The national #FeesMustFall campaigns reminded me of a delightful advertisement of the 1990s – for Hansa Pilsener. The irony of students and a popular alcoholic beverage is not lost on me – and their actions did not compel me to reach for the liquid ‘solution’.

But I digress. Picture the scene. In a bar, four men are seated at the counter, three shoulder to shoulder and the forth to the side. In front of the three are coins stacked to the exact amount required for a single serving. Starting from the left, the first man raises his hand from the counter and goes on to push the stacked coins towards the bartender, whose name is Lofty, uttering a single word: “Lager.” The other two then emulate him. After they have made their requests, a fourth patron, sitting at the end of the bar, turns to Lofty and says: “Pilsener.” The three men, in utter shock, jerk their heads in the direction of the man, and on making eye contact, faint and fall off their bar stools. Lofty, not accustomed to such a ‘radical’ request, also faints.

You might be confused as to what this has to do with the national #FeesMustFall campaigns. Well, as an economics professor of mine used to say, “if you are not confused, then you do not have all the facts.” Let me contextualise. In response to the national campaigns staged at South Africa’s universities, with more ‘vigour’ and determinations at some than at others, President Jacob Zuma quickly issued a statement – preferring notto address the students – that, in 2016, university fees would be kept unchanged – a zero percent increase. This resulted in a mad scramble by university authorities but, strangely, not by the Department of Higher Education and Training, to issue statements aluding to the fact that they now intend to locate alternative sources of revenue to fund the anticipated revenue shortfall. To my knowledge, this is all that has been done. The ‘lager, lager, lager’ mentality. You might even say that collectively they had drawn a ‘laager’ (leaguer) – a concept that is well known in my culture.

Either way, this is a curious response for institutions of higher learning. It is a huge indictment. So, the solution lies in the mere identification of alternative sources of revenue, and for these to be reallocated. Wow! This is not particularly intelligent or innovative, which one would have associated with universities attracting and employing the ‘brightest minds’ in the country.

Apparently, our universities have not heard about the concept of ‘thinking outside the box’ (also known as ‘thinking out of the box’ or ‘thinking beyond the box’), which some prefer to call a catchphrase or even a cliché. ‘Thinking outside the box’ means to think differently, unconventionally or from a new perspective. It refers to novel or creative thinking. But it would come as no surprise should one discover that universities had conferred an array of PhDs on those who researched the theory(ies) on the origin, conception and design of the box. “Focus! Focus!” I can hear my professor’s words echo.

If you think that ‘thinking out of the box’ is Mickey Mouse, you might well be on to something. In the 1970s, motivational speaker Mike Vance was employed by Walt Disney Productions, Disneyland and Walt Disney World to teach them the then unknown concept that subsequently became engrained in their corporate culture. The title of Vance’s training manual was ‘Out-of-box thinking’, for which he employed the ‘nine-dots box puzzle’, shown below. The ‘nine-dots puzzle’, however, is much older, having first appeared in Sam Loyd’s 1914 Cyclopedia of Puzzles. (Vance’s link to Disney did not end there; after Steve Jobs was kicked out of Apple Computers, he engaged with Vance, who told him ‘Disney stories’, which, it is said, contributed to Jobs’ interest in computer animation with Pixar. Disney subsequently brought Pixar from Jobs, forming Disney·Pixar.)

The ‘nine-dots puzzle’ offers an intellectual challenge – to connect the nine dots by drawing four or fewer straight, continuous lines that pass through each of the dots, never lifting the pencil/pen from the paper.

If you are tempted to solve the puzzle, the answer can be found on page 74, at the end of this article. At the heart of the matter is the unspecified, imagined or assumed barrier.

So, how can universities think outside the box? They could start by remembering the reasons for their existence. Yet, looking at any South African university today, one might conclude that it was established for administration. Universities’ interest seems to lie in administration, and not lecturing – the lifeblood of a university. According to articles published on http://businesstech.co.za on October 20 and in the Sowetan on October 21, the vice chancellors/principals of ten of South Africa’s universities collectively earned R28.7-million a year, or an average of R2.87-million. This may well exclude incentives. It would be interesting to know the full extent of the universities’ administration salary bills, and what lecturing staff – those physically standing in front of the students – are paid. It would make for interesting comparison.

One can already anticipate the reaction to such a statement. You would be told that they are no longer universities but large companies. Really? But how effective are they? According to research by Jodie Taylor, of Biznews, the current drop-out rate at universities is 60%, which equates to a R12-billion financial loss a year. This in itself is troublesome on so many levels.

The universities do not mention exactly how many degrees, diplomas and certificates they offer. I did not conduct a scientific study, but it seems that universities generally tend to have nine faculties and 144 departments. I would venture to guess that, as far as qualifications (degrees, diplomas and certificates) are concerned, each department offers an average of about ten qualifications.

This raises the question as to why universities should offer such a wide range of qualifications, and also why they offer tuition in certain disciplines at all. There are some downright useless qualifications. You, no doubt, know them well. Think of one. Now, ask yourself: What would a person with such a qualification ask you? Do you want chips or salad with that? (I attribute these wise words to my mother.) Though you might take this to be a joke, many a truth is spoken in jest.

I believe that, instead of offering a laundry list, an ever growing one, of academic qualifications, the qualifications should be severely rationalised, particularly in an economy that is not even able to breach the 1.5% yearly economic growth level. It is unreasonable to offer academic qualifications that offer no, or hardly any, economic return to the country. If we do not, we might well find remedial work being done by degreed people – that is what the economy will do, if there is no intervention. We simply cannot tolerate more wasteful expenditure.

In addition to rationalising academic qualifications, government should be ruthlessly discriminatory in offering subsidies, providing full support for qualifications that the economy needs, less support for qualifications that are less desirable, and nothing for those that are not desirable at all. If we do not go this route, South Africa will, without a shadow of a doubt, have the best-qualified unemployed and/or unemployable people in the world.