Has higher education become too academic?

What happens when journalism students learn to write for academia rather than for readers, when aspiring officers are better prepared to write a thesis than to lead in the field, and when new graduates lack the practical skills the labor market demands? Are these signs of problems within individual programs, or of something larger? These were among the questions at the heart of an in-depth dinner conversation hosted by The Karl-Adam Bonnier Foundation, in partnership with the Swedish Entrepreneurship Forum, bringing together decision-makers from academia, business, and the public sector to discuss the role of practice-based knowledge in higher education.

Swedish higher education is under growing pressure. The mandate of universities has broadened to include an increasing number of professional programs, which over time have developed ever stronger ties to research. At the same time, employers are voicing concern that new graduates are not sufficiently equipped for working life. The question is no longer whether theory and practice should work together, but how the balance can be designed and organized.

The evening’s opening speakers were Patrik Kronqvist, editorial writer at Expressen, and Mats Benner, professor at Lund University. The conversation was moderated by Anders Broström, CEO of the Swedish Entrepreneurship Forum.

Kronqvist argued that academia is not always the answer to the educational needs society faces. He pointed out that journalists trained at universities learn to write for academia rather than for an audience, and that similar criticism has recently been directed at several academic programs, where students end up better prepared to write a thesis than to step into their first role in the profession. Placing vocational programs within academia is a mistake, he argued, if the result is that students fail to learn the practical skills employers need.

Benner opened with a historical perspective. Swedish universities have traditionally stood out by maintaining close ties to the various sectors of society, and mobility between academia and practice has been a real strength. But the 1993 higher education reform, which was meant to grant institutions greater autonomy and let quality emerge through competition, has in practice driven a process of academization in which quality is increasingly judged by what is easy to measure: faculty with doctorates, number of publications, formal academic credentials. Practical knowledge and professional experience carry little weight in today’s quality assurance systems.

The opening remarks were followed by a lively discussion in which several participants emphasized that the solution is not simply to make programs more practical. On the contrary, undergraduate education needs to be broad, formative, and develop critical thinking and ways of reasoning — that is precisely where academia’s unique value lies. The importance of value-creating skills such as collaboration, judgment, and communication was also highlighted, as these competencies are becoming more important as AI takes over other tasks. But all of this requires a solid foundation of knowledge.

Practice, however, needs to be taken seriously in specialization, in the teaching corps, and in the system for academic merit. As long as moving between academia and the rest of working life is treated as disqualifying, and as long as institutions’ financial incentives reward student volume rather than labor market needs, change will not come from within the system. Denmark was held up as a model, where students are rewarded for working alongside their studies, while the Swedish system instead reduces student aid for those who earn above a certain threshold. The Swedish vocational higher education system (yrkeshögskolan) was cited as a positive example: half of its graduates go on to work for the employer where they completed their internship. At the same time, a note of caution was raised about blurring the lines between academia and vocational higher education. Both serve different but equally important functions.

Some concrete proposals from the discussion included:

• recruiting instructors from professional practice, both as guest lecturers and through regular hiring
• giving academic instructors opportunities to work in their professional fields so they have real-world experience to draw on
• reforming the academic merit system so that movement between academia and industry becomes a qualification rather than a disqualification
• clarifying the distinct roles of academia and vocational higher education

The discussion made clear that this question reaches far beyond individual academic programs or institutions. It is about which incentives, structures, and conceptions of quality shape Swedish higher education — and, by extension, what education should prepare people for in a working life that is changing rapidly. The Karl-Adam Bonnier Foundation will continue to create forums where these questions can be discussed openly and in depth.