Pete Dorey and Pat Stevenson respond to a letter that made the argument for employers funding universities 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. Continue reading...