university as a de�ined environment and well differentiated institution. I consider this medieval de�inition of academia the best
among many with which I came across.
It is worth recalling that the truth is the supreme
value of humanity, in which its pursuit has always
been the commitment of well-intentioned people
and healthy human communities which considered
the university more than a millennial institution, it
became an object of desire. Well, that commitment
still remains, it cannot and should not change based
on a simple spatiotemporal trend.
The medieval university did not investigate
much. In fact, there was little concern about professionalism. Its main task was devoted mainly to
the general culture. The concern with research
emerged primarily with brothers Humboldt,
Wilhelm and Alexander at the founding of the
University of Berlin in 1810. Within time, it was
established the vision of the university, a privileged social institution, also having to provide
Univ. Debate 2013 jul./dez., 1(1), 22-30
Recently, it has been
placed into discussion
the roles of a university
as a company, a research
university, a modern
university and a contemporary university. For
some, it may even seem
that the university should
be a different institution
from the one that it has
always been.
24
Juliatto, C. I.
other specialized services to society. Thus, the
threefold mission of the university was consolidated: teaching culture and professions; research
or investigation to increase knowledge; extension,
including the provision of various services to the
internal and external community.
For teachers, however, Higher Education consists mainly of professionalism and research,
in other words, research and teaching. Ortega y
Gasset (1946, p. 79), in his important work Misión
de la Universidad, written in 1930, warns teachers,
and by extension the university managers, about
the danger which threatens them: "We need the
man of science not to be what he is today, with deplorable frequency, a barbarian who knows much
of a thing" and ignores the rest. For the philosopher, the scienti�ic talent that counts most in the
university is the integrative talent. He claims that
his experience has taught him that:
Ultimately, learned professionalism and research
results need to become
some sort of purpose
that seeks to address social needs, being deprived
of their direct link
with profitability.
men endowed with this authentic talent walk
closer to being good teachers than usuallysubmerged in research, because one of the �laws
resulting from the confusion of science and the
University has been the mistake of giving the
Chairs to the investigators (a peculiar mania of
our time) who are almost always bad teachers
who consider teaching as a theft of hours done
to their lab or �ile work. That is what my experience from years living in Germany told me. I
lived there with many of the most categorized
men of science of the time, yet I did not come
across a single good teacher (Ortega y Gasset,
1946, p. 80-81).
Ortega y Gasset (1946, p. 84) also advises: "In
selecting the faculty, the gift that will be more taken into account should not be the prestige that the
candidate has as a researcher, but the synthetic
talent and his skills as a teacher". The same author
goes further saying that "the pedantry and lack of
re�lection have been the great agents of 'scientism'
which harms the University" (p. 63). The philosopher claims that this is the reason why Higher
Univ. Debate 2013 jul./dez., 1(1), 22-30
Education and research harms one another when
you want to merge them instead of letting them
side by side, very free in exchange, constant, but
spontaneous. He concludes emphatically: "To
state, therefore: the University is distinct but inseparable from science. Better say, the University
is, in addition, science" (p. 87). For students, however, the author expresses his surprise at "seeing
together and merged two distinguishing tasks."
According to him, not all students need to be scientists. The author sees no considerable reason
for the average man to be a scientist.
It is clear, then, that the university is not only a
research institute, in which there is only research,
nor a vocational school, where there is only teaching and production of graduated professionals. It
needs to do both: teach and research. Now, this dual
function has implications for institutional management, for the manner of being organized in staf�ing
and administrative operation. By including the third
mission of the academia, which is the university extension or providing quali�ied service to society – it
is meant for both the intra and extramural community – the issue becomes even more complex and
problematic in view of the observations already undertaken by Gasset on how professionals perceive
their academic work at the university .
However, it is a matter to be considered a challenge with regard to its integration with teaching
and research, especially when we are thinking
of the speci�ic goals of the academic institution.
