The former relates to the need of assessing the expansion of exploitation of assets. The market thinking of human capital needs to be changed and must be augmented to other capitals in order to have the full potential. Following, the second and third implication is respectively concerning issues of lifelong measuring and a respect for the need of all three capitals. The penultimate is further elaborated and stressing the case for a truly inclusive approach to the curriculum that addresses, alongside the economic, the social and identity functionings that in the end structures the quality of life. Finally, Schuller, Bynner and Fenstein stress the need for instruments which have room for interaction and holism. This broad point of view will give a better meaning to the returns of higher education.
3.12. Summary of Employability As shown in the prior sections, there seems to be a strong impetus for employability with a focus on the labour market within the field of higher education. It can be seen, that the industry has a strong voice when debating this. Given that they have acquired this power, they can more easily get through with their impetus – employability. Having this kind of power, it seems as if they have a strong say for what kind of studies the required skills can be acquired from and hereafter give access to specific jobs. This represents an issue that gives very little academic freedom, if possibility at all, for the students to compose different programs within higher education. When industry contains this power, there could be the possibility that studies become very field specific and narrow, that it in some way could be related to an industry-controlled meritocracy. The thinking on meritocracy, or the tightening bond between education, jobs and rewards, as described by Durkheim (1956), has dominated much of our thinking about education, employment, and social mobility throughout the last century. Additionally, it also has much in common with human capital assumptions concerning the increasing value of people rather than machines, as described earlier in this thesis. There is strong evidence that higher education policy makers are well aware of all of the above challenges they face. Provided that, there is little evidence that this has led to an integrated view of which stakeholders are to play what role in higher education.
64