Teaching must be professionalized. In other words, training offers must be geared much more towards taking into account the needs of the labor market. So more practices than theories in training.

In my opinion, the historically formed "symbiosis" of science and education is not the only possible one. It would be interesting to model other basic options for "interpenetration" of fields of activity and try to present possible results. As for mutual reproaches, this is a dead-end path.

Agree with Vladimir

Using illustrative language that is instructive, simple, and easy to understand to the public is key.

interesting

Need to accommodate all the stakeholders. Education shoud be more focused on practical based knowledge and policy should be based on need of the market.

If the level of professionalism of both sides is high enough, then I don't see any problem here at all. "Smart and well-mannered people" will always be able to understand each other and take into account mutual interests. I am afraid that the whole point is in a large deficit of such people, both from one side and the other. Personally, I can’t help with anything here, since I’ve already passed the reproductive age.

It seems that academics and businessmen belong to two completely different systems of practice and ethics, that is why the gap would most probably remain unabridged.

I agree, we are 2 different types of people but people should be able to cross-over. Perhaps the best solution right now is to make your choice ASAP and if you want to leave academia do it fast and dont linger?

Henrik G.S. Arvidsson pay higher salaries than in industry!

Yes but I cant see that happening.. thats why the sharpest minds often leave..and even if you want to re-enter academia you have been fostered in a different tradition.. I employed people from academia historically and it seldom turned out well.. being able to write a research article doesnt qualify you for a managerial position... I think that if you want to leave academia for the real world you should do it fast... pay is better yes and also if you stay in academia you are often not attractive in the eyes of employers outside academia..there are crossover artists offcourse but for me ..Im careful not to be associated with academia... and I guess if you want to stay in academia excursions into my world isnt wise either even if I think most academics would benefit from real world experience since there is a difference between watching other people do business and actually doing it my self. My ex wife competed in equestrian sport and I learned a lot but I could never compete with her knowledgewise because she could ride and I could just observe.. so the two words doesnt mix easily even if I think they should to a greater extent..both worlds would benefit from it.

Agree with Vladimir Valentinovich Egorov

Henrik G.S. Arvidsson I am both practitioner (Chef and Sea Captain) and academic (Professor with PhD in the field og Philosophy). I am greatful to belong to both «worlds». Academia can be challenging, but a lot of academics make great practical impact. Also there is a tendency in academia to underestimate the value of the knowledge of those a problem concernes and of strong hands-on experience. I am an action researcher. My aim is to collaborate with those the issue at hand concernes and develope real and lasting solutions together. I work mainly with vocational higher education, guidance and special needs research. I am thankful for what academia has given me in regards to philosophy and method, but my practical background, I think, often given me an edge.

Paul: First, my College of Business always tries to hire faculty who have real world experience in the field of business. This is a huge advantage.

Second, we have an Advisory Board that consists of people who have years of experience in the Business field. They give us advice about what courses and topics to cover to make our graduates more attractive in the labor market.

Third, many of our faculty have second jobs in their field. This could be consulting, accounting, marketing, etc.

I have been an academician all my life, and I believe academia needs a complete reset, including a total moratorium on the use of statistics for, say, 10 years. Once people realize that the important thing in research is THINKING and not doing statistical tests, we might go back to the right road. It would then follow that it does not make any sense to evaluate academicians by the number of articles published, because if they have to think to get something done and published, they will be able to produce an article, say, every two or three years at most.

Statistics are not too relevant for management research, althoug eventually they may be every now and then. What are relevant are intentional explanatios (Elster) that then include studiyng the specific, qualitative information about specific situations. Management practice needs practical wisdom (phronesis) and not only some assumed statistical regularities. Reading Popper and understanding the meaning of falsification would not hurt academicians either, for it would show the researcher that the "exceptions" should not be disregarded as "outliers", but instead are precisely what has to be explained ("Reading" Popper does not mean reading a two paragraph summary written by someone else of what Popper wrote, it rather means reading, say, "Conjectures and Refutations"). Looking at whether testosterone is correlated with manipulating accounts is a non-sensical thing from a practitioner's point of view (and, of course, from my own academician point of view). Pseudoresearch of this kind makes it impossible to "bridge the gap".

Have a nice day, everybody!

There is need for sustained dialogue between the academia and industry. Labour is only demanded if the marginal utility is in the economic region to be able to satisfy the profit maximizing objectives.

