Only when students, academics, employers and politicians can agree what university is for will answers emerge

Have you noticed how swiftly online discussion about the UK's "graduate problem" descends into a slanging match, even on civilised websites like this one? Mention "Mickey Mouse degrees" and watch students, lecturers and employers scratch each other's eyes out. Everyone gets worked up but nothing is ever worked out. Journalists seem no clearer on the true cause of the problem they're reporting. It's the surge in the number of graduates. No, it's rising tuition fees. Or the recession. Or unpaid internships. Or that we have somehow raised an entire generation of arrogant, grabby young things who don't know the value of a day's work. Er, what was the question again?

What a muddle. No wonder we haven't found a solution – we can't even agree on what the problem is. So we keep going round in circles, all arguing about different things. What we need is a proper debate on the question that is fundamental to the entire graduate issue: What is university for? I've spent the last two years examining the graduate situation from all angles, and I've discovered a fatal communication glitch between the four key groups involved in this problem: the students, universities, employers and politicians. Ask each group "What is university for?" and you'll hear four very different answers. Why does this matter? Because without their agreement on such a basic question, the graduate problem won't be resolved – because the debate can't move forward.

Students think of university as an investment – of their time, their hard work and 15k-20k of their money. They make this investment because they think a degree will give them a leg-up into a well-paid job where they can pay off their student debt and start saving to buy a house. No wonder many are unimpressed by the prospect of an unpaid work experience placement. Universities see themselves as facilitators of academic study. To them, a degree is about the joy of learning – and students' work is rewarded with a qualification that recruiters should value. Although universities provide some careers advice, they feel it is not their responsibility to train students for the workplace. That is down to the employers.

But the employers disagree. They think university should equip young people with the skills needed to do a job – which, they say, university doesn't. Key work skills should be part of a degree, they say. They refuse to hire candidates who aren't work-ready, hence the unpaid internships.

Finally, the politicians have yet another view. To them, a better educated workforce means a stronger economy. It will make us the envy of other countries and lead to a brighter, more secure future for all. But they do not see the cost to the individual when parts of the system fail.

See what I mean?

The graduate problem is undoubtedly a complex one – and I don't have all the answers. However, I do believe that the solution must involve these four groups working collaboratively – and divvying up the problem between them so that each takes responsibility for their own part of the solution. In my opinion, students should take a more active role in determining their future – and employers should return to hiring graduates on potential rather than experience. Universities should stop running degrees they know have no real value – and completely overhaul their careers advice services. Politicians should support payment for internships and keep tuition fees as low as possible until we can all promise school pupils that yes, going to university is definitely a good idea. With a fresh batch of 470,000 students set to finish their undergraduate studies this summer and a further 205,000 completing postgraduate courses, we have no time to lose.