Ultimately, learned professionalism and research
results need to become some sort of purpose that
seeks to address social needs, being deprived of
their direct link with pro�itability. We would say
that the university’s bond and commitment are to
provide society with better prepared citizens in
search for meaningful knowledge, agility in solving
problems and sensitivity to the collective growth.
Therefore, it is essential to recall Ortega y Gasset
who protested against pedantry and lack of re�lection of some teachers. The same is true for little science and simplism, if not the conceit and arrogance
of some unenlightened university administrators.
Would the university be a business organization like the others?
University and business organization
A business institution primarily seeks to grow
business, please their customers; produce more,
sell more, in order to earn more money and thus
increase as soon as possible the heritage of their
owners. The company may even have other purposes, all secondary, but it is undeniable that the
main goal is to pro�it. That is why its goals are almost always ambitious and most of them shortterm. A university, in its role, works with knowledge. However, the increase of knowledge does
not always come in a short-term. The objective of
preparing professionals to society, another duty
that belongs to university, requires large and permanent harmony with the labor market whichis
always moving. The formation of good people, kind
people, good parents, ethical and sensible people,
good citizens to society, another important goal of
the academia, is time consuming and also costly.
Several objectives of the university are of medium and long term. It is understood therefore, that
time for a university is not the same as for a company. The company time now is mainly the short
term, the university time is the medium and long
term, I insist. Moreover, the short-term is mostly
often not adapted to the production of knowledge, nor the evolution of scienti�ic research, and
neither for the preparation of professionals and
solidary citizens. However, those goals are very
important for the university, to society and indispensable to progress.
It is evident the danger and the risks of a utilitarian research, which many would like to see
implemented in academia, in which economic and
�inancial aims are dei�ied. It seems to me that, in
companies, the pressure, the search for immediate results and overview of short-term prevail.
According to this view, some think the academia
should only investigate preferably what is useful
to the market. Now, this is not always consistent
with the concern with the search for a greater
good for society and its citizens. The new knowledge favorable to the evolution of civilization and
25
proven to be so, are not always the short term.
The university is therefore a stronghold in which
knowledge creation should not be linked only to
the �inancial interest. For its commitment to the
whole society, the university should not and cannot concern itself only with a portion of society
such as the productive and business sector.
In ancient Greece, when looking for a site
where to allocate the Academia of Athens, founded by Plato, about 387 B.C., aprecursor institution
of the university, the founder recommended: as
far as possible from the market ! ... Now the word
market is not only the place of supply of public
goods for the population, but it also refers to the
business world, focus and symbol of the greedy
eyes of the companies.
When we talk about Modern University, we
think of institutions devoted to research and
strongly linked to its surroundings. Some scholars
of the university refer to this model to encompass
"innovative universities, entrepreneurs, factories
of useful knowledge, traders of knowledge and
�inished products, and knowledge enterprises"
(Malagón Plata, 2004, p. 35). Bolstered by this
concept, the universities are transformed into institutions that are fundamental to modern society. It is evident that research began to in�luence
teaching. It was initially a kind of support to the
teacher. Then, it became a more explicit support to
industrial production.
The Contemporary University is the result of
the demands of the current context: globalization, transnationalism, differentiation and massi�ication of Higher Education. It is noticed that
Higher Education has never been so important to
the world as it is in present times and apparently
will remain so in the future. This is true both in developed and developing countries. Quality education, especially Higher Education quality, is a distinguishing feature between nations. Therefore,
the link between universities and the productive forces of society has become an obsession
nowadays. Now, this concept of entrepreneurial
university adopts some company features: strict
Univ. Debate 2013 jul./dez., 1(1), 22-30
The university is therefore a stronghold in
which knowledge creation should not be linked
only to the financial interest. For its commitment
to the whole society, the
university should not and
cannot concern itself only
with a portion of society
such as the productive
and business sector.
26
It is clear that companies
and universities have different logic. The first privileges the economy, the
second aims at the social
phenomena. It is wrong,
therefore, to simply try
to turn the university into
a business organization,
because it is an institution of a different nature,
it is definitely not like the
other companies.
