Another week, another restructure as an institution prunes loved but faded courses from the curriculum. Management cites cost over-runs; union mourns loss of another curriculum icon.

Students, meantime, rarely bat an eyelid and rush off to their part-time jobs, oblivious to the decline of another branch of knowledge - and often not caring deeply even if they are aware. They are the ones, after all, who are declining to enrol in areas that don’t interest them.

As universities prepare themselves for some growth in 2012 and a substantial growth in 2013 and beyond, two key factors boost the level of angst when programs are closed down – shortcomings in internal communications, and ongoing discomfort with the role of marketing.

I was discussing the perilous plight of university finances with some senior academics last week. Many institutions have failed miserably at bridging the communication divide between senior management and academics at the coalface. Stymied by silos, Machiavellian power plays and geographic separation, staff at the coalface often seem to have no concept of the economic realities of modern education – usually through no fault of their own. Information about university finances is often secretive and usually presented in a very dull manner, despite its consequence and value to even the lowliest of staff on the organisational chart.

The massive decline in Federal funding for Australian universities in recent decades has left an extraordinary funding gap, filled largely with additional student revenue and the odd philanthropic dollar. If student revenue falls, research intensive universities must either cut research activity (already cross-subsidised by student revenue) or cut programs which don’t pay for themselves. In many cases, the money-losing programs get the axe. Despite all the complex income projections, debate over whether a profit (sorry revenue surplus) is required and finger pointing over expenses, this explains a large majority of program closures.

Poor internal communications is exacerbated by the large workload of academic staff and the ongoing failure of universities to foster meaningful, large-scale cross-disciplinary interaction. The majority of academic staff live within the prism of their department and / or faculty, and messages from HQ about overspends and costs are generally subject to an unhealthy degree of scepticism.

Improved messaging to make key messages interesting, concise and relevant needs to be delivered via multiple layers of hierarchy within the institution to begin to overcome the internal communication challenge.

A greater challenge lies with the role of marketing. Once treated as a black word in universities, there is a growing, albeit grudging acceptance of the role of marketing in bolstering student numbers and research profile.

However, when a course has few students, is it the fault of the course delivery, or the marketing? In most heavily siloed institutions, this is the subject of intense debate, as course curriculum is the sole preserve of academics and marketing the sole preserve of a remote group of individuals with a large budget at HQ.

In reality, the answer is both. Much of the challenge of marketing university courses lies simply in telling clearer stories about strengths and points of difference. The challenge in redeveloping curriculum is to amplify those points of difference so that students can experience real ‘value’ that they will be able to call on when they roll up to a job interview.

How much will the deregulated domestic market of 2012 and beyond result in a curriculum bent to reflect student demand – and how much should we work to shape student demand so that future scholars will understand the value of what we need to teach? That balance goes far beyond petty finger pointing in the Vice-Chancellor's waiting room and requires institutions to show leadership, innovation and also marketing savvy in order to ensure Australia is best served by the evolution of its higher education system. That balance is only going to be achieved as academic and marketing staff collaborate more effectively – with marketers girded to show value in some unpopular but worthy disciplines and academics prepared to support contemporary repackaging of fundamental learning. And perhaps even accept that some students want to be treated as ‘customers’.