There is no gainsaying the fact that sometimes labour from the academia is like attempting to fix a square peg in a round hole which will necessitate training and retraining at the expense of industry.

The school curricula must be streamlined to meet industrial demand. We must emphasize practical saleae skill over mere paper qualification.

For agriculture graduates in particular, I recommend the following:

1 Strengthening Institution-based Capacity Building and Saleable Skill Enhancing

Mechanisms

The problem staring us in the face is that many of our graduates do not have saleable skills. The entrepreneurial spirit has not been developed and harnessed. To address it, we have to leave the repetitive dogmatic knowledge test scheme we have operated for too long. We have to choose to walk away from the ritual. We have to strive to fit into contemporary dynamic technological jet age. Many companies today do not look at grades, because, it is a worthless criterion for hiring. If we continue to teach today as we taught yesterday, we will continue to rob our students of tomorrow. We need to conform to changing times of cutting edge technology and begin to think outside the box.

Our focus should be to prepare students for the future that does not yet exist. This is a very important issue around which subsequent discussions revolved. The answer is neither in textbooks nor in our existing curricula. The answer lies in using our head and heart. We must begin to do things differently. If we do not change our approach, the results are not going to change. We need to be passionate.

Going by our existing curricula, we are not preparing graduates for the future. Teachers have the most important job in this planet. It is worthy of noting that most enterprises will be automated in the future. Robotics and machines are now employed to do what humans used to do and more so with precision. For instance, in recent past, several bank cahiers lost their jobs at the advent of automated teller machines (ATM).

The question is “how do we prepare students for the future?”. This is because, the future in perspective is very important. People who will succeed in the future have to be curious, innovative, creative and must have the resilience to adapt to changes.

We need a paradigm shift in our focus from regurgitation, test and exam taking to inculcating entrepreneurial spirit. There is a sleeping giant in every student that we need to reawake. Creativity should be our quest. Very soon, no one will be hired because of what they know. Very soon, nobody will care about what one knows. This is because, google is there to do that. In the future, people will be hired based on what they can do with their knowledge to creatively solve real world problems not just mere regurgitation. The practice of training students as robotics has to stop. Solving problems bedeviling society is what we refer to as entrepreneurship. If we are not to be part of the problem, we have to begin to think out of the box

For instance, the SIWES units of Universities in addition to funding obtained from the ITF and the respective universities could partner with donor agencies such as the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), that has developed initiative plans for improving value chains of agricultural commodities through the Value Chain Development Programme (VCDP) which is consistent with the Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) of the FGN to develop the agricultural sector through a commodity value chain approach.

We need to create a product and add value to the product. Economic theory posits that a consumer will only pay for services rendered based on utility. We must focus on developing the unique human intelligence of our students to create utility of time and place. There is this English adage which says “you can force a horse to the stream, but you cannot force it to drink”. However, there is something one can do to make the horse drink water from the stream. It is by putting salt licks in the horse’s hay. That will create a thirst in the horse to compel it to drink. It is possible to create that atmosphere on our campuses. That thirst can be created outside of the classroom setting. An exam can be 100% of a student’s grade but 0% of his/her future.

2. Building of Enterprise/Business Hubs/Platforms on campuses

This is closely linked to the first strategy of building capacity. Universities should create enterprise or business hubs which should function like Innovation Platforms (IPs). Business incubation has become a necessity to foster entrepreneurship among students though juggling entrepreneurship and schooling is no easy task.

To harness and harvest creative potentials and add value to our product, we have to create enterprise hubs or platforms on our campuses outside the classroom setting where we harvest innovations and ideas. We have to do that starting from the lower levels of the undergraduate classes, preferably from the second year into the programme. We then harvest these ideas and consummate the implementation during the SIWES year. Our agribusiness laboratories could serve as a rallying point especially for value adding activities.

Provision of Start-up Capital for Graduates of Agriculture

Issues of funding are fundamental in the establishment of agribusiness as it appertain the acquisition and efficient utilization of production resources. There is need to link graduates with the industry. We can achieve that during the SIWES year. Regrettably, many graduates are not employable because the entrepreneurial spirit is missing. There should be an arrangement whereby financial institutions and the government should make available start-up capital to students upon graduation. To achieve this, there has to be commitment by State, Federal Government and the private sector to provide seed fund to prospective graduates of agriculture to finance innovative ideas. The fund could be domiciled with the universities in collaboration with the NUC and it should be revolving to ensure sustainability. Prospective beneficiaries should be made to write fundable feasibility studies. Owing to risk and uncertainty associated with agriculture, banks require collateral. The institution should serve as guarantor of such loans and such businesses should be insured.