Juliatto, C. I.
and centralized direction, diversi�ication of the so
called academic businesses, diversi�ication of revenue sources, expansion of support and research
tools preferably in a short term at the expense of
educational functions and long-lasting knowledge
production, which often requires to happen in a
medium and long term.
The Corporative University is another strategic
concept which brings together some institutions
created to train and educate employees and staff of
a company in order to maximize the results of the
corporation. The corporative university can take
various forms: business schools or universities
geared to meet the companies needs, universities
established by companies, associations of universities and companies. An example is the Motorola
University, founded primarily to serve the interests of the company that founded it. Here in the
state of Paraná, it was created the University of the
Industry – Unindus – together with the Federation
of Enterprises. In other states or other countries,
there are similar institutions to those just mentioned. Those institutions are special systems of
teaching and learning rather than universities in
the traditional sense, so we think, as well as Jarvis
(2001) and others. This type of institution is restricted to developing speci�ic operational competence (know how), whereas the traditional university is also concerned with developing general
academic competence (know that).
In the so called age of knowledge, the partnership university-business grows, both because of
the pressure from the Government and the needs
of the companies themselves, be it for the production of new knowledge or is to supply skilled labor.
The companies, however, have short-term goals
and basically turn to pro�it and �inancial gains,
whereas universities are dedicated to the pursuit
of knowledge, education and culture. It is clear
that companies and universities have different
logic. The �irst privileges the economy, the second
aims at the social phenomena. It is wrong, therefore, to simply try to turn the university into a
business organization, because it is an institution
Univ. Debate 2013 jul./dez., 1(1), 22-30
of a different nature, it is de�initely not like the
other companies.
Some expressions, which are used at times,
should be commented on: academic businesses,
businesses in education and other university businesses. For that, we mention Plato (2007): the
knowledge of words leads to the knowledge of
things. Consider the meaning of the terms: for
example, when we talk about philosophy, we understand lover of wisdom; when we talk about
Akadémeia, we understand "garden of Academo".
We have said that Plato, the founder of the academia, was contrary to the brouhaha market.
When we from Greeks to the Romans we �ind
Cicero (1985), more political and literary than
philosopher, but yet a great thinker. In Latin, negotium divides itself into necotium, which means
work outside the otium; idleness implies leisure
and rest. Negotiator is a banker. What does Cicero
do? He works at the painful Otium cum dignitate.
Leisure with dignity de�ines and summarizes or
illustrates this article: bid farewell to the pro�iciency in order to �ind the essence. Here we are
inserted into the critical view of this writing: university, strictly speaking , should take the side of
the friend of wisdom rather than the money professional, without forgetting, of course, the ruling
and opposing requirements: you need to live with
dignity and to organize yourself for such. This
paragraph completes the round trip: from Plato
to Adam Smith, Adam Smith to Plato. We believe
that the inevitable and essential mission of the academia is to serve society well. The money takes
care of itself elsewhere.
The expressions and contrasts listed above
imply, or even directly proclaim, you can do some
sort of deal with education. Normally, the word
business is linked to some way of making money.
There are people who view education as business; they even establish schools for that purpose. While there is still lack of social education,
learning will continue to be business. Therefore,
it is always important to do a very professional
and ethical job with education. Education, health,
Would the university be a business organization like the others?
social promotion and other charitable areas of
human activity are �ields of labor mainly for government agencies in wholesale and for the exercise of philanthropy of individuals and ideological groups in retail.
University or business management?
As mentioned in the previous paragraph, I
insist that the current economistic in�luence on
some college administrators at several institutions brings threats to the academia, which is, in
essence, a social institution guided by the pursuit of knowledge and truth. The warning given
by Derek Bok (2009), in 1990 is suitable and
signi�icant. The dean of the prestigious Harvard
University, about the risks of these current economistic alliances, claims to be no doubt that the
�inancial bene�its that the institution can earn are
overcome by the damage that such relationship
can lead to academic science.
