The government’s decision to close several study programs deemed irrelevant to future economic needs has sparked controversy and public debate. Wisnu Setiadi Nugroho, Ph.D., an economist at the Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Gadjah Mada (FEB UGM), said the policy reflects a dangerous oversimplification under the slogan of “link and match”. The closure of study programs is considered an irrelevant risk, forcing universities to submit to short-term market logic.
“Closing study programs because they are perceived as unnecessary for industry sounds rational until we ask a more fundamental question: since when has the labor market become the sole determinant of the direction of higher education?” Wisnu said in a written statement on Wednesday (Jun. 3).
Wisnu explained that the first issue with such a policy is the assumption that industry needs can be consistently predicted and followed. In reality, technological change occurs far more rapidly than education. He cited a report by the World Economic Forum (WEF), indicating that approximately 44 percent of job skills are expected to change within the next five years.
“This means that what is considered relevant today can quickly become obsolete. Under such conditions, forcing universities to chase industry demands is like running after a shadow,” said Wisnu, whose research focuses extensively on the economics of education and gender economics.
Ironically, policies that place excessive emphasis on immediate job readiness often lead to short-term traps. Many technical skills, ranging from basic coding to administrative work, are becoming increasingly vulnerable to automation and artificial intelligence. A report by McKinsey & Company estimates that up to 30 percent of global work activities could be automated by 2030. If universities focus solely on currently trending technical skills, graduates may quickly find themselves becoming irrelevant.
By contrast, the skills that endure over time are fundamental ones, such as critical thinking, analytical ability, communication, and social understanding. Data from the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) consistently show that competencies such as problem-solving, communication, and teamwork remain among employers’ top priorities, surpassing specific technical skills.
“These fundamental competencies are systematically cultivated through basic sciences, the humanities, and the social sciences fields that are often labeled as unpopular study programs,” stressed the Secretary of the Department of Economics at FEB UGM.
Furthermore, Wisnu argued that the narrative suggesting only STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) possess economic value is not supported by evidence. Studies of leaders of major corporations reveal highly diverse educational backgrounds.
Many global leaders did not emerge solely from technical disciplines. Susan Wojcicki, for example, studied history and literature before leading YouTube, one of the world’s largest digital platforms. Howard Schultz, former CEO of Starbucks, studied communications, while Ken Chenault pursued a degree in history. Various analyses of Fortune 500 companies also indicate that a significant proportion of CEOs come from non-technical backgrounds, including the humanities and social sciences.
According to Wisnu, these facts are crucial. Success at the highest levels of organizational leadership is determined not merely by technical expertise but by the ability to interpret context, understand human complexity, and make strategic decisions. An educational model that focuses too narrowly on technical demands risks neglecting the very foundations of leadership. Innovation does not emerge from conformity to trends but from the ability to transcend them.
Major breakthroughs in the digital economy, healthcare, and public policy almost always arise from interdisciplinary interactions rather than narrow specialization driven by current market demands.
“If universities are reduced to mere providers of labor, the intellectual experimentation that gives rise to innovation will gradually erode,” he said.
Wisnu added that the policy of closing study programs with low enrollment or deemed irrelevant to industry extends beyond economic concerns. Entrusting the direction of higher education entirely to the market means overlooking the social and political functions of universities.
Higher education institutions serve as spaces for the production of knowledge, criticism, and reflection. When these are weakened, society loses its capacity to understand change, let alone correct it. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum has long warned that neglecting the humanities could diminish the quality of public deliberation and citizens’ critical capacities.
In the Indonesian context, a simplistic approach to relevance risks narrowing the horizons of higher education. If success is measured solely by short-term employment outcomes, fields that contribute to long-term development, including culture, critical thought, and basic research, will become increasingly marginalized. Yet countries that successfully withstand disruption are strong for reflection and innovation, not merely obedient suppliers of labor.
“Higher education is not an additional vocational training center for industry. Closing study programs simply because they do not align with today’s market preferences is a shortsighted decision that ignores future dynamics,” he emphasized.
According to Wisnu, universities should not function as factories producing workers but institutions that cultivate individuals capable of thinking, adapting, and creating. Higher education should serve as a compass that guides civilization rather than a weather vane that merely turns with the economic winds.
“If we continue to impose market logic as the sole measure of relevance, what we produce will not be a generation prepared for the future, but a generation trained for the past,” he concluded.
Reporter: Kurnia Ekaptiningrum/FEB Public Relations
Editor: Gusti Grehenson
Post-editor: Jasmine Ferdian
Photo: Magnific