The chief executive of the IDA, Kieran McGowan, proclaimed recently that there should be some process for reviewing the relevance of existing third-level courses to the industrial marketplace and that those which are less relevant should be discontinued. His remarks re-open a centuries-old debate.

It is a profound debate for all European countries where the correct strategy is surely one of balance and commonsense, rather than a simplistic termination of courses unrelated to the marketplace. Many outstanding contributors to the development of our nation, both in the past and at present, are graduates in these so-called irrelevant disciplines. University equipped them intellectually and socially for leadership in industry, government, the church and in every other sector of society.

The termination of such academic programmes would, of course, be disastrous. I'm sure that Kieran McGowan was not seriously advocating such a policy.

The role of universities in the modern world of high technology and rampant materialism is perhaps more important than it has ever been. In the evolution of the university over these past eight hundred years, it has remained, through the teaching and research of its scholars, the powerhouse of intellectual and social evolution throughout the world. More than any other institution in society, it has helped shape the world in which we now live.

These arguments are all very fine, but with what's usually referred to as "the massification" of higher education - some 40 per cent of the age cohort is attending third-level institutions against 5 per cent in the Fifties - the cost to the taxpayers is enormous. So, demands for industrial relevance of courses by both politicians and the public increase by the hour. Students too are voting with their feet, as the points system clearly shows. The most competitive courses for entry are those where the job opportunities are greatest.

The arguments in favour of education for its own sake, as distinct from training and skills' acquisition, are now more difficult to make, and unfortunately are rarely being made. There seems to be a growing acceptance that the ivory towers of academe, which have served society so well over many centuries, are no longer appropriate structures for the universities.

To be sure, some enlightened industries proclaim that they look to the universities to produce scholars from any discipline who have independent minds, who have a flexible approach towards problem recognition and resolution, who will question traditional approaches rather than graduates with specific skills. The industries will look after the training in their own fields, but these industries are few in number.

However, many if not most modern high-tech industries look for graduates who, on day one, will take off their coats and start working productively right away and this probably makes commercial sense to them.

Surely the answer must be one of balance, where the universities jealously preserve their prime responsibility for education in all its disciplines in teaching and in basic research but where, as appropriate with their facilities and staffing, they come together with industry in curriculum development and in teaching, and in industrially related research.

This is already happening in all our third-level institutions, but in a somewhat random manner - more often than not the initiative has come from the individual academic or department. In a country of our manageable size, it is strange that no effective national approach has been taken on university/industry co-operation in teaching or in research.

The universities and industry should come together to identify the specific advanced training and research needs of Irish industries, and to co-operate in both staffing and facilities in arranging that these needs are met. Maybe it's too sensible, but surely worth a try.

Professor Kelly was formally dean of engineering and architecture, and registrar at University College, Dublin.