Ditch the Ivory Tower: Why Australia Should Abolish Universities for a Skills-First Future, By James Reed
Adelaide University's plan to scrap most in-person lectures for pre-recorded videos, sparking a student sit-in on August 25, 2025, has exposed the cracks in Australia's higher education system. If universities can sideline lecturers, potentially making them redundant, why stop there? Why not abolish universities entirely? The $18 billion-a-year Australian university behemoth is bloated with "woke" courses, administrative bloat, and degrees that leave graduates jobless. Imagine redirecting STEM to vocational centers, law to law societies, and medicine to hospitals. This radical overhaul could save billions, end the ideological stranglehold of universities, and deliver a workforce ready for Australia's real needs. Here's why it's time to pull the plug.
Australia's 42 public universities cost taxpayers $18 billion annually, $7 billion in grants, $6 billion in research, and billions in HECS-HELP loans (with $80 billion in student debt, 20% unpaid). They employ 130,000 staff, half non-academic, and enrol 1.6 million students, many in Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences (AHSS) courses derided on X as "woke" or useless. Adelaide University's shift to online lectures, signals a broader trend: Curtin, Murdoch, and others moved this way post-2020, with 900 degrees now fully online. It is a smart move by Curtin, Murdoch and now Adelaide,that can save an enormous amount of money if the lecturers are sacked, which I fully support.
But, if lectures can be pre-recorded, cutting the need for lecturers, what's the point of universities? They're not fostering critical thinking; students cross Australia report indoctrination in progressive ideologies, from gender studies to decolonisation. Meanwhile, Australia faces shortages of 200,000 nurses, 50,000 engineers, and 100,000 tradespeople. Universities churn out sociology grads while tradies beg for apprentices. An Aussie DOGE-style audit would expose this mismatch, potentially saving $10-15 billion by scrapping the outdated model.
A New Blueprint: Industry-Led, Skills-First Education
Instead of propping up campus empires, let's redirect education to where it matters:
STEM in Vocational Centres: Shift science, tech, engineering, computing and maths to TAFE-style hubs. Coding bootcamps, AI labs, and engineering apprenticeships could train 100,000 students annually for $2-3 billion, half the cost of university STEM programs. Partner with tech giants like Atlassian or mining firms to fund facilities, ensuring graduates are job-ready.
Law via Law Societies: Ditch law schools for professional training under state law societies. Practical courses, contract drafting, litigation, could be taught by practicing lawyers, cutting $1 billion in university law faculties while producing courtroom-ready graduates.
Medicine and Nursing in Hospitals: Link medical and nursing education to hospitals, as in the UK's NHS training model. Hands-on programs could train 20,000 nurses and 5,000 doctors yearly for $1.5 billion, saving $2 billion from university medical schools.
Trades and Skills: Expand TAFEs for electricians, plumbers, and renewable energy techs, addressing the 90,000 construction worker shortage by 2030. A $1 billion investment could double apprentice places, far cheaper than university overheads.
This model could save $10-15 billion annually by slashing 50,000 staff (saving $5-6 billion), closing redundant campuses ($1-2 billion), and redirecting grants ($3-5 billion). The funds could halve HECS debt, fund 100,000 scholarships, or boost infrastructure like AUKUS's $368 billion tech push.
Ending the "Woke" Stranglehold
Universities have become ideological battlegrounds, not bastions of critical thinking. X posts lambast "woke waste," think $1.2 billion in AHSS research for projects like "decolonising curricula" or diversity offices costing $100 million yearly. Students like James argue in-person lectures by professors are what set universities apart from YouTube, yet Adelaide's smart move to videos suggests even that edge is gone. If education is just digital content, why pay $30,000 for a degree when Khan Academy's free?
Defunding universities would gut this "woke" ecosystem. AHSS, 40% of enrolments, often produces graduates with 10-15% underemployment rates, unlike STEM's 5%. By focusing on skills, we'd prioritise measurable outcomes, engineers building bridges, nurses saving lives, over abstract theories fuelling culture wars. Law societies and hospitals, driven by professional standards, are less likely to indulge ideological fads.
Abolishing universities isn't cost-free.Sacking 50,000 staff (40% of university employees) could spark strikes, as seen in 2020. So what, why should we care? The National Tertiary Education Union, already fighting Adelaide's lecture cuts, would mobilise against abolition. Progressives would decry "anti-intellectualism," as if that matters.The US DOGE's $170 billion in savings caused chaos, delays, lawsuits, showing cuts must be surgical. Australia's smaller scale demands even more precision. But with determination we could do it!
The prize is huge: $10-15 billion saved yearly, a workforce aligned with shortages, and an end to "woke" overreach. By 2030, we could train 200,000 skilled workers, halve student debt, and boost productivity. An Aussie DOGE could sell this as populist reform, education for jobs, not jargon. Transparency, like Musk's open savings ledger, would keep voters on side.
Thus, if videos replace professors, which I hope happens, why fund campuses at all? Redirect STEM to vocational hubs, law to societies, medicine to hospitals, and trades to TAFEs. Save $10-15 billion, end "woke" waste, and build a skills-first future. Yes, we'll lose some cultural depth, but the trade-off, practical education, economic growth, is worth it. Let's not patch the ivory tower; let's replace it with something that works!
Comments