I don't agree with everything that is in this post.
First:
The world of tomorrow is probably like that because the universities will not reform from making vast amounts of profit - who would, would it even be right to do so?
That probably only applies to a very small number of universities (in the US?). Many of them are actually dying because of large debts so that they can hardly sustain themselves.
Secondly, in the case where one would be an expert in a field, this means that one has acquired some knowledge about this field and that people can ask questions and one is able to provide answers or comments. It does not mean one will dictate the way of thinking of all the people in this field. This at least applies for experts in scientific domains (which does not contain dating experts :p ). Maybe a distinction is in order.
I agree.
The first:
It applies to most universities. I ask myself this: why are universities even in debt? If a university is good, why should it not get any support from the government? Even the idea that one has to pay for someone to learn is kind of misplaced. If one has interest in some domain it should be for free, knowledge is for all to use, not just for the selected few. Everyone deserves great education.
I have seen that some universities shorten the program just in order to save a few $. Not just in the U.S. I find that very concerning.
The second:
We do see that everything needs to become a scientific domain in order to get any recognition in the world. Knowledge can become acquired by simply saying you got it from this or that university. People do not ask the university what guarantees their own knowledge, usually they make a research on the topic, select a few other professions that have connections with it and teach it to students. Then they call the students of these collaborated domains, experts.
Thank you for the great comment.
I will talk about what I know. In France (where I live and work), the universities must manage themselves alone. Some are good and some are not. Some are also specialized in fields attracting external investors. Some are not. All of this together makes that most universities are not that rich, and I cannot imagine they look for profit. All the money my university is trying to get through donations is reinvested in better infrastructure, new libraries, student places, supporting fields of research not popular enough to get external fundings, etc. It is hard to me to conceive that a university is only aiming to make profit for profit. Do you have example?
For the second item, the point is that not everything is science (and should be science). But the terminology 'expert' is then maybe not appropriate. One may distinguish a scientific expert who is really a world-wide recognized expert of his/her field, and the other. Like a dating guru (I like this example). My students are not experts. I hope they will become at some point, but this takes more than attending a few lectures....