ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

It was quite interesting to read the ever-acerbic Frank Furedi on the pitfalls of credentialism and the gushingly futuristic Baroness Greenfield on the anachronism of book learningJin last week's Times Higher ("A degree is now a rite of passage" and "Book learning out of date, says Greenfield", June 17).

As a temperamentally pro-thinking, pro-reading, old-fashioned academic, I agreeJwith Furedi's charges of dumbing down and have to reluctantly concede to Greenfield that the internet and other technology seem to make some book learning redundant.J But why stop there? If you want to be radical, why not ask (yet again) what universities are for at all? They exist partly because they have existed for a long time, like monarchies. To some extent, in some fields, they exist as (probably) necessary training camps for the (questionably necessary) professions. Like armaments, they must exist in one country because they have them in others. They have the public relations function of demonstrating a nation's cleverness and sophistication.

Universities exist to capture the energy of some of the brightest citizens who might otherwise become restless and dangerous. They fulfil the functions of flagships, socialisation centres, the advancement of sometimes valuable, sometimes silly, research. Sometimes students' curiosity is fostered instead of dampened and credentialised. Even today, universities have a certain monastic function for some. And they are also the projects (and projections) of government ministers, vice-chancellors and other parties with vested interests andJmacho agendas. Not to mention a means for many of simply paying the mortgage.J Most interesting, why not ask whose agenda gets the most favourable hearing, and why? Is Furedi right? Or Greenfield? Is history history and should we be investing in more departments of commercial futurology? Why not just one big University of Business Studies? Is Laurie Taylor's running satire more than just poking fun? Are universities ridiculous anachronisms staffed by stuffy old academics and nest-lining, power-hungry vice-chancellors? Who decides and who has the right to decide? And does it matter anyway? Who shall we consult? The no-nonsense policymakers or the philosophers?

Colin Feltham
Sheffield Hallam University