This is a big and important question to which I don’t claim to have an answer or indeed much original to say. But it is a question that is perhaps more contentious then ever as universities struggle financially with taxpayers seemingly reluctant to splash the cash to pay for them. Many governments increasingly see them in an instrumentalist fashion, as engines of economic growth. That in turn generates a bias towards certain subjects, especially STEM (science, technology,engineering and mathematics) leaving those in the humanities feeling threatened and generally unloved.
For an articulate expression of an alternative perspective, see this interview with Alison Wolf, author of Does Education Matter? Myths About Education and Economic Growth, in which she argues that “that the now orthodox view of universities as engines of economic growth is making us lose sight of their primary purpose: the pursuit of knowledge.”
It is certainly a view that I have a lot of sympathy with. That said, the taxpayer who I am expecting to pay my salary, might well take the view that (s)he doesn’t particularly care for research on differential geometry, Renaissance art history, micro-econometrics or even sociology (I actually only do one these, by the way) and could get higher education for a lot less money by not having all this scholarship going on.
For me, the key counter-argument is that universities without research are no damn good and that means the pursuit of knowledge (even if apparently of no practical use) is an intrinsic part of the business. But there has to be give-and-take and we probably need to do a better job convincing the tax-payer and policy makers (who are often frighteningly uninformed about universities) of the merits of what we do.
Pingback: Ninth Level Ireland » Blog Archive » What’s the point of higher education?
Pingback: Whats the point of higher education? | Kevin Denny: Economics more … | Education
You said “… taxpayers seemingly reluctant to splash the cash to pay for them…”
I don’t think it’s the taxpayers, it’s the governments. Taxpayers couldn’t care less what happens with universities. Governments want to cut expenditure.
Alison said “… their primary purpose: the pursuit of knowledge.”
That’s the whole debate, what is the primary purpose? Who says it’s the pursuit of knowledge?
I am not sure that taxpayers are completely indifferent. To put it another way, if they were asked “Do you want more money spent on health or higher education?” the would probably say “health” – so they have an opinion but maybe not the one the sector wants.
On the purpose of HE: everyone is entitled to their opinion and I am guessing that Alison Wolf is offering a counterpoint to the prevailing trend. You could argue that the pursuit of knowledge was certainly an important function of universities traditionally. A lot of that seems to have been lost.
Pingback: cearta.ie » Not by higher eduation alone?