I think the OP is implying through that this is creeping into top American university curricula. Having a Stanford degree in Comp. Sci. should correlate with interviewing success at relevant job openings for new graduates. This kind of "teaching to the test" and time spent on "job preparedness" is typical of community colleges and trade schools. They serve an important function, but it's distinct from the mission of a place like Stanford. As for the other aspects of job hunting school's career service department can and should handle the soft skills and referrals.
This comment reeks of elitism. In my experience, new grads from top American universities are incredibly intelligent, but their community college and trade school counterparts score much higher on job preparedness, an incredibly marketable and bankable skill. As someone with a top American university degree, I’d have loved a course in job preparedness, and have learned a ton from coworkers who have succeeded as Software Engineers and also attended community colleges and trade schools.
Universities exist to search for truth and to train future generations in the methods and results of the ongoing search for truth. We give these institutions donations and tax money so that they can be independent of the economy, and work on what the market won't. You could look at the National Science Foundation and other federal grant programs as a form of basic income, providing grad students with a minimal standard of living so that they can do the important intellectual work that private capital doesn't want to buy.
Job preparedness training is looked down upon within universities because it's the banal economy poking its nose where it doesn't belong. The industry or a professional association can and should develop job-preparedness-focused training programs to augment (as in law and medicine) or even replace (as in HVAC repair and precision machining) CS undergrad. Nothing wrong with that. They just don't belong in academic departments. Those are for something else, and industry's training needs shouldn't be subsidized.
An employer should value a relevant trade school degree more than it values a Bachelor's, unless it turns out that well-rounded intellectuals with exposure to the underlying discipline perform better than those with direct training in the relevant activities.
Thank you for taking the time to write this - very well thought out and well reasoned.
I don't think one can ignore the disconnect between the stated charter of top universities (basically to do research) and the motivations for the majority of undergraduates who actually attend them (prestige, which hopefully leads to a high paying job). I doubt that all donors give these institutions donations to further their research goals. I know for one that if I were given the option to focus the impact of my donation, I'd readily choose it be applied to a practical, skills-focused program within the research-focused university that I attended. Furthermore, the undergraduate programs of top private universities in the United States aren't funded by tax payer dollars - they're funded by sky-high tuition. As the OP shared a class applying to the undergraduate curriculum at Stanford, a tax money argument isn't relevant here. If the course were geared toward Masters or PhD students - different story.
Finally, universities seem incredibly resistant to re-evaluating their place in society in the 21st century economy -- at least in the U.S. From childhood, a college degree is pushed as a necessity for financial success. Top universities like Stanford are sought out not just for their academic rigor, but for the network and prestige afforded to their alumni, who can parlay these things into a strong career path and a high paying job. Univerisities seem deaf to this reality. I'm sure they understand it, but for whatever reason are reticent to acknowledge that their role in society and to the economy has evolved since their founding.
I think Stanford should be applauded for offering this course - would love to know how many students registered.
The reticence may be frustrating, but it shouldn't be mysterious. Why do we have libraries? Symphony orchestras? Art museums? We should not compromise university to meet workforce training needs, any more than we should pave over Central Park for office space.
That's not to say we ban career training (or office buildings), but some space is and ought to be reserved for other things.
Students seeking higher education for purely economic reasons are wrong to do so, and a gauntlet has been thrown to the business community to launch serious competitors that more directly address its training needs.
I think you have the Central Park analogy backwards here. What Central Park provides (nature and openness) is scarce among what surrounds it (an incredibly urban and dense landscape). On the contrary, research institutions compose the majority of top U.S. universities, and are not in danger of being supplanted by something else should they adapt their charters. Similarly, NYC wouldn't be putting it's urban character at risk by zoning more parks.
I have trouble understanding why there can be no middle ground between the status quo and pure vocational training. As I mentioned in a comment below, most arguments against middle ground that I've heard boil down to, at the core, nothing more than circular-reasoning like, "this is the way it's always been, and we want it to stay this way because things have always been this way." Why don't universities make an addendum to their charters to maintain the goal of being world-class research institutions AND provide pragmatic, real-world training? What sacrifice would be made? Would the quality of university research truly decline?
Whether students are wrong to pursue higher education for purely economic reasons is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. What is a fact is that many students do pursue higher education for purely economic reasons, because society tells them from a young age to do so, and it's reasonable to assume that a degree from a top institution in a technical field will lead to a high paying job. The business community certainly could do more to shoulder any perceived burden for professional training and/or certification; however, traditionally research-focused universities should also work to better support the motivations of the majority of their undergraduate (and paying) student body, as Stanford has done here.
>What Central Park provides (nature) is scarce among what surrounds it (an incredibly urban and dense landscape). On the contrary, research institutions compose the majority of top U.S. universities, and are not in danger of being supplanted by something else should they adapt their charters.
What universities provide (liberal education, basic research, etc.) is scarce among what surrounds them (capitalism). Time is finite; the more of it we spend on workforce training, the less of it there is for an undergraduate education's current content.
Maybe the current content is not worthwhile, so we may as well gut it and reuse the facilities/framework for vocational training, but surely you recognize that doing so makes the current content less available.
>traditionally research-focused universities should also work to better support the motivations of the majority of their undergraduate (and paying) student body
Customer-service mindset is a poor fit for education. If "the customer is always right," why bother with teaching?
This mentality is why an entire generation of college graduates is completely unemployable. If you’re going to take this approach, fine, but let’s be honest about it and stop telling kids that university exists for any reason other than to let rich people futz around with intellectual naval-gazing, and let’s stop sending kids to college when what they really need is marketable skills.
Exactly. I don't understand why universities aren't willing to make an addendum to their charters to be both research and job-skills focused. I've yet to hear a good argument for why this can't be done. In my opinion, most arguments boil down to "because we've never done it that way."
