SOME SOCIAL ISSUES OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION

D. N. Prikhodko

(Presented by the scientific seminar of the Department of Scientific Communism)

The purpose of this article is to analyze certain social aspects of the American system of higher education under contemporary conditions. The empirical material for the analysis consisted of special works by American sociologists, official statistical and documentary materials, and the periodical press. As for the theoretical conclusions and generalizations in the studies of bourgeois authors, we have fully taken into account the scientific untenability of their methodological positions and their purely class-based approach to evaluations of social reality. In the present article there is no room for a detailed critical analysis of the philosophical positions of bourgeois sociologists specializing in problems of higher education¹. It may be noted at once that the conceptual schemes of these authors do not go beyond the limits of various varieties of pragmatic and positivist philosophy and, from these positions, cannot provide anything valuable for the scientific analysis of concrete social questions. However, as regards empirical material, individual facts, and particular conclusions, bourgeois sociologists, as V. I. Lenin emphasized, are capable of “...producing the most valuable works in the field of factual special studies,” although not one of them “can be believed for a single word once the discussion turns to general theory”². In our analysis we approach the works of bourgeois authors in precisely this way.

Marxist sociology regards the system of education as such a superstructural element which most directly and vividly reflects the character of the existing social order. The educational system of bourgeois society serves the interests of the ruling class, the class of the propertied. And, consequently, education is also accessible (this applies especially to the system of higher education) predominantly to the propertied: “Only in this last word,” wrote V. I. Lenin, “lies the essence of the class school”³. Thus, V. I. Lenin sees the essence of the bourgeois school in the accessibility of education

for the propertied. Today the bourgeois school has not only not lost this characteristic, but, rather, has strengthened it. The statistical calculations of American sociologists only confirm this. Over the past two decades the annual cost of higher education, which makes it possible to obtain the first professional degree (the bachelor’s degree), has risen by more than 130% on average in all higher educational institutions of the country. Moreover, it is characteristic that the cost of education in state educational institutions rose by 165%, and in private ones by 130%. It should be noted that the cost of education in private educational institutions is on average almost four times higher than in state ones. Tuition in the final year at an educational institution making it possible to obtain the bachelor’s degree increased in 1957, compared with 1940, by 98% in private educational institutions and by 100% in state ones^4). According to the American press, tuition in higher educational institutions was substantially increased in 1965. Over a four-year course of study at municipal universities, students had to pay no less than 800 dollars. In private institutions of higher learning, tuition on average rose to 13,000 dollars^5). Tuition and the necessary expenses connected with it, as the most important principle of the bourgeois system of higher education, open the way to higher school mainly to representatives of the ruling class. According to V. I. Marchinkevich, the group “big bourgeoisie” has a specific weight in society of 9.5%; 79% of the children from this group enter colleges; for the groups “middle bourgeoisie,” “petty bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy,” and workers these figures are distributed respectively as follows: 45.4% and 41.9%, 40.2% and 20.8%, 30.5% and 42.0%^6).

What are the social consequences of the principle of paid tuition in the American system of higher education? The influence of these consequences must be seen both with respect to the individual and to society as a whole. Above all, the class-antagonistic character of social relations in American society and, in particular, of the system of higher education, as a most important superstructural element of that society, cannot ensure society’s need for trained specialists at the level of higher-education qualification in purely quantitative terms in accordance with the needs of scientific and technological progress. According to Admiral H. Rickover, in the 1962/63 academic year the graduation of engineers in the USA amounted to 40,000 persons instead of the necessary 72,000; the graduation of physicians was about 7,400 persons, corresponding to three quarters of the country’s minimum needs for medical workers^7). According to a report of the White House advisers’ committee, by 1970 the United States may graduate half as many doctors and masters in science and technology as are needed today^8). Thus, this is not an isolated fact, but a definite tendency which testifies to society’s inability to provide scientific and technological progress with the necessary number of trained specialists.

