For alma mater: Publishing institutional histories of higher education and university presses: Purposes, genre and scholarly value

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean‐Pierre V. M. Hérubel
2021 ◽  
pp. 415-436
Author(s):  
Manuel Villegas Rodríguez

Resumen: La Universidad, la Alma Mater, como cualquier otra entidad, en este caso dedicada a la Enseñanza Superior, tiene sus compromisos ante sí misma, ante la Sociedad en la que se encuentra, y ante la Comunidad de Estudiantes. No solo mientras los alumnos asisten a sus aulas, sino también, cuando ya preparados (o más bien titulados), ejercen su personal y peculiar actividad en la Sociedad. Con las evidentes diferencias, a causa del tiempo transcurrido cuando san Agustín ejerció su enseñanza, convendría que una Universidad (real o ficticia), tuviera en cuenta e imitara la forma y la esencia del Magisterio Agustiniano.Abstratct: The University, the Alma Mater, like any other entity, in this case dedicated to Higher Education, has its commitments before itself, before the Society in which it is located, and before the Student Community. Not only while the students attend their classrooms, but also, when already prepared (or rather graduates), they carry out their personal and peculiar activity in the Society. With the obvious differences, because of the time that passed when Saint Augustine taught, it would be convenient for a University (real or fictitious) to take into account and imitate the form and essence of the Augustinian Magisterium.Palabras clave: Obras de San Agustín. Historia de las Universidades. Legislación y Ley positiva. Ciencia y Sabiduría. Democracia. Keywords: Works of Saint Augustine. History of the Universities. Legislation and Positive Law. Science and Wisdom. Democracy 


2011 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 152-153

Teresa A. Sullivan of University of Virginia reviews “Saving Alma Mater: A Rescue Plan for America's Public Universities” by James C. Garland. The EconLit Abstract of the reviewed work begins, “Examines how to reform the economic model of public higher education, drawing upon the example of Miami University of Ohio. Discusses where the money comes from; market forces in higher education; why public universities cannot restrain costs; the university prime directive; whether the faculty are ….”


Author(s):  
Daniel C. Levy

When a well-bred Yale alumnus like William F. Buckley, Jr., sardonically suggests that his alma mater donate itself to the state of Connecticut (“To tell the truth, I don’t know that anything much would happen.”), some conventional assumptions require reexamination. Chief among these is the much ballyhooed distinction between “private” and “public.” Analysis reveals serious ambiguities. We lack an agreed-upon notion of what defines our types. Different observers define the private-public split by different criteria. In fact, criteria are usually implicit and fuzzy, but even when they are explicit and clear, they vary. What defines a private institution for one observer does not do so for another. And the problem goes beyond this definitional conflict. As will be shown at least for higher education, no behavioral criterion or set of criteria consistently distinguishes institutions legally designated private from institutions legally designated public. Surely this volume’s chapters, on both schools and universities, arrive at no such criteria; instead, as discussed below, several provide evidence of increasing private-public blurring. In a desperate attempt to reassert its distinctiveness, the U.S. private higher-education sector has recently rebaptized itself “the independent sector.” The new nomenclature, while it brings private higher education under a terminological umbrella widely used by the U.S. nonprofit world, contributes nothing to definitional clarity. It is simultaneously intended to legitimize the private sector’s claim to the public dollar (by downplaying privateness) and yet to distinguish that sector from the public sector by emphasizing its autonomy from government. The first aim, of course, undermines the second. Looking abroad seems to frustrate yearnings for clear definitional usage. England, for example, long noted for its paradoxical labeling of private and public secondary education, offers an ambiguous picture at higher levels as well. All the universities, even those financed over 90% by the government, form what is still frequently called the autonomous or private sector, distinct not from public universities but from the technical sector of higher education (which is consensually considered public). Increasingly, however, one hears England’s universities identified as public.