3. Inclusion of Entrepreneurship in School Curricula

The regulatory bodies should update existing curricula paying attention to the SIWES year which is devoted for training. However, curricula are drawn by Universities but only vetted by the regulatory body. We need to focus on our areas of competitive strength, for example, value addition activities.

Some Faculties of Agriculture in some universities have Agribusiness Laboratories where Value Addition activities are taught practically in a similar way that students in Computer Science/Engineering can provide high-Tech online solutions by developing software.

Most Nigerian Universities now have Centres for Entrepreneurial Studies with a view to inculcating the entrepreneurial spirit to prepare graduates not to be job seekers but employers of labour. The Centres aim at offering expertise to build capacities of smallholders of industry in Nigeria. The Centres offer programmes which cover a general overview of a business enterprise from inception, growth and maturity stages. Directives have been issued that all universities in Nigeria should establish Centres for Entrepreneurship Development to co-ordinate offering of a benchmark of all Nigerian universities. There is need to ensure compliance and strengthen this policy.

Need for Practical-oriented Training

Review of curriculum should focus on giving students practical-oriented stuff to do rather than unnecessary assignments that cannot help them. More often than not, they simply google the answers or copy from textbooks. After the SIWES year, students are expected to write Project Reports. This should be more engaging to facilitate extra-curricular activities that can encourage entrepreneurship. The practical experience they acquired during the 4th year should be relevant at this stage.

It is worrisome that approaches in grading 4th year students differ between institutions. In some institutions, the exercise is graded and used in the computation of students’ result while in others it is not. The claim for the differences in the implementation of the SIWES is perhaps based on peculiarities. Consequently, different models have been adopted by different universities in the implementation of the SIWES exercise. For instance, in some institutions students are fully domesticated, the activity being laced with guided tours and visits to agro-based industrial establishments while in others, the exercise is done by seeking placements for students in relevant agro-based industrial establishments. In few instances, On-farm supervised Off-campus Agricultural Extension Programme of the university is practiced as part of the SIWES programme. This too has been argued to be important because it could enhance the well-being of participating farmers and ensure interaction with the citadel of learning under real-farm situations.

However, if the objective of SIWES is ensuring delivery of practical-oriented training, there is need to harmonize and strengthen the activity by adopting a uniform model. The model of both domestication and private sector involvement may be worthwhile in our quest to complement deficiency in practical skills. Moreso, specialized universities such as of Agriculture and Technology should not loose track of their mandates.

While some institutions and disciplines permit SIWES’ duration for only three to six months, others go for up to one year. The programme, which permits the affected students to seek for IT or Teaching Practice (TP), as the case may be, in any establishment of their choice, has ab initio been a cause of concern to education and economic planners, particularly with respect to graduate employment and impact on the general societal development. There are equally mixed feelings concerning how much of it is actually helpful to students’ academic performance and job readiness after graduation.

The broad theoretical basis, coupled with research methods, helps us to infer the relationship between them and the consequences of their leading causes from the complicated practical phenomena, so that in understanding the phenomenon of unfamiliar industries and business practices, it may be better than many pure practitioners to learn as well as reset. Ask more and listen to practical questions at any time, in order to activate the knowledge learned from the academic point of law. And when asking questions, by virtue of the scientific basis, the question may be more in-depth, learning experience level is also different, getting a piece of a flashlight in darkness.

I think that academics have to investigate about problems related to real things that are usefull for market

Participate in trade association meetings and conferences. Academics get to know what is relevant for research and businesses problems. Commentary in newspapers and trade journals help to widen the role of academics.

There are a lot of ways to make academia relevant and academics more attractive on the labour market. This is frequently encountered in scientific cooperation as well as in academic/industrial partnerships. The industry-business partnership benefits in a number of ways, from accessing world-leading innovation and research to growing and developing internal capability.

I have been involved in all my life in applied research, therefore I had to interact both with academy and industry. I have learned a lot from both. I always felt to be at the interface of the two worlds and enjoyed it. I think much more depends on the person than on where he or she "belongs to". Richard Feynman was part fo the team investigating the Challenger catastrophy - with success. What is important is felxibility, not exclusivity.

