Many universities are either public or nonprofit organizations. Training centers are usually for profit companies

Another aspect of this differences is size and population of training centers and universities

A university has large buildings that are used to house administration and the management of the organization, lecture rooms, student hostels, recreational facilities, libraries, laboratories, and auditoriums among others.

The number of the students, lecturers, and non-teaching staff is very large which explains the need for the large structures and facilities. Some of the universities have more than thirty thousand students at any given time.

training centers have relatively large buildings which are not many. This is because they do not have a large number of students and they do not need some of the facilities needed in a university. training centers build rooms where students conduct practical activities rather than lecture halls.

When universities offer training on the free market, they must calculate market prices (at least in the EU) to avoid distortion of competition. Like private training centres, they must levy VAT and pay it to the tax authorities. Nevertheless, the problem of cross-subsidisation arises when university resources are used that are financed from the public budget, i.e. taxpayers' money.

Thank to Michael Klotz, Ayman Bahjat Abdallah and Saeid Nosrati for answering the question.

Here from the term 'Business' I mean the working aspects and the profit orientation. There are many differences between universities and training centers. Universities are higher than training centers in terms of capacity building, scope of disciplines, depth of disciplines, resource personnel, physical location, physical architecture, non-academic personnel, facilities, size, number of enrollments, etc. Also the purpose of a university is to create and disseminate advanced knowledge and that of a training center is not. A university engages in broad education while a training center engages in training of certain people which is narrow, specific, organization-oriented and short-term. Universities (specially state and public) are more recognized and there are many policies, procedures, and rules for granting degrees. But training centers are not having such rigorous controlling mechanisms.

Both are highly different from the service being provided. Education at Bachelor's, Master's and Doctor's levels is being provided by a real university but it is not with regard to a training center.

Public and state universities are not profit oriented. But most of the training centers (independent) are profit oriented.

Uni. care more of education.

TC: care more of training.

Uni: university can work as a training center while traning centers cannot be university.

Yes training centers offer corporate training and target on competencies required at the workplace, Universities are broad and they offer qualifications.

However Universities may have divisions which focus on training based on the training needs assessments.

There are differences many difference between the training centers and universities various aspect. Anyhow, most universities have consultation and training centers.

Universities provide conceptual knowledge. On the other hand, Training provides the operational Skills.

My personal experience, mostly university lectures lack of work experiences while private training centers usually provide real experience trainers and more practicable skills.

Yes because trainers focus on competencies related to the work place and universities focus on the broad knowledge and skills.

Hi,

The difference became narrower very quickly.Many large companies establish large training centers called "Corporate Universities" serving not only their employees, nut their business partners, customers etc. From the other side, Executive MBA programs formally attached to Universities is nothing more then very expensive (and sometimes also very effective) training centers.

I think the main thrust for most of the universities is on academics rather than training. Therefore, training is not a core for universities and the revenue from training division at a university is allocated to other income whilst school fees is treated as income. However, the core for training centers is training and development which focuses on short courses, work related skills.

I agree with the contributions. Working in the hospitality industry, there is a huge difference between products from a training institution and those from a university.

Ideally, from a business perspective, if you are looking for operational staff, then the best place to recruit is the training institution - skill-based, practical, hands-on. On the other hand, if you are looking for non-operational staff, then university graduates would be probably best (no guarantees, except you hope they bring along a higher-level skill set!)..

However, there is a paradox here - technical training versus theoretical education has created a lot of issues for the hospitality industry (which is built on technical foundations - provision of food, drink, accommodation and several other hybrids). Do we hire technical people (i.e. those who have passed through a training institution) or university graduates?

The technical people know how to get the job done but we reach then there is a gap when it comes to higher-level skills. Do we hire both of them? Do we 'train' the university graduate (experience is they are weak when it comes to the technical bit)? Do we upgrade the technical person by insisting on part-time studies for a university degree?

As far as hospitality goes, the experience is the technical person who eventually acquires a university degree eventually ends up on top. Having acquired both skill sets.

Thank you so much Belinda Nwosu for a balanced and more pragmatic viewpoint on the question under discussion. With all due respect for all the participants of this discussion, is it really fare to compare some targeted (mostly technical) skills acquired from “a training center” with knowledge-based degree outcomes earned from “a formal reputed university”?

Although both are important, “centers” mostly serve the purpose of training a specific task (e.g., training for a new machine or computer system or how to behave at the front-desk) to address an issue currently at hand, whereas, universities serve as the source of “human development” for a long-term sustainable not only organizational but individual well-being as well.

If we will ignore the need and development of “human knowledge” through universities of course, future workplace (IR4, IR5 ....) might replace humans with the most efficient working machines (robots) which neither need training courses nor need university degrees.

Best Regards

Thank to all researchers for answering the question and providing useful information.

Muhammad Zia Aslam , thank you for raising an interesting point. Yes, the debate about 'technical versus 'intellectual' has created some adversarial relationships within communities.

My take on this is - Is there no room for both types of knowledge?

To achieve technical mastery, a high degree of knowledge (albeit specialist) is needed. On the other hand, the intellectual needs to build a specific skill set to navigate today's technology-driven workplace (even within a university setting).

Perhaps the question should be - How can we better appreciate the contribution of both spheres of knowledge (technical and intellectual) to the advancement of humanity?

My humble opinion is that the differences in forms of human knowledge exist to complement rather than to assert superiority.