However, the class-antagonistic character of American society and higher education affects not only the quantitative aspect of the training of highly qualified specialists, but also determines the qualitative aspect of this process. The sociologist R. Hutchins, examining the report of the presidential commission on higher education and those recommen—

^4) Statistical Handbook of Science Education. Washington, 1960, p. 51—52.
^5) “Vestnik vysshei shkoly,” 1965, No. 2, p. 88.
^6) V. Marchinkevich. “Contradictions in the Development of Education in the USA.” Nauchnye doklady vysshei shkoly. Economic Sciences. No. 2, 1965, p. 45.
^7) H. G. Rickover, American Education—A National Failure, New York, 1963, p. 108.
^8) “THE NEW YORK TIMES,” December 18, 1962.

recommendations that the commission gave to the federal government for improving the country’s educational system, for the most part reducing its proposals to a significant increase in students, professors, expenditures, and so on, wrote that “the problem of higher education in America is not only a problem of quantity,” that “only a person without imagination could follow a program that seeks to make the American people intelligent, prosperous, and happy by the simple process of doubling the number of students, professors, and expenditures on higher education”^9.

The social practice of bourgeois society cannot fully provide scientific and technological progress with specialists of the highest possible quality. The point is that society today cannot create conditions for the manifestation and development of the abilities of all talented youth, which, of course, is reflected in the most direct way in the quality of the specialists being trained. American society not only cannot create the necessary conditions for the accumulation of talent—it leads to the squandering of talent. “Many very able graduates of secondary schools,” write the authors of the collection of documents Background for a National Scholarship Policy, “remain outside college and create a serious national problem.” The authors of the collection rightly see this problem in the fact that “the lack of further development and education for the majority of high-school graduates represents a loss that concerns not only the individual, but also represents an enormous loss for society”^10.

For the majority of American youth, the possibility of receiving an education and thus developing their abilities depends not on personal qualities and gifts, but is determined above all by the socioeconomic position of the family. The role of the economic barrier, as the principal obstacle for young people on the path to an institution of higher learning, is also acknowledged by official specialists in higher education. The old convenient idea that “every young man can receive an education in college if he has it in him” is simply untrue. A low family income, together with the rising cost of education, creates an almost insurmountable barrier to college education for many young people^11. One of the consequences of social inequality in American society is the seemingly paradoxical fact that the path to higher education proves to be much more open to less able high-school graduates than to the most gifted. According to the sociologist D. Book, 25% of the most brilliant high-school graduates in all states stated that “they do not intend to enter college at all,” whereas 65–70% of the least gifted graduates definitely stated their decision to enter college, and the majority of them had already chosen the college “which they intended to attend”^12.

The social meaning of the economic barriers in the American system of higher education lies not only in the fact that they are a substantial source of income for educational institutions and the government, but also in the fact that they promote the monopolization of higher education within the ruling class, promote the formation of the so-called “educated elite,” standing above society and opposed to it in the interests of the ruling class.

^9. American Higher Education. A Documentary History, The University of Chicago Press, 1961, vol. 2, p. 1001.
^10. Background for A National Scholarship Policy, Washington, 1956, p. 1.
^11. American Higher Education. A Documentary History, vol. 2, pp. 977–978.
^12. Background for A National Scholarship Policy, p. 70.

A serious social obstacle to raising the educational level of the population and developing the abilities of the individual is discrimination against women in the field of education and, above all, higher education. The practice of discrimination on the basis of sex once again refutes the myth of “equal opportunities in education and in life.” Speaking of the necessity of education for women, the outstanding Indian philosopher R. Tagore wrote: “If knowledge is the achievement of all mankind and if every person has the right to education, then it is unclear on the basis of what principle women may be deprived of education”⁴. The obviousness of this thesis is acknowledged by many leaders and researchers of American higher education. In the official report of the Presidential Commission on Higher Education it was emphasized that “the social role of education in a democratic society consists in ensuring equal freedom and equal opportunities for various individuals and groups”⁵. It goes without saying that by “various individuals and groups” the authors of the report cannot but include the female population of the country. The leaders of Cornell University, defining the university’s chief purpose, write that “this educational institution has set itself the goal of making it possible for any intellectually developed person to receive an education in any field. It rejects distinctions based on religion, skin color, or sex”⁶. However, the social practice of American society and, in particular, of institutions of higher education, is very far from realizing women’s formal right to education; more than that, it is opposed to this right. In 1956 women made up less than 1% of engineers and scientists⁷. According to the Soviet sociologist L. Bagramov, women constitute only 2% of physicists, 3% of geologists, 3% of meteorologists, 5% of physicians, 7% of chemists, 8% of biologists, and less than 10% of mathematicians. Among professional engineers the number of women is negligible: about 3 per 1000 (0.3%)⁸. Even in those educational institutions where the humanities have considerable weight, the proportion of women is, on average, small. For example, at Cornell University it is 18%. Moreover, the university’s administrators consider this to be “a large proportion of women,” in contrast to other educational institutions. The ratio of men and women holding the academic degree of doctor of science shows a tendency toward a relative decline in the proportion of women. In 1930 the percentage of women holding the academic degree of doctor of science was 15%; in 1940, 13%; in 1950, 10%; from 1951 through 1957, respectively: 9.3%, 9.3%, 9.5%, 9.3%, 9%, and 9%⁹. The journal United States News and World Report notes that “in the higher-education system, in colleges and universities, there are now fewer women teachers than even in 1910”¹⁰.