I like the observation by Rosanas above. Nonetheless industry and academia need each other even more than what contemporary rhetoric suggests. Could business develop in total absence of academia? Need to be careful not to fall in the trap of 'mass appeal fallacy''.

I believe that the most important thing is to bring academic environments and the job market closer together. Research carried out in the academic context should offer practical answers and managerial implications that are easily understood by executives and the market in general. Thus, academic studies must recognize managerial problems and offer real and possible solutions, as this is a way for the market to recognize and value academics' managerial, problem analysis and decision-making capabilities.

This is really an interesting discussion. I have been working in public institutions and have realised that economic theory is very relevent in decision making. What happens is that at a technical level we use econometric models which are very academic and some of which we learn from the IMF and World Bank. But when we prepare policy briefs, these models are hidden in the background and the public may not be aware of the theoretical underpinnings of some of the decisions. A good example is when we announce a target for money supply growth or a debt ceiling. Behind those targets, there are papers on debt sustainalibity and optimal debt levels or models showing money supply growth consistent with economic growth and target inflation. In all these models, you realise the importance of optimaisation theory, among other methimetical complexities.

There is also the other aspect of academics which teaches us to have good judgement. You may not apply specific theory but you realise when you reach certain levels in academic progression, your ability to have good judgement improves and this should not be taken for granted. Nontheless, I admit there is a gap between theory and practice and its mainly because some academics have not heard an opportunity to put into experience their knowledge. There must be a way of bridging that gap. For those that have taken courses at IMF you may agree with me that it helps bridge some of the gaps between theory and practice because their causes are both academic and practical.@[email protected]

In the field of general management under governmental budget, academic research rarely examines the practical phenomena associated with academia-industry collaborations, despite the fact that such research is the most likely to integrate the values associated with teaching, research, and service activities. Actually, it creates something new opportunities.

How to do? Make it more spectacular, with research which will be atractive for more people. Now is quite borow.

In coming years, technology will replace many of today's manual jobs. It is evident that business entities will prefer technology over human if it fits to their pocket majorly due to higher productivity and efficiency.

With the increasing population, competition in the labor market will rise particularly in Asian countries like China and India.

Then, What is the Solution?

Instead of looking technology as the barrier, we have to make the academics linked to technological advancement. We need to include innovation and technology as a part of studies rather just an aid to facilitate general education. The shift from tech-savvy to techno-learner is what the need of the hour.

For ex- Many B-Schools across the world provide theoretical learnings with lesser exposure to existing and future problems. With the inclusion of courses like data science, ERP, and SAP, we can make the aspiring graduates ready to fit in business environment.

Hi everyone!

Academia has been relevant along centuries. There is no doubt about that. In terms of business, or more specifically in terms of management knowledge, there are plenty contributions. That seems to be clear. This is what I have seen in more than 30 years of work in academia, and also in projects that have been developed jointly between academia and companies.

Unfortunatelly, on one hand there is a sort of narrative that tries to show academia as sterile and incapable of meeting the needs of the market - whatever it can means nowadays! On the other hand, there is a kind of discourse, which tries to forge out academia as a skilled labor maker.

The role of academia is not to train labor for companies, but educate people capable of thinking, and reflecting critically. This is much more than preparing someone to perform a task or job. This is where the relevance of the academy is, and not only for the labour market, but for the whole society.

All the best,

Francisco Vieira

Dear Francisco Giovanni David Vieira (and other discussants and readers) Thank you for your reply, I don't think academia is irrelevant pr say, but sometimes there is an incongruence between what is lectured and the reality the student meets when starting their first post graduation job. I think I said it before, for me it was a brutal awakening, things was not as simple or even according to the theories presented..at least in business, in other areas such as History, geography etc Im sure things are different. The result was that I needed to be almost deprogrammed, I was either brave or plain stupid since the first thing I did was to open my own business and I quickly realised that business doesn't work according to the text books...it can but for the most part it does not.

Now I have been a business owner for 20+ years and it still upsets me that universities teach things that are not always connected to reality. Theories are good to know but they should always be questioned and at least in business I think it is important that the lecturer have a background in business, there are exceptions off course but personal experience of the application of a subject such as management gives the ability to provide the student with the tools needed for a life outside academia. I think the question that should be asked is that if academias primary mission is to produce future professors, researchers and lecturers..in that case fine! But if the mission is to also prepare the student for a life outside the walls of the university my personal opinion is that things must change. you are right that tertiary educations primary mission is to "teach" or inspire students to think for them self but if there is no self criticism on behalf of the institution we as future employers, ( Im now talking about my self as an employer) will face the struggle with former students who are in various degrees not ready for working life.