Author(s):  
James W. Dean ◽  
Deborah Y. Clarke

Colleges and universities stand to benefit greatly when businesspeople engage with them, whether through governing boards, alumni associations, consulting arrangements, philanthropy, or other channels. But many businesspeople are frustrated by the way institutions of higher education work--or rather, how they don't work. Why do decisions in universities take so long and involve so many people? Why aren't profit and growth top priorities for colleges? Why can't the faculty be managed like any other employees? Shouldn't alumni have a greater say as they continue to invest in their alma mater? As leaders in higher education, James W. Dean Jr. and Deborah Y. Clarke have years of experience addressing these questions for a wide range of professionals outside the academy. This book draws on their expertise to offer real-world guidance for businesspeople who work with and seek to improve colleges and universities. Dean and Clarke differentiate and clarify the motivations and structures that make universities unique among American enterprises. And while they acknowledge the challenges that businesspeople often face when working with academic institutions, they explain that understanding the distinct mission of higher education is essential to being able to effect change within these organizations. Presenting insights from interviews with a wide range of stakeholders, Dean and Clarke give succinct and practical advice for working with universities.


2020 ◽  
Vol 122 (9) ◽  
pp. 1-44
Author(s):  
Noah D. Drezner ◽  
Oren Pizmony-Levy ◽  
Maria Anderson-Long

Background/Context Government support for higher education has decreased over the past few decades. In turn, institutions are seeking alternative sources of funding and increasing reliance on alumni giving. Although trust is important to social institutions and nonprofits, we know little about the role of trust in alumni engagement. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study We empirically assess the association between trust and philanthropic giving. We aim to determine the effectiveness of using trust as a predictor for giving attitudes and behavior. More specifically, we seek to answer the following research questions: 1. To what extent does trust in alma mater vary across socio-demographic characteristics? 2. To what extent does trust in alma mater correlate with alumni engagement (self-reported behavior and attitudes) with philanthropic giving? 3. Does the strength of the association between trust in alma mater and alumni engagement hold after controlling for socio-demographic characteristics? Population/Participants/Subjects Data for this study came from the National Alumni Giving Experiment (NAGE) conducted in 2014 (n=1,553). The NAGE survey instrument was designed as a web-based, self-administered questionnaire, with attitudinal items developed based on previous research and common practices in public opinion research. Respondents were recruited and paid via Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk). The NAGE sample is comparable with the General Social Survey's (2012/2014) college educated sample. Research Design We used a sequential mixed-methods research design (QUAN > qual). In the first stage, which is the main portion our study, we employed multivariate analysis to examine (a) socio-demographic variations in trust in alma mater, and (b) the correlations between trust and philanthropic giving. In the second stage, we coded and analyzed open-ended responses. We analyzed the quantitative and qualitative data separately, but we connect the findings to produce a comprehensive analysis of the role of trust in philanthropic giving to higher education. Findings/Results We found that alumni trust is a strong predictor of self-reported giving and attitudes, even after accounting for socio-demographic characteristics. Analysis of open-ended responses suggests that alumni develop (dis)trust based on public discourse on higher education and their personal perceptions and observations of their alma maters’ institutional policies and spending. Conclusions/Recommendations Trust is granted by individuals to others and to institutions. However, institutions cannot take trust for granted. Institutions of higher education must continually earn the trust of their constituents through creating transparent practices and educating students and alumni about funding, assuring them that they have measures in place to track and implement donor wishes.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Robert J. Machovsky

This study investigated the donor and alumni engagement and perceptions of the “Millennial” generation and descriptive statistics of the population (born between 1980-2004) at a rural Midwest University. Data were obtained from a University database containing demographic (i.e., gender, race, birth year, donor status, donation amount, activities involved in while in school), on Millennial alumni at the University. Data were analyzed by a variety of techniques that included descriptive statistics, Independent t-Test, deployment of a survey, and focus group. The quantitative findings concluded that Millennials who were born from 1980 to 1989 contributed larger average gifts then Millennials who were born from 1990 to 2004. Additionally, the research discovered that Millennials who were involved in organizations gave larger donations than those who were not in student organizations. The qualitative findings concluded that the Millennial population provided evidence of areas and reason on why they support the institution when connected to making a donation and the various aspects that affect one's ability due to communication preferences, affinity, areas to support, and financial ability. An understanding for professionals and researchers to be educated on how to better fundraise/engage with the Millennial generations within higher education will allow for universities and colleges to rely on this generation in the years to come.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document