There’s a story from Greek philosophy that I regularly reflect upon in my professional life. It’s the story of when the philosophers decided to define what a man is. After much debate, it was apparently applauded when Plato defined a man as “as an animal, biped and featherless”.

The next day, Diogenes returned with a plucked chicken, declaring, “behold, a man!”

It’s a funny anecdote, and speaks volumes to how serious work can be very unserious at times. But the reason I return to it so often is because of its underlying message: all of us are, at best, inaccurate in our ability to describe and name things.

Think back to the last time you were asked to name and describe a new course, for example. Was everyone happy with the final wordage? Did some colleagues think it didn’t capture enough of the essence of the programme? Is it any wonder academic papers are so long (I jest!).

Courses are one thing, but universities are another. During my career, I’ve heard a number of different attempts to describe what a university is and what it does. Incidentally, my preferred understanding is the education, research and community model.

But while some descriptions of a university are good, none are perfect and it seems higher education is way too complicated for it to ever be really achieved. In fact, the ever-changing nature of universities means that even if we accurately described one at this very moment, it’s likely that it would become outdated in only a few short months.

Instead, we end up with something akin to a diagnosis rather than definition. Universities tend to exhibit certain characteristics, but not all universities do. Some are research intensive institutions, some are teaching intensive institutions; some focus on practical work, some focus on theory; some are big, some are small, and so on.