Adopting a mercantilist and utilitarian perspective of academia can ruin the historic commitment of the university as an entity focused not
only on development, but mainly on critical scienti�ic thinking. With the words of Malagón Plata
(2004, p. 176), we insist that it always must be
kept "live the utopia of a fairer society”. The university can and should be one of the main bastions
in this endeavor. It is clear that there are two views
that con�lict inside the university arena: a vision
of education focused on technical and economic
goals and the social academic vision. The second
view does not leave out the �irst, but the enthusiastic adoption of the �irst will be very harmful to
the second which ends upsuppressed, eventually.
It should be noted that universities have always
struggled to maintain their autonomy in order to
be able to make criticisms and denunciations of
the injustices that exist in society. It is noticeable
that today these institutions are losing the necessary independence, because they are increasingly
binding with the productive sector, with which
27
they end up working. Jarvis (2001) observes that
in the world which demands moral stance, universities are losing their independence, placing themselves in dubious position or even changed, they
alienate and distort themselves in the expense of
their non-transferable larger scope of being servants and missionaries of the truth.
The relationship university – business organization is based on the so called triple helix: state,
company, university. There is no doubt that the
new world scenario also calls for the university’s
contribution to competitiveness and innovation.
It is clear, however, that new types of institutions
are emerging in the market: business schools and
other institutions that only offer online distance
learning. This change of focus on the university
has direct implications on the role of the teacher
and their teaching practices. They also in�luence
the pro�ile of the student, the university's relations with society and with the academic and administrative priorities of the administrators.
Among many others, Fabre (2011) is a dissenting voice on the subject of the corporatization of
the university. The author warns and takes a clear
position against the trend of the university in importing many tools from business management,
which he considers calamitous. The academia has
always been an institution rather conservative, he
notes. It has capitalized on its existence and role
on traditional values, which they guide themselves
by. The author states (2011, p. 9): to mess it "is
like changing the place of a cemetery: you cannot
rely on the help of the inmates." By not knowing
the difference between a university and company,
aiming at implementing a typical business administration at a university can generate various dysfunctions and deep malaise within the university
community. The academia has or should have another philosophy.
For now, no important lesson was taken from
the introduction of a business logic in the university administration. There is the idea, however, especially in the private business sector, that the university should be managed as a business, to make it
Univ. Debate 2013 jul./dez., 1(1), 22-30
This change of focus on
the university has direct
implications on the
role of the teacher and
their teaching practices.
They also influence the
profile of the student,
the university’s relations
with society and with the
academic and administrative priorities of the
administrators.
28
In the exercise of its
commitment to serve
society well, it is obvious
that the university also
needs to be effective and
efficient: it must manage
well the resources it has.
It is unacceptable that the
university, a stronghold of
smart people, is financially
irresponsible or wasteful
at doing its job.
Juliatto, C. I.
more ef�icient and effective, both in decision making and the use of resources. For Fabre (2011) and
other scholars, this analogy of the university with
the company is falsely innovative, whatever dimension is considered. From the ontological point of
view, considering the university a business organization means simply to deny its speci�icity.
We again insist: in business, to better serve
the customer, improve the technologies and make
them more competitive with the growth of ef�iciency and effectiveness and thus, improve performance, the main goal is to achieve return on
investment made by the shareholders or owners. This is not the case of a university which its
primary function is to serve society by educating
and preparing citizens who wish to be competent,
ethical and participatory.
In the exercise of its commitment to serve society well, it is obvious that the university also
needs to be effective and ef�icient: it must manage
well the resources it has. It is unacceptable that
the university, a stronghold of smart people, is �inancially irresponsible or wasteful at doing its job.
Moreover, it is basically in the university, where
many experts on the subject can be found, that
they develop the knowledge and the proper study
of management. To emphasize, the university
also needs to be well managed, but appropriately,
so that it can ful�ill its supreme and inescapable
role. Good management is the one that provides
the institution with the opportunity to fully ful�ill
its mission. The university is responsible for the
creation of knowledge and, only indirectly, for the
creation of wealth, which is a main goal for companies. The university mission is therefore more
qualitative than quantitative.