I have a deep respect for the fact that a 22 year old man or woman who just got their bachelors degree is not a fully trained professional. The problem occurs when you need to totally reshape the person so that he or she can function in a work environment. Kotler and his book Marketing Management is very interesting to read but it also makes me think of the difference between those who comment tennis from the sidelines and those who can actually play tennis. It is an interesting book, it is! The only problem is that for most SMEs the reality doesn't correspond to what the student will learn from that and many other books. Especially if the lecturer doesn't provide a critical perspective and can exemplify from his or her personal experience. Theories are good but sometimes they need to be criticised and/or put in perspective.

Best wishes Henrik

However, if scholars do not consider academic infestation, this insulation is called the 'ivory tower', which may increase the value and impact of their research. In fact, many academic developments turn out to be fruitful applications, especially commercially funded research, which often focuses on the pursuit of profit. This is a bit at conflict with the pursuit of knowledge.

Dear Henrik G.S. Arvidsson ,

From my point of view your approach is misguided. The role of the university is not to train people for companies. The university's role is to educate people so that they become professionals and citizens.

I have been teaching undergraduate students (bachelor's) for more than 30 years, and also graduate students (master's and phd) for almost 20 years, and several of them got a job in local, regional, national and even transnational companies, as well as some of them became university professors.

The argument that universities teach something that is disconnected from reality is merely based on a market view. The university is not an extension of the market, it is part of society. Besides, the courses offered by universities must reflect the reality of small, medium and large companies, as well as industrial, commercial and service companies. This is a tremendous challenge. It is almost impossible to offer an answer for each specific reality. Even so, the university is attractive to companies. Companies seek universities to develop joint projects, and also hold fairs to recruit students who are in the final stages of their courses, as well as other initiatives.

We need to look at the whole and not only the parts. We should not mistake train with educate. Academia is not for training. It is for educating. That's the reason because it is relevant.

All the best,

Francisco Vieira

The problem however is this. If the university provide education that is not in some way attractive for future employers, then it is easier for my self, and a lot cheaper to educate some one my self and give him or her the right tools to carry out their job. What is academia for? Do academia exist for its own benefit or does it serve some sort of purpose and fill a function? If universities are just looking for future researchers.. well what is the point then? Then faculty boards can ait in their golden tower by them selves and life goes on without them. Dont misunderstand me.. I dont hate academia..I want ti make it more attractive and make it fill a function..its like me selling typewriters..I love them but most people today want PC or Mac.. meaning there is not much of a match 🙂 Best wishes Henrik

Also..if business education is not aimed at providing future employees for firms, what is then the purpose? If not educating doctors for health care, Not engineers for building bridges..what is its function? I see no function then..same as I see little or no function for organisations like Mensa..and no Im not intelligent enough to join..however my ex wife was 🙂 Perhaps that is why Im her ex.. but if not providing future workforce, what is the function of universities? To educate future professors is a good thing but that should in my meaning be only a part of the mission of any university.. best wishes from a guy who might not be intelligent enough for Mensa or academia..a more hands on guy 🙂

Sometimes getting back to the really basic foundations is needed. We can so easily get tangled up in the details of concepts, theories, and opinions of academia and loose touch with reality. One can go through a whole course of rigorous university classes and come out with very little to no practical application skills and little to no confidence in actually doing what it is they learned about. Practical application - actually putting action to what is being learned - is so important for real world life. It is in the doing that the knowledge becomes integrated and solidified. Experience of those who teach gives credibility as well as a heart connection that can be genuinely imparted to another...the older generation working alongside teaching, training, and modeling for the younger generation not only how to run a business, but how to effectively and respectfully interact with any other person on the planet, honor our spouses, and shepherd our children. Whenever I need or want to learn something new, I always want to learn from someone who has actually done it, experienced it, or is currently doing whatever it is - someone I can come alongside and watch and imitate. This is very simple, very foundational, and very effective. Head knowledge does very little for the betterment of society. It is the actions based on that understanding that moves a person or a community in a direction. Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective.

DEAR @Allyson I agree it is more rewarding having a lecturer who has been in the game... , I think all people in academia should try it out for a while. They will notice that teaching will be more fun and the students will learn a lot more 🙂

Dear Allison Eley , Henrik G.S. Arvidsson ,

Different scientific schools had a different approach:

Rutherford and Kapitsa are one pole, Landau and Lifshitz are completely different

Hello everybody!

