What is the function of a university? Ivory tower or trade school for plumbers?
| Date | 01 September 1998 |
| Published date | 01 September 1998 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889810220447 |
| Pages | 145-151 |
| Author | Brenda Barrett |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Introduction
I am a lawyer by discipline. Thus I chose a
title culled from an article, written by a
Professor of Law, and published in a leading
law journal 30 years ago. He contrasted edu-
cation with vocational training, considered
that universities should be concerned with
education, and noted: “From outside the
ivory tower there has nearly always been
pressure, varying in intensity at different
periods, to make university education more
obviously useful and vocational” (Twining,
1967, p. 398). He posited: “A university is not
a trade school for the production of
plumbers” (Twining, 1967, p. 404).
The article is, in detail, only of relevance to
lawyers, being concerned with whether the
function of a university law school should be
to provide a broad education or to provide a
training for professional practice in law. It
addresses the tension between universities
and a legal profession which has for long
regarded itself as what today might be called a
“stakeholder” in undergraduate legal studies.
Significantly the article was concerned with
the nature of undergraduate studies, with the
implication that this was the core of university
teaching[1].
University Law Schools work with the
profession, including through the Lord Chan-
cellor’s Advisory Committee on Legal Educa-
tion and Conduct[2] to shape the form and
content of legal education at both the acade-
mic and vocational training stages. The legal
profession can, however stipulate what ele-
ments it considers necessary as the basis of a
“Qualifying Law Degree”; that is a degree
which will qualify graduates to proceed to the
post graduate vocational training stage of
professional education and training[3].
Meanwhile, over the years the teaching pro-
fession has continued to debate the nature
and content of legal education, particularly in
the pages of the Association of Law Teachers’
journal, The Law Teacher[4].
The issues discussed in William Twining’s
article and so enthusiastically explored by
both law teachers and the legal profession, are
now of general concern to all academics. For
145
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 6 · Number 3 · 1998 · pp. 145–151
© MCB University Press · ISSN 0968-4883
What is the function of
a university? Ivory
tower or trade school
for plumbers?
Brenda Barrett
The author
Brenda Barrett is a Professor of Law and also Director of
Quality in Middlesex University Business School, London.
Abstract
In 1967 an academic wrote: “AA university is not a trade
school for the production of plumbers”. He wrote about
legal education which in England, as in many other
countries, has a tradition of recognising academic study
and vocational training as separate stages on the route to
professional qualification. Thirty years ago universities
catered for a relatively small sector of the population;
concentrating on undergraduate studies for students
entering at the age of 18. Notes the evolution in universi-
ties since that time and debates the experience universi-
ties should be providing for students today. It will suggest
that the failure to distinguish the various forms of higher
education is detrimental to the degree and this in turn is
harmful to universities. It will conclude by questioning
whether Dearing is likely to provide appropriate solutions
to the problems.
This article has been developed from a paper
delivered at an international conference, What
Kind of University? organised by the Quality
Support Centre at the Park Lane Hotel, London,
18-20 June 1997.
To continue reading
Request your trial