Before the rise of "university capitalism", it is
time to reaf�irm the values proclaimed by "university citizenship". Given the technical and entrepreneurial vision proposed by some managers, who wish to impose it, apparently unaware
of the soul of the university, it resolutely matters
to opt for a more humanistic view, based on ethics and academic tradition. For the university,
Univ. Debate 2013 jul./dez., 1(1), 22-30
this implies adopting a management of its own
for, according to its characteristics. Thus, a re�lection on academic values and identity of the
university is imposed to the managers who bear
responsibility for the institution.
The primary concern of university administrators cannot be with the mere increase of economic-�inancial pro�iciency of the institution. We have
already denounced the growing myth of importing
typically managerial tools and intending to adopt
them for the university management as the only
way to improve the performance of academic institutions. Well, this initiative is just an allegory or
a mean excuse. This view can even be called the
Trojan Horse, inserted in the university environment (Fabre, 2011). Far from insinuating that the
university does not need good management, we
propose thinking about other more consistent
policies with their nature and mission, all of them
different from strictly business entities.
The requirement done to universities to serve
the general interest of society, and not just a segment, does not allow it to be run like any other
business institution. Clearly, this makes the university administration more complex. There are
visions of university with more numerous and
comprehensive missions to the point that they
classify it as a true Multiversity (Kerr, 1963). In the
era of knowledge, the scienti�ic expertise of the
university cannot be so myopic when concerned
only with the short-term utilitarian view, and
imagine itself as any other company. The university is much more than just a business organization.
Universities must ensure the initial and continuing education of citizens and professionals, as in
this casting: scienti�ic and technological research,
dissemination of culture, and scienti�ic and technical information, international cooperation and
other good social causes. That is much more than
companies do, mainly concentrated in the �inancial
return, promoting initiatives, directly or indirectly,
but primarily for the immediate scope. In the long
term, human development, if correct and healthy, is
dependent on the university necessarily. Without
Would the university be a business organization like the others?
the university, no country can progress, in austere
and demanding balance, to have a future.
At the present moment, where winds blow towards management, the business model, with its
allurements and predominantly quantitative instruments, is also in�luencing the university management. Well, in the academic institution collegiality
prevails in contrast with centralism which ordinarily
prevails in companies. To make changes happen in
the academia, when necessary, we must rely on the
acceptance of the international community and not
simply impose from the outside a decision strange to
that community. Submitting to those postulates certainly does not please eagerly ambitious managers.
So far, "nothing proves irrefutably that the power of
market forces to improve the level of research and
Higher Education" (Dill, 2003, cited by Fabre, 2011,
p. 56-57). Therefore, I insist that any change in the
administration and structure of the university must
take into account the added dimensions: historical,
economic and cultural. In the university, the coexistence of a collegiate autonomy and centralizing vision will certainly be con�licting.
The view that the university works as any
other company, for all administrative purposes,
in which managerial tools are suitable for one as
they are for the other, is a myth and a scam, again
simply because those institutions are not equal.
For managers who adopt that view, there is a clear
preference for the adoption of quantitative parameters at the expense of quality. For managers with
such a view, qualitative variables are not very reliable, which reinforces the myth of complete predictability. As a result, it generates real fetishism to
use only quantitative indicators. It is exactly in this
way that the university creates the "illusion of the
virtues of the market" (Fabre, 2011, p. 84).
Concluding
I conclude my remarks with the words of the
master Jim Collins (2005), known and respected
author in administration, who also wrote about
29
the management of social institutions such as universities as social institution par excellence. They
represent well my opinion and that of most scholars of the subject: the confusion between means
and ends is at the root of the differences between
business and social organizations. In business,
money is the means and also the ends. In social organizations, money is only resource and not measuredin greatness. The author complements saying that for social organizations, the performance
needs to be evaluated in relation to the mission
and not the �inancial return.