I know a popular saying that one is too little, two is good, and three is too much. So, this is the last intervention I make on this question, and in advance I thank everyone for reading this new post or answer to the question that was asked here.

First, I would like to say that I do not understand this type of debate in which someone asks a question, and after receiving answers and points of view from other people, takes a position of defending a certain vision. In other words, if someone has a vision and wants to defend it, why ask a question? If someone is right about something, why asks a question on a worldwide network like ResearchGate? This does not seem to make much sense. It would be better to make a statement! I think the questions should be to clarify something that is in doubt or to know what others think about something you are interested in studying. I do not understand since one asks something, but one does not accept the answers, and one keeps questioning the answers to the question.

Second, several speak of experience. But whose experience, for what, and under what circumstances? Many professors who worked or work in companies, or professors who own their own businesses, when they teach, they do not necessarily teach students what students need to learn, but just talk about their companies, and what they do in their companies. Is that what the experience of those in the market is for? For someone to keep talking about what he/she does personally? Please, there are numerous business magazines, with reports and case studies based on the reality of different types of companies, and therefore real case studies. There are media outlets that are specialized in small and large companies, and they report on business actions every day, and even provide excellent data and statistical analysis. Does anyone think that because a person works or has experience in something he/she is able to teach, motivate, and arouse the interest of students? Maybe yes, maybe not. But this is not an axiom. Things do not work out exactly that way.

Third, universities have courses and each course has a set of subjects, which in turn have a syllabus to be taught. It is useless to have experience if you do not follow the program of the course and keep talking about experiences and telling stories in the classroom to the students. Teaching is not giving a show, doing comedy, or doing stand up. To teach classes is to present content saying where they came from, what the reason for their existence is, what they are for, and how they can be applied in a given situation. For that, it is necessary to have education, knowledge, study and sometimes research. It is not enough for someone to run a company and think that will teach in a different, and special way for the education of students.

Fourth, there is a career in universities. Professors who participate in it prepared for this, studied for it, participated in selection processes, were examined and continue to be examined almost every day, in one way or another. A professor at a university is someone who constantly lives under examination of students, colleagues, head of department, funding agencies, and the community for which he/she works. The universities I know in different countries work like this. Therefore, I do not believe that there is a departure from reality, and that professors live in an ivory tower - this is a misunderstanding about the academy.

Fifth, it is good to remember that university professors, even if they do not have their own businesses or work in companies, they have experience in developing joint projects between the university and companies. Many of them do research, develop products, provide business consultancy and also participate in developing business projects. If someone has not yet noticed, please realize that it means a kind of experience. The difference between a professor who is in the market and starts teaching, is that he/she will tend to talk mainly about his/her experiences, while a professor who is at the university will talk about theory and practice, and also about his/her experiences. Also because of that, academia is relevant and not necessarily far way from reality.

All the best and have a good week.

Francisco Vieira

It is found that there is a disconnect between academics and industries in many sectors. There is a gap between industry requirements and what is taught in universities/colleges. Best practices emanate from industries and get transferred to academics. As regards behavioural sciences , it is mostly from academics to market. It is true that syllabus of most of the courses are outdated and teachers do not have practical experience to teach the subject with authority. Presently by the time students come out of engineering colleges the technologies are undergoing changes making their studies unproductive.

In my opinion the best solution would be to create a system driven by government policy, wherein teachers shift to industry for upgrading their knowledge in best practices/technologies and revert to academics to teach. This way a country can improve employment of outgoing students as they possess relevant skills required by industry.

Research scholars have authority and status in the campus, research, and application scholars in the industry have the attraction of domain knowledge.

I suggest combine with your students practical activities, such as the actual opportunities are giving some

Universities and Research institutes such as MIT with the Covid Challenge or Concytec (in Peru) participating in research proyects.

Following.

Hi everybody,

I've got my PhD in the last millenium and founded a boutique specialised in strategic management consulting twenty years ago. So I've experienced kind of both sides. And this expericence can best be summarized as follow: "Academics know the Kamasutra by heart, but never make love, practitioners..."! Have a nice day.

But I also know some Academics that master both sides, theory and practice!