The deepest social causes of discrimination against women in the field of higher education lie in the essence of the bourgeois order. The principle of the actual equality of women is organically alien to capitalist society, for capitalism regards discrimination against women as an institution for stabilizing the property-owning order and the property-owning family. V. I. Lenin emphasized that “in capitalist society woman is placed in such a disenfranchised position that partic—

her participation in politics is manifested in a negligible degree compared with men’s”¹¹. Despite the fact that the social development and technical progress of modern society objectively require the involvement of women in public life, bourgeois society deprives women of material and moral incentives for education. The former is manifested in noticeable discrimination in the sphere of wages. In 1952 the average earnings of all working women amounted to 43 percent of the earnings of all working men¹².

In recent years this proportion has not changed. United States News and World Report rightly notes in this connection that here “complete equality for women is apparently still a long way off”¹³. Second, there is the myth of women’s “biological inferiority.” It may seem strange, but this medieval myth is today widespread in bourgeois society and its sociology. The Soviet sociologist Professor A. G. Kharchev is entirely right in observing that “it would be obviously premature to suppose that contemporary bourgeois ideology, in its assessment of women and their social role, has gone very far from the notorious Malleus Maleficarum and Domostroi, from the misogynistic sayings of medieval ‘saints’ and fascist Führers”¹⁴. Even so respectable a bourgeois sociologist as the American professor T. Parsons, on the grounds of women’s biological characteristics, confines her role to the hearth. “It can, I think, be said with confidence,” writes T. Parsons, “that the role of the adult woman is still confined to the internal affairs of the family as wife, mother, and housekeeper, whereas the role of the adult man is connected above all with the business world, with work, through which he performs the duties of breadwinner and head of the family”¹⁵.

Some American researchers—particularly the majority of the authors of the report of the Presidential Commission—while understanding the negative effect on society and the individual of social barriers in education, nevertheless share the official optimism concerning the prospects and possibilities of the American system of higher education and propose measures for its social improvement. The authors of the aforementioned report, for example, assert: “With wise management of our economy we can definitely be capable of supporting education in all respects more justly in the future than we have done in the past”¹⁶. However, the more profound sociologists of American higher education are far from such optimism. They also understand the full perniciousness of the effects of social discrimination in higher education on the life of American society. They share no illusions regarding the ability of contemporary bourgeois society to overcome these obstacles and avoid their negative effects. But, on the other hand, these researchers, restricting themselves to the position of bourgeois objectivism, are far from attempting to establish the connection between social discrimination in higher education and the class-antagonistic nature of society and, consequently, to see the basic path to overcoming this discrimination in a radical social reorganization. However, the pessimism and disbelief of these ideologists in the possibility of eliminating social discrimination in higher education is yet another

confirms society’s inability to solve these problems under the conditions of the bourgeois system and shows that their solution logically requires going beyond the framework of the existing order. For example, the president of Brooklyn Institute, R. Calkins, writes that the problem of financing higher education has never confronted the American people as directly and forcefully as it does at the present time. And although society has both the financial resources and the interest in personnel needed to support higher education, “we,” R. Calkins continues, “cannot compel society to direct these resources to higher education in sufficient quantity”¹⁷. Assessing society’s attitude toward higher education and certain attempts by the federal government to improve the system of higher education, the former president of the University of Rochester, C. Kiewiet, writes: “We do not make a sufficient contribution to education. We do not prepare the best minds at the highest level. We do not support our scholars. The crisis will grow if we do not find a way to correct it”¹⁸. Some researchers connect the difficulties of higher education with the contradictory character of economic development under capitalism. Noting the influence of economic crises on education, the sociologist F. Murphy writes that “...the contraction and decline of the economy does indeed deny many American children any opportunity to obtain higher education”¹⁹. And, apparently regarding the influence of crises as insurmountable, the author draws the very pessimistic conclusion that it may already be too late to eliminate the crisis and the decline in the quality of higher education.

