Carefully Considering the Discourse on Closing Irrelevant Study Programmes

Realising the closure of study programmes considered irrelevant to the current industrial world is a complicated issue. Bandung (ANTARA) - Lately, the issue of higher education has once again become a hot topic of discussion. One issue attracting attention is the discourse on closing study programmes, now reframed as the “development” of study programmes deemed irrelevant to the industrial world. The author has noted several points regarding the emerging discourse. First, academic education is not the same as training or courses designed to serve labour market needs. Academic education organised by universities is not merely about fulfilling market demands according to the law of supply and demand. In essence, higher education aims to train students to think critically, creatively, solution-oriented, adaptively, and with leadership spirit. A university graduate working in a field not aligned with their study programme actually proves that one of the goals of higher education has been achieved. The benchmark for a university’s success is not solely the creation of as many alumni as possible working in fields relevant to their programmes, but rather preparing graduates who are adaptive, independent, and able to contribute to the surrounding community. Of course, it is not forbidden for an alumnus of an education science programme to become a banker or hospital director. This is precisely the art of education. This is the success of education itself. Second, the author reflects on the function of education, that education plays an important role in the inheritance and development of knowledge. If the educational environment is solely industry-oriented, it is inevitable that study programmes with low interest will collapse. Universities always strive maximally to realise the constitutional mandate to enlighten the nation’s life. The implementation of advancing knowledge should not be conflicted with the popularity of study programmes or certain industrial fields. The author agrees with the important point conveyed by the Chair of DPR RI Commission X, Hetifah Syaifudian, that higher education must not be reduced to merely supplying labour, and there is a need for comprehensive studies on study programmes, including reflecting once again on the very broad functions of our higher education institutions. Realising the closure of study programmes considered irrelevant to the current industry is a complicated issue, even though in the minds of most people, it starts from a simple question. How should we position academic disciplines? If their relevance is considered lacking, what characteristics of study programmes need to be closed? Should the number of applicants be a consideration? Can the quality of study programmes through accreditation that maintains learning standards be ignored? Is it also wrong if there are study programmes whose fields of knowledge are spread across various universities? Certainly, many more questions will arise in the future. It cannot be denied that the practice of closing study programmes deemed irrelevant is common in universities. However, our attention can be directed to how if the implementation of this discourse applies on a larger scale: nationally. The questions above are only surface-level, while many other aspects need to be considered. Is it acceptable to all stakeholders in higher education? Has the chain impact been considered or even mitigated? Alternatives