I think you have it backwards. Universities existed before large scale industry did. Your suggestion that corporations take over higher education would be completely disastrous.
I think you have it backwards.
The state sponsors universities so it will have a populace with the right skills for the economic situation within the state. You can see this clearly in Alaska where there is no industry. There is business, but industry has yet to show up in North Wonderland. Business leaders say, okay, fund universities; votors say, okay, fund universities; even green lichen, fish, and vole rescuers say, okay, fund universities. Universities were never intended to provide factory fodder. Put this nut on this bolt and after 40 years you can drop what remains of your carcass on your front porch swing. Alaska has long been the most educated state per capita, and no industry. Maybe there is a connection, but not that.
But they didn't exist on a large scale. What are the useful university degrees? Accounting, financial management, MBA, engineering. All those are for industry. I'm not sure how many university majors there were before we became industrialized ---there were probably history and English majors.
Ahh. But here's the rub. If there weren't an economic incentive to aquire a higher education there would be no great motivation for masses of people to do so. Note, I said the reverse isn't necessarily true. I might allow that a university system is necessary before an industrial age can be kickstarted, but afterwards, it is the needs of industry that create demand on education.
We might quibble about universities existing before there was an economic need for them. I don't personally agree with that assertion but it is irrelevent. A long time ago, attending a university education was something only the elite in society could afford. A wealthy man might afford his offspring a classical education simply so they could make intelligent discussion in the parlour with guests.
Today this is not the case. We live in an advanced industrial age. We have transcended that old age of class distinctions being the major incentive for a higher education (if it ever existed). In today's world people aquire a higher education in order to survive in the free market.
There is an ever increasing expectation of what skills a person should have when they enter the work force. That demand or expectation of skill is determined by industry. As the feedback loop (scientific frontier to main stream consumption of a new concept) gets ever shorter, a rigid, highly regimented and politically influenced higher education system will become an unbearable burden for industry (if we are to continue progressing). There was a time when much scientific progress was made in the university. Today, industry is at the forefront of science. The universities no longer have a monopoly on this. If you want to be on the cutting edge of new science, the place to be is in a corporation research department- not a university laboratory.
Your suggestion that corporations take over higher education would be completely disastrous.
Could you explain why? It would seem to me that government control of education is disastrous but this is only an observation.