What if one morning we all woke up to an Estonia without a single university? We could list all the things that would diminish or disappear: higher education, research, innovation, culture, international cooperation. It would be a long list. However, there is another way to approach this thought experiment.

When discussing universities, we usually ask what they provide for society. Which specialists need to be trained? Which scientific problems are in need of solutions? Which technologies should we develop? How to have universities' knowledge creation benefit society?

These are justified questions. But they share the key presupposition that we already know what society needs. In truth, we only have relatively limited knowledge of future needs. We do not know Estonia's main problems ten or 20 years down the line, which scientific achievements will change our lives or what the next generation will consider to be the most important mysteries.

This ignorance is where we need to start if we want to understand the meaning of universities in the modern world.

University as organized improbability

University could be defined as organized improbability. This at-first-glance strange designation points to one of the principle peculiarities of the institution.

When we need to build a bridge, we hire engineers. When we need new software, we order it from developers. In most cases, we start with a particular need and start looking for a solution.

What happens in universities is different. We give people time and resources to study questions the answers to which we do not ourselves know. What is more, we often do not even know what practical value those answers might have. Let us consider mathematicians who have spent centuries studying the properties of numbers without realizing how crucial a part of that knowledge would become for modern cryptography and cybersecurity.

If we proceeded solely from direct benefit, a large part of those activities would be rather difficult to justify. Yet, society has created a special institution that makes it possible to concentrate on questions the practical significance of which is not known in advance.

Naturally, this does not amount to random acts or the lack of accountability. On the contrary, universities seek knowledge using specific methods, in the conditions of professional criticism and in ways others can verify. Universities allow society to go where it did not know it was heading.

Why do we need such organized improbability? Mostly because the world is an unpredictable place. We do not know the next pandemic that might hit, which technologies might change the way we work and live or which security threats and environmental problems might require very different knowledge.

A society that only deals with known problems is inevitably vulnerable in the face of the future. That is why diplomas, scientific papers or patents, even though they are all necessary, are not the most important output of universities. Crucially, universities help society solve new problems, recognize new threats and create things that used to not exist.

The ability to know, do and imagine

The social contribution of universities can be summed up in three capabilities: the ability to know, do and imagine.

First, the ability to know. This means creating new knowledge, but also the ability to tell apart evidence-based facts and unfounded opinion, question recent convictions and admit the possibility of being wrong. A university does not limit itself to accumulating knowledge; it also constantly questions and, if necessary, reevaluates it.

Secondly, the ability to do. Universities train people who really know how to do things: doctors and teachers, engineers and lawyers, artists and entrepreneurs, scientists and public officials. Universities create new knowledge on which new technologies, services and organizations are based.

Third, the ability to imagine. This is worth a closer look as a task of universities that sometimes gets overlooked.

Society doesn't just need to answer existing questions; it needs people who can ask whether we're asking the right questions. Is the problem we're trying to solve the most important issue? Could things we hold to be natural and self-evident be done in an entirely different way.

This is where the role of humanities and social sciences, art, but also the basic sciences more broadly, comes in. History tells us how profoundly the world has changed in the past and how often people have considered their contemporary order as the only possible way of being. Art offers us the opportunity to experience and interpret the world differently from what we are used to, while science opens up new possibilities we never knew existed.

The most radical knowledge doesn't always provide us with new answers. Sometimes, it changes what we consider possible to begin with.

All of this holds special meaning for a small country like Estonia. We do not have to invent everything ourselves, develop every technology or pursue the best research in the world in every area. Research is an international affair and a huge opportunity for a small country. We can use knowledge created elsewhere, learn from others' experiences and participate in international scientific networks.

However, there is something we cannot fully import: the ability to decide which knowledge is key for our society. We also cannot delegate the responsibility of attaching meaning to our language, culture, history and society.

Estonian does not persist as a language of science and higher education on its own. For this to be the case, it must be possible to ponder and discuss the world's most complex problems in Estonian.

This does not mean the need to shut ourselves in; rather, the opposite is true. The smaller a country, the more international its universities need to be and the greater their responsibility in society. A small country's universities are, therefore, part of its intellectual independence. Without a strong university system, while we may continue using knowledge others have created, we will also become increasingly dependent on how others interpret out problems and the solutions they offer.

