[ralmidani]

I know this is a cliche, but universities (are supposed to) teach you critical thinking as well as social and life skills, not just train you for a specific vocation.

Watering down university education is not necessary. If someone wants to focus just on tech skills, they can go to a boot camp. Expanding boot camps so they become multi-year experiences may be a good idea, but they should not be called universities.

[thatonechad]

I would agree and my use of the term University is not necessarily meant to be used in that traditional sense. What I believe is that there should be an alternative to Universities that could focus more on that aspect and present you with a 4 year degree.

I guarantee if you created a tech school that focuses strictly on tech related classes for 4 years compared to a University that you would produce higher quality students than you would from schools that spend half of your college teaching you things that are not directly related to your job.

[ralmidani]

Maybe "higher quality" in the sense that they've spent more time growing their tech skills, but there is more to a person than their skills in a chosen vocation.

Also, what happens if a student wants to switch majors? Or graduates but later wants to change careers? Your proposal doesn't make that feasible.

[j45]

I would say few universities teach critical thinking or transferable skills in the context you are referring to.

Some programs in universities can be glorified vocational schools. Other programs are excellent, relevant and evolving both for industry, and as innovators.

[humanrebar]

> ...universities (are supposed to) teach you critical thinking as well as social and life skills...

I disagree. I think they provide services to customers. Customers decide what the services are for. I suppose some students are very interested in laying a foundation in the liberal arts. Most, in my experience, are more worried about getting their careers started out on the right foot (especially considering all the loans that they are taking out). There is also a nontrivial number of students there for unsupervised extensions on their adolescences, though.

> ...they should not be called universities...

Why not? Is that going to be a regulated word now? What purpose does the distinction serve? We don't look at a degree and think, "Oh! University degree! This is a well-rounded person with a good foundation in the liberal arts!" No, we see, B.S. in Communications from Boise State and draw inferences from there.

[ralmidani]

There's nothing preventing you from naming your institution a "university", but if you want accreditation, there are already certain criteria you have to meet.