Because governments feel the need to be doing things, ministers like to drop eye-catching - in their eyes – proposals they think will appeal to voters.

What other reason can there be for the government to unveil a plan to curb universities from offering students places on degree courses which it believes are not rigorous or academically testing enough.

The plan will oblige universities to drop courses that do not deliver what is described as good outcomes, such as a high drop-out rate or the proportion of students going on to professional jobs.

It is an attractive template: why not widen it out to rate the quality of our MPs? We all know the answer to that and it’s a slightly frivolous suggestion but it’s not the only sector in need of reform.

Back to the debate and in particular the questions over the methods and possible subjects the Prime Minister - privately and Oxford-educated - has in mind.

There has been a lot of speculation around the subjects that might be axed but ministers have been vague and resistant to declaring specific courses, presumably for fear of destabilising what remains of their education.

The commonly-used pejorative term deployed is to label them as ‘Mickey Mouse’ courses, which is seriously misplaced.

A business valued at $180 billion in 2015 is not a failing business by any stretch, yet the claim is often made that it is. Mickey is considered to be the most valuable asset in Walt Disney’s multibillion-dollar portfolio.

So, the question remains about the government’s motive and if you’re looking for clues, you might find it in a review of subjects taken by GCSE students.

This review more than a decade ago was triggered by concerns that schools were picking ‘easier’ subjects for children taking GCSEs to aid compliance with the government’s targets for improvements; schools were entirely within their rights to do this, which explains the proliferation of subjects like religious affairs and some vocational exams, dubbed ‘trowel’ by their critics.

The suspicion is the government has its eye on university courses that are easier to get on to through lower offers or are easier to pass - such as hospitality management and that familiar bete noire, media studies.

A bit more rigour is not necessarily a bad thing; what is, however, is downgrading some courses perceived to be of less value.

If the government has had enough of golf management or surf science, it has had plenty of time to act before now.

And if the government’s masterplan for higher education should be about anything, then its main focus must be on the thorny issue of loans and fees.