Dear Gilles Léchot There are such people! And then comes the next question, how do you define an academic? One can be a former professor and now work as a CEO but are you an academic? I can't say I identify as an academic..I don't think I ever did..but it is a floating description. But as you say some people can fit in to both worlds..I seen people retiring from business and spending their last working years teaching...from what I see they sure mastered both worlds and some people can move back and forth whilst others, perhaps introverts find their place in academia but not in management roles. Best wishes H

Dear All.

First, let put some notes on Kama Sutra. Attributed to Vātsyāyana (a social scientist who lived, accordingly to the tradition, as an ascetic), the Kama Sutra is neither exclusively nor predominantly a sex manual on sex positions, but written as a guide to the art of living well, the nature of love, finding a life partner, maintaining one's love life, and other aspects pertaining to pleasure-oriented faculties of human life. So the academics who know the whole Kama Sutra "by heart" may present to other people how to make their life full of love and other pleasures. This is what the science is -- to go beyond the single experience and the single side of every problem or phenomenon.

Talking seriously, the question merges two problems. To make academia relevant means to find the key deficit qualities (skills) and to teach how to develop these qualities and master these skills to the people who wish to master them. The first successful experience was the school of Confucius who developed in his students the two most deficit qualities of that period of the China's history -- honesty and fidelity. In the contemporary VUCAD world (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity, digitization) academia must find the key deficit qualities (I have my own opinion on this topic, but this may be a subject of a special discussion) and the technologies who to develop such qualities in a sufficient number of people.

The second part of the question -- how to make academics to live better -- has no universal solution as its a contingency-affected problem. Confucius himself traveled between his 50 and 70 from on court to another court of Chinese kingdoms but was unable to find a proper permanent job (and finally returned home).

We (academics) have to understand that in the real world (business world) this guys are looking for good performance, they have to show results ( profit). So, when academics are involved in consultancy or trainning programs, we have to demostrate financial benefits of our interventions, I mean we have to demostrate how our interventions have contributed to good results in the firm balance sheet. That is the point, althougt it sounds so materialistic but that is the way business world think.

I believe that the purposes and goals of academia and industry are different, or at least they should be (for now). While both are working towards the advancement of humankind, they operate at fundamentally different levels and satisfy different needs. On a rather simplified note, I would state that the industry provides products and services that solve practical problems to enhance the quality of life for the individual or the society as a whole. On the other hand, academia is involved in education and advancing fundamental knowledge. And we also have the research institutes that are somewhere in between. Education and research in academia are expected to prepare individuals capable to adapt to the needs of the industries. As a result of that, the workings of academia are becoming more intervened with their needs. This is particularly true for technology and engineering education. In industry, different companies have different needs and therefore approaches. While some companies just required very specific skills, others require more research-oriented skills. However, I wouldn’t like to see that academic higher (research-oriented) education shall focus on too specific needs of the industry. Academia should prepare individuals capable of identifying, stating, and solving problems by working on their own and also as a part of a team. A university graduate shall develop critical as well as creative thinking and become able to plan work systematically. So in my view in order to make academia relevant and academics more attractive, education and research should stand on solid fundamental knowledge and skills in the area of specialization. Academia shall prepare individuals that can learn by themselves, that solve problems creatively and that can adapt to social and intellectual environments, and to communicate efficiently both verbally and in writing. Working in industry is just the next learning step for which individuals shall be prepared to take. The industry should retrofit academia with real-life problems that require rigorous academic scrutiny.

Academics in the realization of creativity and optimization of samples, less theory, and more briefing practice will be creating the core value of the industry.

Equip students with the right skills for the labour market. For instance as a biomedical scientist, it is essential to learn practical skills such as PCR, western blotting and etc, which aren't emphasized that much even during the pre covid 19 period.

A sixth-grader in the department of chemistry still doesn't want to leave school, and he worries that getting into an industrial job is a meager salary. I explained in the management course that the industrial operation is a small bank, because the capital fit rate of the bank is eight times, and the enterprise has six times the capital operation rate, including forwarding accounts payable, bank loans, tax shield, immediate accounts receivable and other funds management, the marginal benefit of successful industrial operation lies in financial management. He actually heard and decided to graduate.

In the case of young scientists in the field of biomedical research is to be involved as soon as possible in a program of "translational research" (”from the lab bench to the hospital bed”).

More work, more creativity, more positivity.

I appreciate Prof. Henrik G.S. Arvidsson for the valuable and demanding topic. Would be interested to know as well.