The departure of Berlusconi has sparked a reflection on the impact of his governments. If we look at the few reforms that were not personally related to him, we find those concerning the school and the university. In July 2010, a journalist from a European publication asked then-Prime Minister S.B. for explanations about the reforms by Minister Gelmini, which, along with other legislative measures, cut approximately 8.5 billion euros from schools and 1.3 billion from universities, never to be recovered. Berlusconi responded with a rhetorical question: “Why should we pay a scientist if we make the best shoes in the world?”

This happened just after the economic crisis of 2008, and the response of the Italian government, almost the only one in Europe, was to cut resources in a critical sector like education and research. In 2012, University of Chicago economist Luigi Zingales explained the objective to Michele Santoro: “There are one billion and four Chinese and one billion Indians who want to see Rome, Florence, and Venice. We need to prepare for this. Italy has no future in biotechnology because, unfortunately, our universities are not at that level, but it has a huge future in tourism. We need to prepare for this, not waste money.”

The 2008 crisis was an opportunity to reshape the entire education system in light of the legend of the “educational gap,” meaning that the technical and professional needs expressed by businesses did not match the available skills in the job market. According to this narrative, the education system was inadequate to the needs of businesses and thus needed reform. This idea united the authors and supporters of the Gelmini reform, including the enthusiastic “Bocconi boys.” In 2012, economists and intellectuals from this sphere entered the political arena with the formation of “Fare per fermare il declino,” which collapsed after the discovery that the prime ministerial candidate Oscar Giannino had fake degrees from the University of Chicago. Others, in a more sober tone, applauded, outlining their stance with subtle distinctions on the LaVoce.info website.

All the Ministers (except the short-lived Lorenzo Fioramonti) who have held office from 2008 to the present day have reinforced the Gelmini reform’s framework without addressing the underfunding of universities. Similar trajectories have been observed in school policies. This happened because the maîtres à penser of Gelmini remained in their leadership positions in politics even when the governments apparently changed their colors: Bocconi advisors enjoyed bipartisan credibility because they were considered “deserving and competent.”

The ultimate goal was twofold. First, to reduce staff and school hours, reshaping the aims and functions of the school system, and diverting resources to an external apparatus for standardized measurement of its alleged quality, led for years by officials from the Bank of Italy. Second, to introduce and consolidate political control over university research. An informational booklet prepared by the Renzi government titled “Investing in Italy” reminds us of the real function of the education system: “An engineer in Italy earns an average of €38,500 a year, while in other countries, a similar profile has an average annual salary of €48,500.” In other words, Italy seeks low-cost technicians. But if there is no demand for highly educated professionals from the “market,” why invest in education? Political control over research is guaranteed by the Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research (ANVUR), which is supposed to promote “merit.” No country in the European Union or even the United Kingdom has an agency with comparable powers and competencies to the Italian one, founded, it is worth remembering, by Minister Fabio Mussi in the second Prodi government. The leadership of ANVUR is politically appointed, so politicians, in addition to influencing general regulations governing researchers’ careers and funding, control them by dictating bizarre methods for evaluating scientific research. This has resulted in increased competition among researchers, paradoxically accompanied by a lack of competition between alternative research lines. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the history of science knows that new ideas arise from diversifying research, not from adhering to the so-called mainstream.

Unfortunately, the absence of a political vision and genuine interest from the productive sector has not only narrowed the university system but has also stifled the cultural impact of academia: schools and universities are seen as vocational training institutions. Sadly, the attack on universities has been bipartisan, with no signs of repentance.