> A lot of capitalists have reached the conclusion that they don't need
> universities or education as much as they used to, and therefore they don't
> need any longer to nurture this hotbed of resistance,
Hotbed of resistance seems somewhat overstated, but there's some truth in it. I would suggest, though, that this is not because of anything the Unis themselves are doing or teaching, but simply because they assemble in one place lots of young people who haven't yet felt the iron discipline of the labor market and have some time on their hands.
It's an interesting thought experiment to imagine what would happen if all the Unis suddenly shut their doors.
All the young people would still be there, of course, and most would be thrown onto the labor market, which of course couldn't begin to absorb them.
As a matter of principle, I never answer 'what would happen if' questions, but it does seem at least as likely that such an event would be destabilizing as the reverse.
Following this line of thought, there's a case to be made that the mere warehousing effect of the Unis actually serves a stabilizing function, in spite of the feistiness of the campuses -- a sort of safety valve.
Now the capitalists don't know 'what would happen if' either, but presumably an intelligent capitalist, giving some strategic thought to the advantages and disadvantages of throttling down the credentialling sector to any great extent, would have to enter this consideration on his spreadsheet as downside risk.
Then of course there's all that lovely student debt...
Michael J. Smith mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org http://www.cars-suck.org http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com
Any proposition that seems self-evident is almost certainly false.