>>The purpose of Universities is to uphold, expand and disseminate human culture, not to prepare people for a career in the industry.

Like, I personally agree with you, but then I also think that we don't have the right to define it as such. There's plenty of people who think that the main goal of a university(at least in scientific/engineering fields) should be to prepare people for working in the industry.

Equally, I see nothing wrong with courses which are specifically designed for this. I myself have finished a "Games Engineering" masters which boasted about close links to the industry, and over 90% hire rate in the industry after - and I got exactly what was promised. I don't see any issue with that personally. I also have friends who had their entire PhDs funded by companies like Red Hat, because they were researching things done in collaboration with them. Also don't have any issue here, and that made sure that my friends not only paid nothing for their PhDs, they were actually pretty well compensated throughout.

I think the perspective changes when you have to pay for university. My sister has a degree in film making from a British university, which she paid nealy £60k(!!!!) for, and her chances of employment in the industry are nearly zero. Where I'm from(Poland)_all higher education is free, and then I have no problem with degrees not correlating with employment(but then maybe on the other hand, as a Polish tax payer, maybe I would prefer that they did, otherwise why are we paying these people to study with no employment prospects afterwards. Again, I don't really think that but I know many people do).

> should be to prepare people for working in the industry.

There used to be a system of education here in the UK called vocational colleges (or sometimes courses) where you would do exactly this, prepare for work in the industry - and industry would be involved in helping shape the curriculum, giving students work experience etc.

This has fallen out of favour a lot, it still exists for trades activities like plumbing, electrician, bricklaying/building etc. but you won't find a software engineering course

The entire vocational system in the UK was gutted by Thatcher 40 years ago - the employers did not want to pay the levy

Recently the government tried to bring back "apprenticeships" but this was abused very hard by retailers to pay shelf stackers 1/2 the minimum wage.

What does 'plenty of people' mean; any evidence? Who should be asked or does anyone's opinion qualify to be taken into account?

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking for to be honest. It's not like the role of every university in the world is quantifiable or that we have some central authority figure who could say one way or another. Plenty of people because clearly there is a push from both universities and from the industry to craft courses that are oriented more towards work than academia. Plenty of people, because enough students seek out courses which guarantee employment, not research, that this is a shifting focus for many places of study. If you have someone you suggest we should ask or whose opinion you would respect, then name them.

Students today have become quite reliant on Google Docs essentially putting almost all of their classwork out on the web. What if it were to fail? That’s different than it used to be when each student needed to handwrite or type up a paper without SAAS that could break, and those students aren’t prepping to work for Google.

> What if it were to fail?

isn't that the price you pay for using any online sharing thingy? you gain easy sharing+access (because it's "on someone else's computer"), but lose control. if it makes information easily accessible (contrast with xeroxing paper docs), i think it's a decent trade-off.

it'd be nice if we weren't reliant on one service provider, but idk any good alternatives.

> those students aren’t prepping to work for Google.

i don't get this part. would you criticize the widespread usage of MS Office as "those people aren't prepping to work for Microsoft"?

And I’m pretty happy that students use nowadays google docs. Sure, it’s propiertary and can break at any point, but man if it does not make collaboration easier.

So: total reliance on someone giving something away for free that could break or be taken away at any time and you have no privacy- that’s ok, even if they’re not going to hire you later?

What?

At any time, you can download your google docs data and have it locally. You can convert it to word/excel formats.

This makes anything you are trying to argue completely irrelevant.

If they basically forced you to keep your data in their proprietary format online-only, then maybe you have an argument.. but since this is not true you are grasping at straws here.

I trust Apple more than a random TV manufacturer. Sure, it’s not perfect but i don’t want to completely cut off myself from the TV App ecosystem.

That was the purpose of universities when the student populations were smaller, wealthier, and more focused on actually learning about the world. But decades ago the US culture shifted to "everyone must go to college as a prerequisite for getting a job", so now the focus of most programs had damn well better be preparing students to actually get a job or else the absurd cost and student debt incurred is simply not worth it.

Respectfully, you can't tell universities what their purpose is unless you're prepared to fund it. When these places got the majority of their funding from the state, the state could expect high minded ideals and social outcomes. But now their not, universities need to cater to their customers. Their customers are students, they expect a degree, an "experience" and a job at the end. Universities either need to provide that, or close.

That's because money is king in the US, but in many other countries universities are affordable for everybody. And I am indeed very happy that my taxes go to universities after I myself benefited from it.

The big problem in the US is the older population who paid $20k and up for their college tends to get upset at the idea of free college because they had to “work for that $20k.” This, of course, ignores the ridiculous inflation rate of college tuition.

It’s also why many people are upset at the idea of forgiving student loans. “I spent $20k for my degree, but Person X got into med school and is $250k in debt on their own will. Make them pay for it!”

There’s some parallels between making college/university free and the free K-12 education mandates decades ago. (Yes, it’s not “free free” but “taxed to be free”, but that’s beside the point)

Also, people don’t want their taxes raised when there’s no benefit to them. If one’s kids have all graduated, you see no reason to pay more money and get nothing in return.

