Imagine teaching a legal class a fictional legal system. Philosophically there's likely great value but I doubt people wanting to practice law would favour courses with that as a focus.

I agree that University courses shouldn't purely be vocational training; there's value to personal growth and pure academia that doesn't have a 1-1 overlap with the corporate world.

That said I certainly appreciate that my time at University has been largely applicable at work. Doing both where possible is likely a valuable goal.

Many law courses spend time on Roman law, and on archaic English law.

Roman law and old English law were actually used in real legal systems, and they are studied because they are the basis for the legal system we use today

I disagree with your second statement. I think they're studied because they are simple working legal systems which are easier to reason about than modern ones.

Arguably these legal systems are the conceptual basis for our modern law system because they are used pedagogically in this way.

In the US (and other countries) Roman and English Law are the "common law" and or "natural rights" that are referred to but generally not stipulated.

"New" governments had a habit of writing up founding documents that focus on the "new stuff" and waving in "all the old stuff" that doesn' conflict with the "new stuff" via a few throwaway phrasings.

As an aside, a class about fictional legal systems sounds quite fun. Then again, I like conlangs too

In school I learned about MIPS architecture, which is fairly straightforward although not in use as much as the more complex x86-64 architecture.

I have worked as a programmer for years and at work have had absolutely zero times I have needed to know x86-64 commands like ADD, JMP, MOV etc.

Actually it is good I learned about other processors since once on a personal project, I compiled C code but it ran different on little endian and big endian chips. If I hadn't learned about other architectures I would have been more perplexed.

As someone else said, law schools teach about Roman law and other forms of law not immediately vocationally valuable. Also - I learned something about non-standard computer architecture as an undergrad, and many people go on to become programmers with a BSCS, lawyers typically go on to get a JD after doing undergrad.

> legal class

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about computer architecture?

I went to law school. One of the mandatory courses was on roman law. Another was on philosophy of law. Both had zero practical direct value for a working lawyer.

This describes every American law school of which I am aware, where students learn a generalized version of the law through Restatements and study of salient appeals courts decisions, both state and federal.

Barring concerted effort, a U.S. law student will not leave school with detailed knowledge of any particular jurisdiction.

Then graduates take the bar, where they are more or less quizzed on 18th century English common law, because most states use a bar exam that is not specific to each state’s law.

> Universities aren’t corporate training grounds.

So the ridiculous fees that correlate to average wages of the profession you graduate into is just a weird coincidence?

There are no fees for University. See how fun it is when you assume how it is in your country is the same in all the other countries in the world?

So there are no universities that do what I’ve mentioned?

See how fun it is when you assume how it is in your country is the same in all the other countries in the world?

So in your country where the government pays the fees (I’m going to assume that is what you mean by “no fees” as I imagine academics are paid in this country), they do so because they care so much about the wellbeing of academia… or do you think the higher income graduates earn plays a role in increased taxation? Or do you live in a country without income tax?

Funny how people want to attack what you say, rather than refute your actual point: Universities (today) are corporate training grounds.

Rent seeking causes that correlation (so there is actually a causal relationship): Some professions require certain university degrees. They pay high wages. Universities found out they can extract a rent on future earnings of potential entrants. So you could actually argue that by requiring the degree the firms not only create the rent extraction, but also de facto agree on the curriculum.

So universities (in some quite common scenarios) ARE corporate training grounds?

That's pretty universal (worldwide) I guess? White collar corporate staff that is predominantly unversity educated. That still doesn't mean the curriculum is or should be corporation directed or focused. I know little about this, but India and South-Korea come to mind where there might be more direct links. UK as perhaps a counterpoint where you can find corporate role with an Oxbridge arts degree, or France.

At least for undergraduate studies, most universities have the same tuition regardless of major (outside of lab fees for courses which need lab materials). The tuition of a particular university is more related to its prestige level than the particular majors its students choose.

I see, and its prestige comes from what? Its contribution to academia? Or its contribution to industry?

Is there a prestigious university that corporates do not value degrees from highly?

Harvard has a relatively lower ranked CS program

And is prestigious for its business school… it’s basically the prototypical corporate training ground

Sounds like you want a trade school.

"Universities aren’t corporate training grounds."

Oh c'mon. By the reverse stupid logic corporations aren't educational centers to train newbies on x86 either.

General/abstract is fine and one day one time some how some way make contact with practical too.

Avoiding dumb extremes might be why MIT has a good reputation in stem. It's practical built on solid (often abstract) fundamentals