www.silverguide.site –

What a depressingly narrow, economistic view of university education your correspondent advances (Employers should contribute to universities, Letters, 22 February). He complains that “the courses that universities offer … aren’t what the economy needs and so aren’t maximising returns”, but instead, are “the courses students want to study, not what society and employers value most”.

Why does he assume that, instead of being institutions of advanced education and academic study, universities should only supply degrees in subjects that employers or big business want? If fee-paying students want to study geography, English literature or history, why shouldn’t they? Would a Soviet-style education system be preferable, in which the state dictates what can and cannot be studied, based solely on what the economy is deemed to need at any given moment? To me, education is inherently worthwhile – but I am probably a deluded old dinosaur.

Besides, the assumption that degrees are only worthwhile if they are in subjects that clearly lead directly to a particular career (astrophysics, medicine, etc), or attract a large salary, ignores the fact that many employers are mostly interested in the skills acquired in studying for a degree: analysis, evaluation, communication, interpretation, time-management, clarity of arguments, and so on.

Those skills are intrinsic to the much-maligned arts and humanities degrees, which it has become fashionable to sneer at due to our boorish anti-intellectualism and a dumbed-down, celebrity-obsessed culture that knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.
Pete Dorey
Bath

• Your letter writer’s proposal describes a system similar to that before the conversion of polytechnics to universities. The “poly” was firmly rooted in industry, services and vocational education, with sandwich courses designed with employer input and commitment for genuine work-placement experience and development in the sandwich year.

Essentially we, as a society, have not agreed on the purpose of a university education. Is it to develop the minds of the students to equip them for further academic study, scientific research or any of the numerous fields in which an inquiring mind and critical analysis skills can be used for the benefit of humanity, or to ready them for a specific career?

The division used to be clear – neither was a lesser or more prestigious path, but was suited to the students and their future and that of our industries and vocations and services, and thence our countries.
Pat Stevenson
Holywell, North Tyneside

• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.