One of the social characteristics of the American system of higher education is national and racial discrimination, which prevents certain national groups—and above all the Negro population—from gaining access to institutions of higher education. “American Negroes today,” writes the sociologist F. D. Patterson in the collection Values and Ideals of American Youth, “still face discrimination in schools everywhere they live—whether in the North, the South, or in the border states.” As one manifestation of discrimination, there is a very noticeable difference in the distribution of material resources for higher education between white and Negro youth. This difference appears in practice in all states, but in some it reaches striking proportions. Thus, according to the same F. D. Patterson, in the state of Georgia in 1958, out of every 100 dollars allocated for higher education, 94 dollars were spent on a representative of white youth and 6 on a representative of Negro youth. Naturally, the discrimination existing in the system of higher education leads to substantial differences in the educational level of the white and Negro populations. From the data of D. L. Noel, which she gives in her empirical study Higher Education of Negro Women, it follows that the proportion of white men aged 14 and older who had completed four full years of college or had a higher education amounted to 6% of the total population, while the corresponding educational level among Negro men was 1.6%. For white women and Negro women these figures are distributed respectively as 4.4% and 2.1%. In this connection the well-known American economist Victor Perlo, in the journal Political Affairs, raises

a legitimate rhetorical question: “If the average level of education among Negroes is lower than among whites, what is this, then, if not discrimination and segregation as such?” It should be noted that even an identical educational level for a white and a Negro does not free the latter from the effects of discrimination and, in the final analysis, places the Negro in a less privileged position than the white. Victor Perlo cites the following fact: in June 1960, 653,000 white high-school graduates and 53,000 colored graduates were unable to enter higher educational institutions and began looking for work. “In this case,” writes V. Perlo, “the young people had the same educational level for obtaining work. Yet in the autumn of that same year, among those graduates who had been unable to find work, there were 13% whites and 42% colored.” Thus, the data we have cited^29) testify to racial discrimination as one of the social characteristics of the American system of higher education.

Thus, consideration of certain issues of social discrimination in the practice of American higher education shows that this discrimination has an anti-social essence and prevents education from solving social problems in the interests of society as a whole. Of course, it would be rash straightforwardness to draw from our analysis the conclusion that the forms of social discrimination considered in higher education can leave scientific and technological progress without specialists and thereby deprive it of the possibility of developing. Social discrimination has always been inherent in the bourgeois system of higher education, while science and technology have developed along an ascending line; the dynamic process of forming cadres of the intelligentsia does not proceed by itself, but is regulated to a considerable degree by the conditions of capitalist relations. When scientific and technological development requires a rapid increase in the cadres of the intelligentsia, the firms that play a determining role in capitalist society are compelled, both directly and through the system of the state apparatus, to expand opportunities for obtaining higher education. From our analysis there follow only two obvious conclusions: first, social discrimination in higher education hinders the provision of scientific and technological progress with the economically necessary number of specialists and leads to the fact that “the shortage of highly qualified personnel in the United States—as sociologist K. Davis rightly notes—by some indications threatens to become still more acute”^30). And this, in turn, cannot but have a negative effect on the pace of scientific and technological development. And, secondly, social discrimination deprives many capable individuals of the opportunity to develop their abilities and talents, and deprives society of the opportunity to acquire and use these abilities and talents.

The anti-social essence of the bourgeois system is manifested not only in social discrimination on the path to obtaining higher education, but also leaves its mark on the character of instruction in the American higher school. The subordination of higher education to the monopolistic state and its ideological influence create a serious obstacle to higher education’s carrying out and achieving its real tasks and goals—the education of an all-round developed personality, the development of that person’s abilities and talents. A number of American researchers—

^29) F. D. Patterson, Values and Ideals of American Youth. Ed. by E. Ginzberg. New York and London, 1961, pp. 212, 214; D. L. Noble, The Negro Woman’s College Education, New York, 1956, Table 4; Political Affairs, vol. XLI, No. 1, Jan. 1962, pp. 12, 13.