The impact of universities cannot be reflected in metrics

Talking about universities' social value, the question of how to evaluate their influence inevitably raises. How to make visible what universities give society?

Some effects are concrete and easily demonstrated. We can highligh a drug, technology, company or work of art. However, next to them, there are more ephemerial effects far more difficult to detect.

Let us imagine someone who graduated from university 20 years ago and now makes an important decision at a ministry, company or school. Maybe they're capable of it because the university taught them critical thinking, how to weigh different viewpoints and arrive at a decision in a complicated situation. How to quantify the effects of a university education in this case? How do we separate it from the person's experiences obtained later in life, which also shape their decisions?

The same question arises in the case of a scientific idea the significance of which becomes clear decades later or a piece of knowledge the value of which is simply that it's there when society unexpectedly needs it.

The long-term impact of universities might manifest in how people think, how society makes decisions or its ability to recognize new problems. This may not always make for a compelling success story, but that does not make the impact any less important.

This brings us to a key danger. Universities are increasingly required to prove their influence. We need to show what society gains from out activities, how quickly research translates into applications and just how much value we create. These are justified expectations. Universities largely operate with public funds and must be accountable for their activities.

The problem arises when we begin to regard measurable impact as the only impact that matters.

If research funding will come to hinge on the ability to explain in detail its practical applications, we will inevitably start preferring that which we already know. If the quality of higher education is measured solely by how quickly graduates land a job, we are giving preference to skills the labor market needs today. Overemphasizing short-term performance metrics risks universities avoiding activities the value of which is determined over a long time period.

This highlights a controversy. We expect from universities innovation, unexpected solutions and preparedness to help society manage the future. At the same time, we demand from them an increasingly comprehensive overview of what they plan to discover in said future.

If we knew what science was about to discover, we would no longer have need for the discovery. By taking away all uncertainty and unpredictability, we risk losing the organized improbability that makes universities so crucial for society's needs.

Universities do not predict the future but help shape it

Recent years' rapid development of artificial intelligence has given new meaning to universities' tasks. Until recently, one important role of universities was giving people access to knowledge. The professor knew something the student still didn't and helped them obtain it.

These days, a student can ask a chatbot just about anything and get back a thorough and often convincing answer in mere seconds. While convincingness is no guarantee of accuracy, the simple task of mediating information is no longer enough to justify the existende of universities.

When using artificial intelligence, the ability to know what to ask, whether the answer can be trusted, what assumptions it rests on and what it overlooks becomes especially important. One must also understand the consequences of using knowledge and how to take responsibility.

A good university should not compete with artificial intelligende in terms of who can provide an answer quicker. It is the task of universities to train people capable of doubting the answers when necessary and critically analyzing them. This takes us back to one of the oldest purposes of universities: teaching people how to think and make decisions.

There is a great deal of discussion these days about the skills of the future and the future labor market. We are trying to forecast what professions we will need ten of 15 years from now and adjust curricula accordingly. Of course, we need to take social and labor market changes into account. However, the future should not be shaped as something that is ready-made and the requirements of which we must accurately guess.

We do not know what the world will be like in 2040. It is likely that many of our current forecasts will prove inaccurate. But I believe we can say with a high degree of certainty what kind of people we will need: those who can learn new things, doubt their existing knowledge, work with others, fix complex problems and take decisions and responsibility for them in uncertain circumstances.

Therefore, the purpose of a university education cannot be limited to adjusting people to the world that will be. It must provide them with the knowledge, skills and courage to participate in shaping their own future.

Returning now to the thought experiment of what if there were no universities, I'm sure we could get by for a time. We would still have companies, schools, hospitals, theaters and ministries. However, over time, society's ability to renew itself, think critically, create new knowledge and handle problems we do not yet know would start to erode. Our ability to imagine a different future woul also suffer.

The value of universities is not just what they produce or which problems they solve, it also lies in what kind of a society they help us become.

This commentary is based on a presentation delivered at the Estonian Rectors' Conference roundtable discussion, "What If There Were No Universities?", held at the Estonian Academy of Music and Theatre on November 9, 2026.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!