**4. Characteristics of entrepreneurial universities**

Although universities converge in market orientation [1], there is no one single model for the entrepreneurial university [18, 44]. There are differences in terms of years of existence, size, full-time professors, and disciplines covered by universities. Likewise, research results, especially those protected by industrial property rights, the existence of a technology transfer office (TTO), as well as the public or private nature of the university, are characteristics that could differentiate entrepreneurial universities.

Size is an important variable since large universities have more probabilities of offering better entrepreneurial results given that they have more students and faculty members to become involved in this activity. In addition, the academic results of students may be more scattered to the extent that since the higher the number of students the greater the diversity of results. There is no relationship between faculty size of 120 universities of the United States, listed in the Carnegie Classification System, and university entrepreneurship, which would perhaps lead us to evaluate this variable in the Latin American context [45].

The years of existence of the variable reflect the path of universities, giving an idea of their prestige and capability to generate good performances. Universities of long tradition have developed accrued capability for excellence in education as well as for contributing to science and innovation systems [46]. The study conducted on 20 elite US universities, almost all of them founded in the nineteenth century, leads to the deduction that the path influences technology transfer and entrepreneurship [47]. Undoubtedly, models such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), given their history and prestige, constitute points of reference for countries as Colombia [48].

The public or private nature of the universities is also a relevant matter vis-à-vis the market orientation. Public universities face restrictions and resistance to develop knowledge commercialization activities, while private ones can profit from their autonomy to develop the third mission [10, 22]. Therefore, this variable can influence the connection between market-oriented activities and academic quality, as sustained in the case of Management Schools in Ibero-America [49].

The number of industrial property registrations is a key variable since it determines the invention capability of universities. It is the indicator of a university's potential to generate innovations that can be applied in the creation of enterprises that will exploit their commercial value. As indicated in the American universities included in their sample, patenting is a highly significant variable for the creation of enterprises and also the size of TTO [47].

However, other US studies indicate that having industrial property registrations does not necessarily mean more academic entrepreneurship [45, 50]. In the United States, academicians in the life science field are more prone to do business based on patenting, while in social sciences, like management, entrepreneurs are focused on the creation of consulting and industrial advisory firms that do not require patents [51]; thus, this can have an impact on the scope of disciplines of a university.

Therefore, the number of schools in universities can affect both the entrepreneurship and the students' results. This will affect the possibility of creating multidisciplinary research groups [52]. As stated by Bernasconi, there is an imbalance among the different schools in the adoption of the entrepreneurial university model [20]. According to their discipline, some schools find it easier to adopt the entrepreneurship model [51]. Social science professors tend to be critical of the entrepreneurial model, while this is not the case with doctors and engineers [12].

Finally, as we discussed above, full-time professors can neglect teaching when centering on research and knowledge marketing activities. On the other hand, professors can improve their teaching activities through entrepreneurship by transmitting knowledge and experiences valuable for undergraduate students. The main result of teaching activities is the student performance, and the most important indicator to entrepreneurial activity is the participation on awards and the promotion of new firms in the market.

Therefore, the research question is what is the relationship between entrepreneurship orientation (EO) and the results obtained by graduating students in the Saber Pro exam in Colombia?