>Their customers are students

Don't forget about all the big whale donors too. Universities really enjoy receiving millions of dollars for endowments, scholarships, and capital projects. So they may cater to the needs and desires of those constituents.

>> The purpose of Universities is to uphold, expand and disseminate human culture, not to prepare people for a career in the industry.

Well, speak for yourself. The majority of people in my classes absolutely had in mind going to industry after their studies. There's nothing wrong with that. Those two goals, being prepared for industry AND science aren't mutually exclusive.

My universities tech department had strong contacts to large industry players (not for software, but military applications for example).

Advantage was that we had very modern equipment (electrics, robotics, measuring instruments, ...) that would otherwise have crashed the budget of the university.

It wasn't a secret that industry tried to influence the curriculum to get students to be trained in technologies and tools they themselves use. It is clear they tried to poach students.

I understand the objection though and other departments constantly berated this closeness and they certainly had a point because the generality of education was endangered.

With big-tech in software there are some additional risks in my opinion.

That said, there is merit of feedback from industry to university. It is especially helpful to not let students learn about outdated approaches and tech and keep academia in the know.

But that has to be a transparent forum without some maybe not so moral gifts from industries.

Pretty much all schooling in the modern world is basically a means by which corporations externalize job training. The general public is not blameless either, having equated schooling with job prospects for a long, long time. Consequently, almost no actual education occurs at school. I have a friend who tells a story about meeting a 4.0 student from one of the highest rated high schools in the country who honestly wasn't sure which side the US fought on in WWII.

Did the 4.0 student cheat?

I would argue that universities have two tasks: 1. Do research to expand knowledge. 2. Educate new researchers. Big tech just wants highly skilled researchers in their workforce, but there only N students graduating every year. So it is only logical for them to "help" (can be good or bad) the university so n+m students graduate. But the bad thing is that the push for more education can negativly impact the available research time professors have.

> Big tech just wants highly skilled researchers in their workforce

Are you really sure that big tech wants these people in their workforce? At least the typical tech job interview process tests for quite different skills.

Big tech is already choosing most of what you watch on your screens.

For example if Google decides that something doesn't exist, 90+% of connected people won't see it.

This is scary.

Originally it was to train the Clergy :-)

You are right your supposed to learn the theory at UNI Tech companies want to avoid the cost of training / career development - to many MBA/Accountants.

Uhh, this has been happening for over 25 years now.

One of the reasons is there are just too many students. How this came to be is another rabbithole though.

Too many students than can be supported in the educational commons from interested society.

It is in the interest of society as a whole to have a better-educated population. That means support for individuals being educated must come from all members of society -- in other words, it's a government domain funded through taxes. Absent common support, the interests of specific groups, mostly corporate shareholders expecting fat quarterly results, will come to dominate.

It is in the interest of "society" because a better educated population can pay more taxes than a non educated population. If you do not have increased job prospects after successfully going to university then you are actually a net negative to society because not only was your education expensive, it also took away 5 working years from you.

If a more educated population was better then we would keep accumulating more degrees until we die instead of working.

Don't confuse value to society with taxes. Rich people are valuable and they pay no taxes so there is obviously a poor or no correlation.

Also, don't confuse a degree with education. Apprenticeships and technical training are also education.

That is your opinion, not a fact. Meanwhile in NL we have to import carpenter/plumber/drywall laborers, because ... we discourage choosing such a career for our own population and don't provide the education anymore. In the not so distant past, we did.

What a lot of software 'engineers' in NL rather don't see is that you can make a very very healthy living as a 'drywaller' ( not a native speaker, can't find the word ). You can easily make more than as a software dev.

The general population just is not as malleable ( Dutch: maakbaar? ) as boomers would like to believe. So at the bottom we have an entire cohort who used to work in factories or the building industry, who rely on financial support.

The first 'food bank' in NL was started in 2000. Why?

People tend to run away from physical, backbreaking work.

It's hard to do this kind of job when you're 50 or 60 and with physical work the risk of death or injury is also higher.

Plus it's harder to move up the financial and social ladder.

Ah, well, this might help to explain to said cohort that instead of having a vocational training, they should study to become an Ethical AI scientist.

We should not forget their predicament is in their own making after all. It definitely sleeps better.

The bad news for your approach is that these people still have to be integrated in society, they don't just vanish upon graduating "Ethical AI".

Wasn't his suggestion that you should look for jobs that are actually in demand (someone still has to do physical labor) and don't necessarily require higher education?

Yeah, but you still need some qualifications for those. I don't think you can just apply for a welding position as J. Random, off the street.

Pardon my ignorance, but what does integrated in society actually mean?

If they can't find jobs or fall on hard times because of it, they still need to be helped. Shelter, food, etc.

Then maybe we, as a culture, should work harder on not looking down on people who do the actual labor of keeping civilization afloat.

Well, good luck with that.

It's pretty much universal that people appreciate some kinds of work and look down on others.

Mike Rowe did a lot of good work promoting more respect for traditionally looked-down-upon jobs. It is just a matter of changing cultural narrative.

Not really. People look down on jobs that pay less for the cost in work and health.