Like any business, the university has a structure, an organization, goals, resources and personnel, it also offers products and services to society.
Therefore, it needs planning, elaborated decisions,
professionalism, quality assessment and improvement in performance, economic viability and longterm survival.
The university faces the challenges of the market: competition, changes and new professional
demands, evasion and delinquency, etc. Because
the university is subject to these variables, the university administrators need to worry about excellent management, linked to the institutional identity and mission of the academia. In many ways,
this can lead managers to consider it like a business, but they need to have the insight that only by
these similarities the university does not become
a business, but a separate organization which requires continuous evaluation to avoid losing basic
assumptions of their identity, and thus truly set
as an institution that promotes teaching, research
and extension.
The university is different from a regular business for its pursuing social goals, for its role in educating citizens, for the characteristics of their nature and the humanistic management model they
adopt. When considering only the university as a
company, or comparing it to the institutions they
are not resembled, we risk forgetting the most
important mission: serving society, people and
Education. Furthermore, many universities are
public institutions, or nonpro�it, philanthropic in
Univ. Debate 2013 jul./dez., 1(1), 22-30
The view that the university works as any other
company, for all administrative purposes, in which
managerial tools are suitable for one as they are
for the other, is a myth
and a scam, again simply
because those institutions are not equal.
30
In this article, by contrasting universities with companies, the purpose was
only to emphasize the
specificity of academic
organization. It was not
intended to diminish
companies, demonize
them, or say bad things
about them.
Juliatto, C. I.
nature, and some even of religious nature, which
further reinforces their sense of mission.
In this article, by contrasting universities with
companies, the purpose was only to emphasize
the speci�icity of academic organization. It was not
intended to diminish companies, demonize them,
or say bad things about them. Far from it, they deserve great admiration, because in addition to promoting the wealth and progress of nations, they
provide the population with work allowing many
families to have quality life, contribute to the wellbeing of the population with the product they offer, promote social stability, promote many charitable campaigns and provide valuable support to
social organizations.
I recall the initial question, title of this article:
Would the university be a business organization
like the others? For me, the correct answer would
be yes, at a certain level, but rather in lowercase
letters and NOT in uppercase letters!
By the differences pointed out in this article,
one easily realizes that the university is an institution sui generis and cannot be expected to manage
itself as if it managed any other business organization, which does not mean, at any time, that the
administrators must not be concerned with ef�iciency, reliability and high performance in the university’s management .
References
Bok, D. (2009). Más allá de la torre de mar�il: La responsabilidad social de la universidad moderna. Buenos
Aires: Fundación Universidad de Palermo.
Cícero, M. T. (1985). De oratore, libro secondo: Testo,
costruzione versione letterale e note. Milano: Dante
Alighieri.
Collins, J. (2005). Good to great and the social sectors: Why business thinking is not the answer:
A monograph to accompany Good to great. New
York: HarperCollins.
Univ. Debate 2013 jul./dez., 1(1), 22-30
Fabre, B. (2011). L’Université a-t-elle perdu son
âme?: Plaidoyer pour une autre réforme. Paris:
L’Harmattan.
Jarvis, P. (2001). Universidades corporativas: Nuevos modelos de aprendizaje en la sociedad global. Madrid:
Narcea.
Kerr, C. (1963). The uses of the university. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Malagón Plata, L. A. (2004). Universidad y sociedad:
Pertinencia y educación superior. Bogotá: Cooperativa Editorial Magisterio.
Newman, J. H. (1996). The idea of a university. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Ortega y Gasset, J. (1946). Missão da universidade.
Porto: Seara Nova.
Platão. (1997). A República. Tradução de Enrico
Corvisieri. São Paulo: Nova Cultural.
Santos, B. de S. (2005). Pela mão de Alice: O social e o
político na pós-modernidade. São Paulo: Cortez.