Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation

Update Title

As per Guinness Book Of World Records (https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/oldest-university) the oldest University is University of Karueein,in Morocco. Thus, the title of this page should be updated to "List of oldest European universities in continuous operation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chem1 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length in the archives of this Talk page. In short, the University of Karueein was not founded as a university and only became what we now call a university in the 20th century. ElKevbo (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, that's not what Guiness World Records says – the record is actually for "The oldest existing and continually operating educational institution", not the oldest university. There is also doubt over wherever Guinness World Records is a reliable source (see WP:GUINNESS) – teaching at al-Qarawiyyin is only relliably documented from the 12th century (see the sources cited in this article and in the al-Qarawiyyin article), which is after teaching outside of the cathedral schools began at Bologna. Robminchin (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the rigor in maintaining a strict definition of "university" based on the medieval European universitas magistrorum et scholarium (a corporate guild structure). However, I am concerned that strictly adhering to this legalistic definition introduces a significant Eurocentric bias that compromises the historical accuracy and neutrality of this list.

By prioritizing the legal structure (the corporate charter) over the social function (advanced higher learning, degree-granting, and continuous operation), we effectively define non-Western institutions out of existence.

The Core Issue: Form vs. Function As scholars like George Makdisi have noted, while the madrasa system operated under a different legal framework (charitable trust/waqf) than the European corporation, institutions like al-Qarawiyyin (f. 859) and Al-Azhar (f. 970) fulfilled the identical societal function of a university:

• They maintained permanent faculties.
• They offered advanced instruction in law, theology, and rational sciences.
• They issued the ijazah, which functioned essentially as a licentia docendi (license to teach).

The Problem with "Exclusion by Definition":

When we state that al-Qarawiyyin was "not a university" until its modern reorganization, we are judging an 9th-century Islamic institution by its failure to be a 12th-century European guild. This is a category error. Guinness World Records and UNESCO attempt to correct this by recognizing al-Qarawiyyin as the "oldest existing, and continually operating educational institution in the world," acknowledging that "university" is a modern English term we apply retroactively to history.

Proposal for a More Neutral Approach:

I propose we broaden the article's scope or at least explicitly qualify the definition in the lead. We should acknowledge that while the legal corporation is a Western innovation, higher education systems are not.

Excluding the oldest continuously operating centers of learning because they didn't file the same paperwork as Bologna seems contrary to the spirit of a global historical record. We can maintain accuracy about the structural differences without erasing the institutional longevity of the East. Khandee (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

When we 'state that al-Qarawiyyin was "not a university" until its modern reorganization', we are not making any judgement whatsoever – we are following scholarship that is clear that it was not a university. We should not be making such judgements as Wikipedia editors. It might be possible to make a list of the oldest higher educational institutions, but that would be a different page (e.g., List of oldest higher-learning institutions, although that is actually a list of the oldest non-university higher learning institutions to avoid overlap) or possibly a different section on this page (for institutions that are sometimes referred to as universities but that aren't regarded as such by historians – we already mention three institutions that fall into this category on this page).

Guinness World Records is not a particularly reliable source (as noted above; see WP:GUINNESS), certainly not compared to academic work. In particular, with regard to that entry, the earliest known teaching at al-Qarawiyyin is actually later than at Bologna or Oxford (see sources quoted here and in the article for that institution). UNESCO has recently clarified, regarding entries of the World Heritage List that: "The sole responsibility for the content of each Nomination file lies with the State Party concerned. The publication of the Nomination file, including the maps and names, does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever of the World Heritage Committee or of the Secretariat of UNESCO concerning the history or legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its boundaries." In other words, the (removed) claim on the Medina of Fez entry should not be attributed to UNESCO but to the Moroccan government.

We could certainly try to make the definition clearer, although it's pretty explicit as it stands. Robminchin (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

To clarify, my point regarding Guinness/UNESCO was not to treat them as primary historical sources, but to illustrate that the broad, modern understanding of "university" includes al-Qarawiyyin. If general sources and global bodies classify it as such, we should be careful not to be more restrictive than the world at large without explicitly justifying why we are narrowing the definition.

