{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029839883551673944, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.307339449541284, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Commercialization of the University

“Commercialization” is an ugly word. Linguistically, it more than doubles the number of letters in “commerce” in order to convey an intensification of that activity. Academically, the notion of producing and selling for a profit is the antithesis of the cherished ideal of disinterested devotion to learning. Hence, the key phrases in the titles of the books under review—“lure of profits,” “bottom line”—carry a strongly pejorative connotation for higher education, quite the opposite of what their message would be in a book about, say, running a small business. The question marks add a smidgen of ambiguity, but the thrust is clear: commercialization in higher education is or appears to be a prominent and dangerous trend. Each of these volumes tackles important aspects of this overall phenomenon. Derek Bok’s volume lucidly explains the causes, dangers, and possible remedies for three manifestations of commercialization—intercollegiate athletics, ventures in Internet-based education, and research. Sheldon Krimsky focuses intensely on the real rat’s nest in the latter area, the biomedical sciences. Donald Stein has edited the papers from a conference at Emory University; they encompass a variety of viewpoints, including those of Bok and Krimsky. And David Kirp’s theme is at once wider and more insidious—how the values