Closing Study Programmes in the Name of Relevance

The discourse on closing study programmes (prodi) in the name of relevance sounds rational, even modern. However, what we might be celebrating is not rationality, but panic wrapped in statistics. Graduates are overflowing, job opportunities are narrowing, and competency mismatches keep recurring. The prescribed solution is simplified: close programmes considered irrelevant. Done.

Is it really that simple? Or are we simplifying the complex issues of higher education and then feeling like we’ve solved them?

Relevance or Reduction?

The word “relevance” has become a mantra. Everything must be relevant. Everything must align with industry. Everything must be quickly absorbed by the market. Universities are forced to dance to the tune of short-term needs.

On one hand, the demand for relevance is unavoidable. The world is changing rapidly, technology is leaping ahead, and the job market is constantly transforming, so universities cannot lag behind.

The idea of “link and match” has long been the mainstream in higher education policy. However, the issue is not with relevance itself, but with how we interpret it. Since when must higher education fully submit to market logic?

When relevance is reduced to mere direct alignment with industry needs, higher education slowly loses the depth of its meaning. It shifts from a space for thinking to a production line for labour.

Universities are forced to meet today’s market demands, whereas their mandate is far broader: to shape complete human beings, nurture critical reasoning, and prepare for a future we do not yet fully understand.

This critique aligns with Martha Nussbaum’s (2010) view in Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities, which asserts that education must not be reduced to a mere economic instrument, but should build critical thinking, empathy, and social imagination essential for the sustainability of democracy and civilisation.

In this context, closing programmes in the name of relevance is truly a form of reduction, not a solution. It simplifies education into a purely economic function. Yet history repeatedly shows that many sciences once deemed irrelevant become determinants of the future.

In short, what we consider irrelevant today may not truly be unimportant, and could very well be sought after again in the future, after we have prematurely closed them.

For example, pure mathematics, once seen as too abstract and far from practical needs, is now the main foundation for developments in cryptography, cybersecurity, and digital financial systems.

Number theory, which once had few enthusiasts, today forms the backbone of global electronic transactions. Furthermore, environmental science, once on the margins, is now at the centre of global attention, determining the direction of energy policy, sustainable development, and international geopolitics.

Ironically, we want an advanced future but use short-sighted thinking. This is where the risk lies. Closing programmes because they are not relevant today could mean closing strategic possibilities for the future.

Instant Solution, Long-term Risk

The closure of programmes is often packaged with data, such as unemployment figures, low interest, and minimal job absorption. It all seems objective and reasonable. However, data without in-depth analysis often merely legitimises hasty decisions.

Thus, the state steps in to tidy up the education ecosystem, curb over-supply, and promote alignment with industry needs. But one thing often overlooked is that today’s industry needs do not always reflect the future.

Furthermore, the main problem in education does not lie in the programmes themselves. Graduate mismatches are often systemic, including immature university-industry collaboration, outdated curricula, rigid learning, limited laboratory and practical facilities, weak interdisciplinary flexibility, and an economic structure not fully able to absorb graduates.

Therefore, what is needed is comprehensive reform, not taking shortcuts by simply closing programmes. Closing programmes without fixing their ecosystem is like a leaky house where the tap is turned off, but the roof remains holed.

Water still enters, problems persist, but we feel like we’ve acted. It appears solution-oriented, but in reality, it does not resolve the issues. In short, the discourse on closing irrelevant programmes becomes irrelevant, because when a programme loses quality, interest, and relevance, natural selection will close it on its own.

If today we use an instant solution by closing programmes deemed irrelevant, the risk could be that we close future strategic opportunities. And if trends change, will we keep closing again and again?

Arranging, Not Closing?

There is a more serious concern, namely when the state goes too far in deciding which sciences deserve to live and which must be killed. This is no longer about efficiency, but about the direction of knowledge itself.

When academic decisions are pulled into short-term bureaucratic logic, what is threatened is not just programmes, but university autonomy and academic freedom. Knowledge risks becoming centralised, creative space narrows, and universities will lose their identity.

Global experiences show a different direction. No country rashly closes programmes just because of the “irrelevant” label. What happens is not elimination, but transformation.

Weak programmes are not immediately closed, but transformed and revitalised. Curricula are updated, learning approaches upgraded, collaborations expanded, and even mergers and differentiation strengthening are carried out.

Universities are encouraged to be more adaptive, not forcibly simplified. Thus, what is needed from the state’s presence is not the courage to close, but the intelligence to arrange.