Regarding the note you attached: it explicitly defines a "university" as a "scholastic guild... engaged in higher education." Since the "scholastic guild" was a uniquely European legal invention, this definition creates a tautology: "Only European institutions can be universities because we have defined 'university' as a European institution."

1. The Problem with Rashdall’s Definition: Hastings Rashdall was writing in 1895. While his work on the legal history of European institutions is foundational, using his specific definition of a "guild" to gatekeep a global list in 2025 is problematic. It privileges the administrative container (the guild/corporation) over the contents (higher education).

2. Reader Expectations vs. Technicality: The title of this page is "List of oldest universities in continuous operation." The average reader understands "university" in the modern functional sense which is a place of advanced learning and degree/license granting. By adhering to the strict "guild" definition, we are effectively telling readers: "Al-Qarawiyyin doesn't count, not because it didn't teach advanced medicine or theology for 1,000 years, but because it didn't have a corporate charter."

By strictly adhering to this corporate definition, we risk engaging in what Wikipedia warns against in WP:SYSTEMICBIAS: prioritizing Western institutional forms over global functional equivalents.

I am not suggesting we delete the strict definition, but rather that we avoid presenting it as the only valid one. Instead of segregating non-Western schools into a separate "higher learning" list (which feels like a "separate but equal" classification), could we:

• Keep them on the main list but add a column for "Institutional Type" (e.g., Corporation vs. Madrasa/Waqf)?
• Expand the lead to explicitly state that while al-Qarawiyyin is the oldest higher learning institution, Bologna is the oldest corporate university?

This seems like the most neutral path; it respects both the legal distinctiveness of Bologna and the historical longevity of al-Qarawiyyin. Khandee (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

There is no response to my last post. This article, as is, is biased. I will move forward with that understanding. Khandee (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Institutional type for this page is "university". It does not include madrasas or other institutions that are not universities. This is based in the latest literature, as referenced elsewhere on this talk page, and the suggestion that it is solely based on a 19th century source is disingenuous. E.g., "The university, Makdisi (1970, p. 264) writes, as a form of social organization was peculiar to medieval Europe, which gradually was exported to all parts of the world. Nobody would seriously argue against Makdisi’s statement even fifty years after the publication of his paper." (Findikli 2022).

Al-Qarawiyyin is already explicitly mentioned in the lead, with its date of earliest known teaching.

There is a need to clarify inclusion in this article, but as there is currently and an RfC in progress it would be inappropriate to make any substantial changes at this time. Robminchin (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

This page is about universities, as is alreday made perfectly clear, and there is no need to address any other sort of institution; indeed doing so would only be confusing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Jonathan, I think I have clearly demonstrated the bias of your definitions and how it is viewed through a Western Definition of "university." It is not confusing to be inclusive. That kind of language is what drives biases. Khandee (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

You think you have clearly demonstrated this. I don't think you have. It is confusing to be confusing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I do not think I have, I think I have clearly demonstrated the bias. And you are not taking any points I have made and merely using simple language without any rigor. I would expect more from a Professor at Oxford.

But you are demonstrating your biases as you do. This is not a confusing topic. I have provided ample, easy to understand alternatives. Khandee (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have not. You have demonstrated an inability to WP:HEAR what others are telling you. Not every place that conducted teaching is a university nor even a place of "higher education". The article, like all of Wikipedia, builds on sources and not on personal opinions. Jeppiz (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

You didn't mean any respect, because if you had, you'd understand my point. But you are not. I have previously provided lengthy, reasoning - not opinion. This is a debate on bias. And I have demonstrated a legitimate concern and you're only argument is that you are using the very definition for distinction that makes it biased. Its circular. Khandee (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

