The discourse on closing study programmes (prodi) in the name of\nrelevance sounds rational, even modern. However, what we might be\ncelebrating is not rationality, but panic wrapped in statistics.\nGraduates are overflowing, job opportunities are narrowing, and\ncompetency mismatches keep recurring. The prescribed solution is\nsimplified: close programmes considered irrelevant. Done.<\/p>\n
Is it really that simple? Or are we simplifying the complex issues of\nhigher education and then feeling like we\u2019ve solved them?<\/p>\n
Relevance or Reduction?<\/p>\n
The word \u201crelevance\u201d has become a mantra. Everything must be\nrelevant. Everything must align with industry. Everything must be\nquickly absorbed by the market. Universities are forced to dance to the\ntune of short-term needs.<\/p>\n
On one hand, the demand for relevance is unavoidable. The world is\nchanging rapidly, technology is leaping ahead, and the job market is\nconstantly transforming, so universities cannot lag behind.<\/p>\n
The idea of \u201clink and match\u201d has long been the mainstream in higher\neducation policy. However, the issue is not with relevance itself, but\nwith how we interpret it. Since when must higher education fully submit\nto market logic?<\/p>\n
When relevance is reduced to mere direct alignment with industry\nneeds, higher education slowly loses the depth of its meaning. It shifts\nfrom a space for thinking to a production line for labour.<\/p>\n
Universities are forced to meet today\u2019s market demands, whereas their\nmandate is far broader: to shape complete human beings, nurture critical\nreasoning, and prepare for a future we do not yet fully understand.<\/p>\n
This critique aligns with Martha Nussbaum\u2019s (2010) view in Not for\nProfit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities, which asserts that education\nmust not be reduced to a mere economic instrument, but should build\ncritical thinking, empathy, and social imagination essential for the\nsustainability of democracy and civilisation.<\/p>\n
In this context, closing programmes in the name of relevance is truly\na form of reduction, not a solution. It simplifies education into a\npurely economic function. Yet history repeatedly shows that many\nsciences once deemed irrelevant become determinants of the future.<\/p>\n
In short, what we consider irrelevant today may not truly be\nunimportant, and could very well be sought after again in the future,\nafter we have prematurely closed them.<\/p>\n
For example, pure mathematics, once seen as too abstract and far from\npractical needs, is now the main foundation for developments in\ncryptography, cybersecurity, and digital financial systems.<\/p>\n
Number theory, which once had few enthusiasts, today forms the\nbackbone of global electronic transactions. Furthermore, environmental\nscience, once on the margins, is now at the centre of global attention,\ndetermining the direction of energy policy, sustainable development, and\ninternational geopolitics.<\/p>\n
Ironically, we want an advanced future but use short-sighted\nthinking. This is where the risk lies. Closing programmes because they\nare not relevant today could mean closing strategic possibilities for\nthe future.<\/p>\n
Instant Solution, Long-term Risk<\/p>\n
The closure of programmes is often packaged with data, such as\nunemployment figures, low interest, and minimal job absorption. It all\nseems objective and reasonable. However, data without in-depth analysis\noften merely legitimises hasty decisions.<\/p>\n
Thus, the state steps in to tidy up the education ecosystem, curb\nover-supply, and promote alignment with industry needs. But one thing\noften overlooked is that today\u2019s industry needs do not always reflect\nthe future.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the main problem in education does not lie in the\nprogrammes themselves. Graduate mismatches are often systemic, including\nimmature university-industry collaboration, outdated curricula, rigid\nlearning, limited laboratory and practical facilities, weak\ninterdisciplinary flexibility, and an economic structure not fully able\nto absorb graduates.<\/p>\n
Therefore, what is needed is comprehensive reform, not taking\nshortcuts by simply closing programmes. Closing programmes without\nfixing their ecosystem is like a leaky house where the tap is turned\noff, but the roof remains holed.<\/p>\n
Water still enters, problems persist, but we feel like we\u2019ve acted.\nIt appears solution-oriented, but in reality, it does not resolve the\nissues. In short, the discourse on closing irrelevant programmes becomes\nirrelevant, because when a programme loses quality, interest, and\nrelevance, natural selection will close it on its own.<\/p>\n
If today we use an instant solution by closing programmes deemed\nirrelevant, the risk could be that we close future strategic\nopportunities. And if trends change, will we keep closing again and\nagain?<\/p>\n
Arranging, Not Closing?<\/p>\n
There is a more serious concern, namely when the state goes too far\nin deciding which sciences deserve to live and which must be killed.\nThis is no longer about efficiency, but about the direction of knowledge\nitself.<\/p>\n
When academic decisions are pulled into short-term bureaucratic\nlogic, what is threatened is not just programmes, but university\nautonomy and academic freedom. Knowledge risks becoming centralised,\ncreative space narrows, and universities will lose their identity.<\/p>\n
Global experiences show a different direction. No country rashly\ncloses programmes just because of the \u201cirrelevant\u201d label. What happens\nis not elimination, but transformation.<\/p>\n
Weak programmes are not immediately closed, but transformed and\nrevitalised. Curricula are updated, learning approaches upgraded,\ncollaborations expanded, and even mergers and differentiation\nstrengthening are carried out.<\/p>\n
Universities are encouraged to be more adaptive, not forcibly\nsimplified. Thus, what is needed from the state\u2019s presence is not the\ncourage to close, but the intelligence to arrange.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/closing-study-programmes-in-the-name-of-relevance-1777552244", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }