I don't think it's a good idea to teach students whatever is currently en vogue in the industry. If you for some reason need to have an applied subject at a university instead of a vocational school you should call it Software Engineering or whatever.
All of whom spend all of their degree on practical, applied learning. And have done for decades/centuries.
If you then want to go into research in those fields you do a PhD. The vast majority of their graduates go into industry.
And of course, the vast majority of CS students go into industry, just woefully under-prepared, unlike other disciplines.
There's no reason for CS to stay theoretical only. The field of computer science/engineering/making/whatever you want to call it doesn't need loads of researchers, it needs loads of practical, professionally trained, programmers.
The ridiculous defence that it's computer science not engineering is so over and dead and that ship sailed decades ago. It's just a name. Just like a PhD, a Doctor of Philosophy, in History doesn't make you an expert in Philosophy, it's just a name.
The architects don't all learn abstract obscure theory, they spend a(crazy) amount of time doing drafts and models. The engineers don't all learn irrelevant and out of date techniques. The pharmacists spend half their time in labs. As do the chemists. The doctors have to do rounds on real wards.
So why in CS is your defence that a university is a research institution?
That's simply not true, and looking at any other discipline shows how wrong you are.