The logic seems to be that people should expect that, as their skills fall out of line with the demands of business they will be laid off and spend some time in unemployment getting government-subsidised training, instead of being continually trained on the job. The concept of "lifelong learning" is accepted by all, as long as business doesn't have to pay a dime for the necessary lifelong learning of its employees.

But teaching to the job market is errant nonsense. Given that nobody expects to work in the same career for their entire life any longer but rather change fields or employers at regular intervals (5-10 years?), and given the observed low chance that people are employed in the field of their first degree, the proposed multiplication of job-oriented qualifications will only make matters worse by creating an expectation on the part of employers that people will be just so qualified. This will fragment the job market and keep more people in continuous unemployment and subsidised training for jobs that will never be there.

Capturing government subsidies by providing training for the unemployed will be the next growth industry. In Spain it's already thriving, with unemployment having doubled from 10% to 20% in the Great Recession.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

fundamental research (that is, research that is initially not contributing to useful products that can be marketed)...?

University and industry - a delicate affair at Universitetsavisen

Money quote (translation courtesy of GoogleTranslate, with minor modifications):

The interesting discussion in the relationship between research and business, we believe, is about how research is organized to deliver - often in the long run - scientific breakthroughs, while - typically in the short run - creating innovation and business development.

[Disclosure: I work for Universitetsavisen/University Post.]

- Jake

It is necessary to distinguish between the virtue and the vice of liquidity. (With apologies to Lemuel K. Washburn)

When universities treat students more like customers and should become more responsive to the needs of businesses. It could lead to radical changes in how students take degrees, including more Open University-style, web-based degrees to allow students to work while they study, and schemes to encourage employers to pay towards the costs of degrees. Every university will be asked to publish course-by-course graduate employment rates, along with details of the number of drop-outs and the amount of teaching time students get, to give applicants more information about what their fees are spent on so that they will know where their <a href="http://personalmoneystore.com/personal-loans/money-loans/money-now/">money now</a> are spent. The food-labeling style system to tag each course is designed to give students more information, which has widely been interpreted as preparation for raising tuition fees. It emphasize that higher education should aid social mobility, with ministers expected to give a strong backing to universities that prioritize "contextual data" about students' backgrounds to help identify talent among applicants from lower performing state schools to break the middle-class stranglehold on the top universities.