In April The Irish Times published a series of articles written by the former registrar of University College Dublin, Prof John Kelly, in which he took a sceptical look at the changing world of third-level education.
One major question posed in the articles was whether the move away from traditional models of university education towards a more vocational or "relevant" approach was compatible with John Henry Newman's view that a university should impart "thought" or "reason", rather than "learning" or "acquirement".
Another was whether we could maintain intellectual quality and integrity in a setting in which new courses, programmes or even disciplines were being constantly developed, some with doubtful academic credentials.
Newman delivered his Idea of a University in nine "discourses" in 1858 "to the Catholics of Dublin"; and it is undoubtedly right that, in the city which contains the direct descendant of the institution he founded, nearly 150 years after he delivered the talks, there should be some review of what his thoughts might mean for us today.
He took as one of his starting points the charge which had been made against his old university, Oxford, that its studies suffered from "their remoteness from the occupations and duties of life . . . or, in other words, their inutility".
In considering this, he concluded that "there is a knowledge worth possessing for what it is, and not merely for what it does", and that "education is simply the cultivation of the intellect" (Dis- course 5). In other words, knowledge is an end in itself, and does not need to be connected with a more functional purpose.
Newman's Idea is often used today to back the notion that a "true" university education should not be vocational, or that "education" needs to be distinguished from "training".
This is sometimes extended to suggest that higher education institutions that conduct programmes of study or engage in research on the basis of the practical "relevance" of the topic are outside the proper framework of university tradition. At its most extreme, I have heard it said that the only respectable university subjects are those which are "completely useless".
If we are going to use Newman for this sort of argument, then we need to remember that he was not talking to a 21st-century Dublin audience. The point Newman needed to make in his discourses was that a Catholic university, with the perspective and methodology which inspired its founders and backers, was every bit as respectable and intellectually coherent as the established institutions of the day.
But the world in which he lived, and the academic setting in which he had been trained, were not remotely comparable to anything today.
There is no obvious reason why universities alone should be untouched by the momentous changes which have since affected our understanding of education, of science, of society and of knowledge itself. Universities are not monuments, but living institutions with a vital social purpose. This social purpose has not changed since 1858, but the means of achieving it have.
The point is important for three reasons. First, nostalgia is not a good educator. Once we slip into a frame of mind where we believe there was a "golden age" in which they did these things much better, we become incapable of effective change and stagnate.
Whether we like it or not, everything changes, and our task as academics is not to bemoan the change, but to harness it or, where it is doubtful, to improve on it.
Second, we tend to compartmentalise academic knowledge into what are called "disciplines". In medieval times universities tended to recognise only three disciplines: theology, mathematics and philosophy. In the 19th century the recognised disciplines were fairly arbitrarily extended to cover the basic natural sciences and certain professional subjects.
While there have been some adjustments, and some new interdisciplinary studies have been added in some universities, the 19th-century academic "settlement" remains basically intact.
The world has changed, and we have tended to forget that the original "disciplines" were chosen not necessarily because they were based on distinct intellectual tools, but because they related most closely to the needs of the time. Why else, for example, would the completely vocational subjects of engineering and law have been accepted as academic disciplines?
As knowledge develops and expands, and as exciting links are forged between a variety of branches of learning and discovery, we need to ensure that university studies and research manage to keep pace and to lead the search for new insights.
THIRD, today's population is infinitely more educated and informed than any previous generation. It is inconceivable, and certainly undesirable, that there can ever again be a social elite with an elitist claim to better knowledge and a greater understanding and the right to leadership.
Because of the immense demographic and social changes of the past 100 years or so, it has become much more feasible to conduct cutting-edge research completely outside the university system.
It is estimated that 80 of the 100 most important scientific discoveries in the world this year will involve no universities or university staff. As a university president, this alarms me, and I must have it as one of my primary aims that we will play a much greater part in scientific achievement.
But if we hold ourselves aloof from the bodies and institutions which will promote and pioneer these discoveries, then we will not only play no part in them, but we will become much less attractive places for those talented individuals who will be the inventors and innovators - and even the artists and writers - of tomorrow.
The principles of Newman's Idea are as valid today as in 1858. His key statement was that a university fulfils its role when it "educates the intellect to reason well in all matters, to reach out towards truth, and to grasp it". The key aims of intellectual curiosity, freedom and integrity are as important as ever. But the institutional methods have changed, and will keep on changing.
Today's university needs to be integrated in a much wider knowledge community and to network with it; it needs to be an engine of creating wealth, of improving social conditions and of promoting discovery, as well as educating and equipping people of all ages. It cannot do this with the tools of a bygone age, and it cannot do it if it constantly fears contamination by the outside world.
Queen Victoria once famously advised her daughter to stay away from university dons because they "mix with all classes of society and are therefore dangerous". To be really true to its mission, a university must not be comfortable in its traditions, and must not be insulated from society, but must be an institution which would have successfully alarmed the queen.