If you choose the broader definition, then al-Qarawiyyin clearly qualifies very early. If you choose the narrower juridical definition, then historians debate whether the madrasa structure fits that category prior to modern reforms.
In short, it’s not a university. And that’s okay. Trying to pigeonhole it into that definition is the issue.
“If it’s the broader definition, it’s a university. If it’s the narrow definition, it’s debatable. In short, it’s not a university.”
No you don’t see it. It’s not a university. And if we open up the definition then you’re still wrong because Chinese institutions like the Guozijian and Yuelu Academy are older in origins and represent sophisticated, long-running centers of advanced learning.
No you don’t see it. It’s not a university. And if we open up the definition
Of the two definitions you gave in that comment for a university, one you admitted al-Qarawiyyin clearly was a university under; and the other you concede that it is debatable.
then you’re still wrong because Chinese institutions like the Guozijian and Yuelu Academy are older in origins and represent sophisticated, long-running centers of advanced learning.
You didn’t say “It’s not the oldest university”, you said
You didn’t say “It’s not the oldest university”.
That’s right. The post you posted said that. But it’s not even a university until 1963. If you broaden the definition the post is still wrong because Chinese institutions would be the oldest.
Your inability to accept that is the issue. If it was a university before, why would it reform to become classified as one if it already was one? That’s right, it wouldn’t need to because it would have been considered one already.
Your inability to accept that is the issue. If it was a university before, why would it reform to become classified as one if it already was one? That’s right, it wouldn’t need to because it would have been considered one already.
“If it’s the broader definition, it’s a university. If it’s the narrow definition, it’s debatable. In short, it’s not a university.”
You legitimately don’t see it, do you.
No you don’t see it. It’s not a university. And if we open up the definition then you’re still wrong because Chinese institutions like the Guozijian and Yuelu Academy are older in origins and represent sophisticated, long-running centers of advanced learning.
Of the two definitions you gave in that comment for a university, one you admitted al-Qarawiyyin clearly was a university under; and the other you concede that it is debatable.
You didn’t say “It’s not the oldest university”, you said
You didn’t say “It’s not the oldest university”.
That’s right. The post you posted said that. But it’s not even a university until 1963. If you broaden the definition the post is still wrong because Chinese institutions would be the oldest.
…
Your inability to accept that is the issue. If it was a university before, why would it reform to become classified as one if it already was one? That’s right, it wouldn’t need to because it would have been considered one already.
…