This column's about the down-side of universities, so I should probably begin by admitting I've spent many happy years attending these institutions, including most recently a term, three years ago, at Cambridge. During this period I've learned a great deal, although it's probably also important to note that I'm sure my professors believed I should have learnt a great deal more. My standpoint is, however, that I'm very pro education.

That, of course, is not nearly the same thing as being pro university.

In the current job market, there are no guarantees of a bright future for young people studying at university. Photo: Glenn Hunt Credit:Glenn Hunt

The government claims the higher education system plays "a critical role in fuelling innovation, driving productivity and giving students the skills they need for future success". It's problematic to work out how much anyone may have benefited from studying, because it's not possible to run counter-factual comparisons. Nevertheless, ask yourself to what extent do you attribute your own productivity and success to university and how much would have occurred anyway, because of other factors? And does learning how to perform tasks in a particular structured way really fuel innovation, or just assist someone to do their current job better? And if university really has provided such a leg-up for our society, why is it that productivity has levelled off, particularly now when so many more people possess degrees?

The reality is that education stopped being something intrinsically wonderful, in itself, the moment it became an industry. And today it's a very big industry. That's why it deserves some examination to see how much it's serving itself, instead of the needs of its students or society. Tertiary institutions are no longer just about thinking, learning, growing up and having fun; they're huge businesses and, as such, have a massive interest in pushing their own barrow. So let's examine this sector with the aim of working out exactly whose needs it's serving.