^30) K. Davis. Sociology of demographic behavior, in the collection Sociology Today. Problems and Prospects, Moscow, 1965, p. 367.

educators, despite the obvious dependence of higher education on the ideological pressure of the monopolistic state, asserts the “independence of higher education from the ideology and policy of the state,” and even presents this independence as the most important social advantage of the American system of education. “The fundamental difference,” writes the sociologist P. Reinert, “between democracy and totalitarianism consists in the fact that in one case the state serves the person, the rights and duty of people proceed from the Creator, while in the other case the person is suppressed by the state”^31). This conclusion was drawn by a bourgeois ideologist in assessing the social role of higher education in the Soviet Union and in the United States of America. H. Commager, in the article “Academic Freedom,” apologetically describes the fiction of the independence of American universities as follows: “Universities have an interest in preserving intellectual freedom, without which they cannot function at all; universities also have a special responsibility for preserving intellectual freedom, for at present this is the only institution—independent, objective, permanent, universal, without any obligations except obligations to truth”^32). However, assertions about the independence of intellectual freedom in American institutions of higher learning are far from the truth and pursue the aim of veiling the real ideological and political connection between them and the monopolistic state. V. I. Lenin wrote the following concerning the assertions of bourgeois ideologists about the independence of education and schools under the conditions of the bourgeois state: “We openly declare that a school outside life, outside politics, is a lie and hypocrisy”^33). An analysis of the views of bourgeois ideologists and politicians themselves fully confirms the correctness of this conclusion. Thus, defining the tasks of the President’s Commission on Higher Education, former U.S. President H. Truman said: “Now we must reconsider our system of higher education in terms of new goals, methods, and opportunities; and in this light it must play its social role”^34). This statement directly emphasizes the necessity of bringing the tasks and goals of higher education into conformity with the plans of the federal government.

The influence—above all ideological and political—exerted by the state was manifested most distinctly in the anticommunism of the American higher school, in the ideological struggle against the forces of socialism. Some American researchers believe that the role of institutions of higher education in the ideological struggle is their most important and responsible task. “In today’s fierce struggle between the free world and the world of slaves,” writes the sociologist P. Reinert, “between free consciousness and slave consciousness, American colleges and universities must confidently transmit the fundamental values of our American way of life”^35). Moreover, some sociologists note not only the very fact of ideological struggle as an important task of institutions of higher education in the United States, but also speak of the impossibility and undesirability of a neutral position in this struggle. “Some believe,” writes the sociologist M. Cunningham, “that neutrality in this matter is desirable. The basic difficulty consists in the fact that neutrality is impos-

^31) P. C. Reinert, We Hold these Truth. “Vision and Purpose in Higher Education,” p. 202.

^32) H. S. Cammager; Academic Freedom. “National Policies for Education: Health, and Social Services,” p. 502.

^33) V. I. Lenin, Complete Collected Works, vol. 37, p. 77.

^34) American Higher Education. A Documentary History, vol. 2, p. 970.

^35) P. C. Reinert, We Hold these Truth. “Vision and Purpose in Higher Education,” p. 205.

is possible”^36). The strengthening of the role of American institutions of higher education in the ideological struggle against the ideas of scientific communism in recent years is connected with the shift in the balance of forces on the world arena in favor of the socialist system. As a result of the shift in the balance of forces on the world arena, the majority of American ideologists do not regard a world war with the countries of the socialist system as an effective means of achieving global goals. Therefore a number of American ideologists view ideological struggle and, in particular, the role of higher education in this struggle, as the principal means in the struggle against the ideas of scientific communism.

In turn, the process of strengthening the role of American higher educational institutions in ideological struggle vividly confirms their organic dependence on the policy of the monopoly state. Speaking of the differences in the means of the global strategy of American imperialism, the brother of the former U.S. president, M. Eisenhower, emphasizes: “This difference consists in the fact that we can no longer use war in order to attain our actual aims.” And although Eisenhower, in principle, does not exclude the possibility of world war, he asserts that through war it is impossible to attain broad ideological and moral aims. In this connection he draws an entirely definite conclusion: “Education must now directly make its substantial contribution to the military sphere, the economy, politics, and the moral strength of our people, so that the struggle against the forces of communist imperialism may be conducted more effectively”^37).