This is not a "western definition", it is a standard academic definition. For example, Medrese Üniversite midir? Karşılaştırmalı bir Okuma (Is a Madrasa a University? A Comparative Reading) by Turkish scholar İsmail Güleç found, according to a review in the TÜBA Higher Education Research/Review (published by the Turkish Academy of Sciences), that "both universities and madrasas are institutions of higher education that belong to distinct cultures and geographies. Furthermore, the differences between the two are more pronounced than their similarities." The author of the review also notes that other Turkish scholars have "interpreted the transformation from madrasas to universities as a regressive shift". The scholarship is very clear on this – universities are a form of higher education institution that arose in medieval Europe; madrasas are a distinct form of higher education institution that arose in the Islamic world. By following the sources, we avoid injecting our own biases into the encyclopedia; this is foundational to how Wikipedia operates. Robminchin (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Jonathan A. Jones, you are clearly biased and unwilling to be inclusive. The counter arguments and clarifications made by khandee are very clear but you insist on maintaining a eurocentric view of higher learning. The least this article can do is clarify in the title that this is only a list of Eurocentric institutes because that's what it is.

It is a shame to see this level of discrimination even on Wikipedia in 2026. ~2026-71681-9 (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Misguiding Information About Oldest University

The University of al-Qarawiyyin in Fez, Morocco, founded in 859 AD, is the oldest continuously operating higher-learning institution. It is often considered the first university. The University of Bologna (1088) in Italy is recognized as the oldest university in Europe and the first in the Western world. ~2026-60259-2 (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

This has been discussed repeatedly in the past. You will find the most recent discussion above at "Update Title" and much more extensive discussions in the archives. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Where tf is Jagellonian University /University of Kraków?

Where tf is Jagellonian University /University of Kraków? ChinaRider77 (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

In the history section of Jagiellonian University, it explicitly says that "[t]he university, along with the rest of Poland's higher and secondary education, was closed for the remainder of World War II" so it has not been in continuous operation. ElKevbo (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

A brief closure during WWII wouldn't be an issue as long as institutional continuity was retained. But more to the point it is included under "Founded as universities before 1500" so I am struggling to understand the OP's question.Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

using the same language as in the charter of Trinity College Dublin

Hi @Robminchin - You've readded material that compares the charter of Trinity College, Dulbin and the University of King's College. But what I am seeing is two sources that just describer their titles. Do we have a source that actually names both in terms of a comparison that is notworthy? If not it feels like we are engaging in OR and Synth. If you have a cite please add it, otherwise, I'd ask you to remove the reference to Trinity College, Dublin as I don't think you've created consensus for its inclusion at this point. Jjazz76 (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The material notes that both charters use the same wording. I don't think this is OR as it is a simple equality (cf. WP:CALC). I'm not sure what you mean about titles as there is nothing about titles in there. I think the point of the material is that this slightly unusual phrase, used in the royal charter of UKC, is also found in at least one earlier royal charter that established a university.

I also note that you have added a 'better source needed' tag to the statement that the university "Traces its roots back to the King's College in New York City, which was first founded in 1754." This references the university's webpage, which is sufficient per WP:ABOUTSELF to make a statement about where the university traces its roots. Indeed, any source is going to have to go back to something from the university in order to make such a statement. Robminchin (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Robminchin lots of organizations connect themselves in fictious ways to earlier organization. We really shouldn't be promoting their own pseudo-history. The connection between King's College in New York and the one in Nova Scotia is basically that one guy worked at both? Is that the connection?

Also WP:ABOUTSELF has the following caveats: "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim." That the University of King's College in Nova Scotia "Traces its roots back to the King's College in New York City, which was first founded in 1754" is a bit of an exceptional. Why not just add that every university traces its roots back to the University of Bologna?

On the second peice, lots of things have similar wording. Unless we have a source that places Trinity Dublin's charter in conversation with the one from the University of King's College, that is textbook OR. Please remove. I don't think you have consensus yet to include it anyway.

Pinging a few other higher ed enthusiasts that I've worked with in the past, @ElKevbo and @GuardianH who might want to weigh in. Jjazz76 (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The statement that every university traces its roots back to the University of Bologna is unlikely to be found in the history section of every university, so that is clearly not a relevant example. The claim here is that it traces its roots to King's College in NYC, which is clearly the case and is not exceptional – it is saying what the university says, not making a statement of fact. There might be an argument that this is undue, which we could discuss, but the source clearly backs the statement that has been made.

That the UKC charter uses the same wording, "mother of a university", as TCD has been present for the best part of a decade, so it is clear that the historical consensus has been for inclusion. We are stating that they have the same wording, not that they are 'in conversation', and this is borne out by the sources cited that make it clear that they have the same wording. Robminchin (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Robminchin - to put more a point on it: Who cares that they have the same wording? Why does it matter at all? Jjazz76 (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

That is a much better question. The context is that there have been disputes about the oldest university in Canada on this page in the past, so stating that the (somewhat unusual) wording in the UKC charter is the same as that used in an earlier university charter helps forestall dispute and makes it clear that this was a university charter. Yes, there are other sources that state that UKC was the first university in Canada, but given the history of the reliability of sources about Canadian universities being disputed, I would prefer to keep this simple, incontrovertible statement of fact in the article rather than having to argue (again) about the reliability of sources. Robminchin (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd much prefer sources that directly address the claim made (which I think editors have correctly arrived at) as oppossed to the tangent about Trinty College, Dublin. Jjazz76 (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The sources stating that the 1802 charter was a university charter and that UKC is thus the oldest university in Canada are certainly there as well.

On the issue of King's College, NYC, this is a claim referred to in at least four published histories (of UKC, of Bishop Inglis, and two of Columbia), but that the most modern scholarship has found to be only mentioned from the 20th century. I've added this to the article for the moment, but I'm tending towards removing it entirely as it's not possible to summarise it briefly. Robminchin (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Robminchin - I graduated from Columbia years ago and was fascinated to find this potential UKC link. But doing the deep dive it certainly seems to be a 20th century creation as oppossed to a genuine 18th century connection. I'm still not 100 percent covinced on the wording "The university traces its roots back", but it is what it is. I'm ultimately not sure we should give much, if any, credence to what is effectively psuedo-history. Jjazz76 (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Probably we should just remove that section, as it is definitely pseudo-history.

While digging, I also came across the fascinating snippet that might interest you as a Columbia graduate: the proposed royal charter for The American University in the Province of New York in 1774 would have established King's College in New York City as "the mother of the American University" (A History of Columbia University: 1754–1904 pp. 208–210), basically making it what we would now call the flagship of a state system. This made it as far as consideration by the Privy Council in 1775 before being overtaken by events. Robminchin (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Robminchin - I do vaguely recall this short period when it was to be the flagship of a state system after the war in the early 1780s, but it got scuttled. Interesting to see this same verbiage across three institutions, at least. Jjazz76 (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Also @Robminchin I really like the revision. Gives some nod to the interesting revisionist history, but not in a way that ultimately gives it much creedence. Jjazz76 (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Robminchin (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Countries divided into regions

In the list of the oldest post-1500 university by country or region, there are three countries (that I found looking through the list) that are split into multiple regions, with the oldest university given for each region. These are:

• Belgium – Flemish region and Wallonia.
• United Kingdom – England, Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland
• New Zealand – North and South Islands.

There doesn't seem to be any particular rational for this. It might be better to split countries into regions if there are sub-regions that have distinct higher education systems. This can be justified by reference to reliable sources such as Nuffic or the [EHEA] that split both Belgium and the UK into higher education systems.

However, in the case of the UK, while Scotland has a distinct higher education system (with its own qualifications framework and four-year bachelor's degrees), England, Wales and Northern Ireland (which share a qualifications framework and three-year bachelor's degrees) – are treated by both Nuffic and the EHEA as being a single higher education system. New Zealand is not treated as having separate systems on the North and South Islands by Nuffic (it's outside of the EHEA), and has a single qualifications framework. Under this suggestion we would therefore treat England, Wales and Northern Ireland as a single region and New Zealand as a single region.

What do other editors think? Robminchin (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)