It is quite clear that, under conditions in which the federal government regards institutions of higher education as an important instrument in the ideological struggle against the ideas of scientific communism, as an instrument of the ideological and political education of youth in accordance with the ideals and conceptions of bourgeois society, and sociologists acknowledge and substantiate this view of the tasks of higher education, it is impossible to speak of any political, ideological, or intellectual autonomy of institutions of higher education.

Thus, an analysis of certain forms of social discrimination in the practice of the American higher school shows that it creates obstacles to raising the educational level of the population in accordance with the needs of scientific and technological progress, to the harmonious development of the spiritual capacities of the individual, and leads to the waste of talent in society. The analysis also shows that society, in the person of some of its official ideologists—leaders and researchers of higher education—recognizes the harmful effect of these barriers on social development. But objectively society proves incapable either of overcoming these social barriers, organically connected with the class-antagonistic nature of society, or even of reducing to a sufficient degree the harmfulness of their effect. And this confirms the conclusion that the actual elimination of social discrimination in the bourgeois system of higher education is connected with a radical social restructuring of society. Bourgeois researchers, not understanding, and in a number of cases consciously concealing, the connection between social discrimination and the class nature of American society, go no further than stating the harmful effects of social obstacles in education and propose various variants of social therapy that would lead either to the elimination of these barriers or to a reduction of their negative effect.

^36) M. Cuninggin, A Protestant View of Education, New York, 1961, p. 68.
^37) M. S. Eisenhower, Education for International Understanding. “Vision and Purpose in Higher Education,” pp. 20, 21.

The untenability of the assertions made by bourgeois ideologists about the so-called academic, intellectual, and political independence of American institutions of higher education is demonstrated above all by the fact that the monopoly-capitalist state regards higher education as one of the most important instruments in the economic and ideological struggle against the world socialist system.

1. Such an analysis has been partly given in works by Soviet sociologists. See, for example, A. P. Pinkevich, Continuous Production Practice in America. Moscow–Leningrad, 1930; M. T. Iovchuk, “The Cultural Growth of Workers in the USSR as a Factor of Social Progress,” in the collection Marxist and Bourgeois Sociology Today. Moscow, 1964; A. A. Zvorykin, “In Search of a General Sociological Theory,” in the same collection; G. M. Andreeva, Contemporary Bourgeois Empirical Sociology. Moscow, 1965, and others. ↩

2. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 18, p. 363. ↩

3. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 2, p. 476. ↩

4. R. Tagore, Works, vol. 8, Moscow, 1957, p. 402. ↩

5. American Higher Education. A Documentary History, vol. 2, p. 972. ↩

6. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1964, p. 6. ↩

7. “Electrical Engineering,” 1956, vol. 7, No. 6, p. 13. ↩

8. L. Bagramov, What Troubles Them. Moscow, 1960, p. 33. (According to United States News and World Report, women currently make up 0.5% of engineers and 6% of physicians. See Nedelya, July 3–9, 1966, p. 16.) ↩

9. Historical Statistics of the United States Colonial Time to 1957. Washington, 1960, pp. 211–212. ↩

10. Cited in Nedelya, July 3–9, 1966, p. 16. ↩

11. V. I. Lenin. Collected Works, vol. 39, p. 203. ↩

12. A. Green, Sociology, New York—Toronto—London, 1956, p. 395. ↩

13. Cited in Nedelya, July 3–9, 1966, p. 16. ↩

14. A. G. Kharchev. Marriage and the Family in the USSR. Moscow, 1964, p. 80. ↩

15. T. Parsons and R. Bales, Family, Socialization and Interaction Process. Glencoe, 1955, p. 14. ↩

16. American Higher Education. A Documentary History, vol. 2, p. 984. ↩

17. R. D. Calkins, Financing Higher Education, “National Policies for Education, Health, and Social Services,” New York, 1961, pp. 83, 85. ↩

18. C. W. Kiewiet, The Necessary Price of Leadership. “Vision and Purpose in Higher Education,” Washington, 1962, p. 105. ↩

19. F. D. Murphy, The Real Meaning of the Satellite. “Vision and Purpose in Higher Education,” p. 63–64. ↩