No I am not arguing for a trade school approach. My impression from 4 years of undergrad and 4 years of graduate studies is the material in my classes could be much better focused around the key questions that created the topic in the first place and why it is important. And this would significantly reduce the content in the classes, while making it more accessible to a larger audience.
Also, while not reducing academia to a trade school, there are non faddish stable practical skills that should also be taught in an academic setting much more.
My ideal curriculum would maintain fundamental results that are not directly practical, like proofs of the halting problem, no free lunch, and np completeness, to delimit the realm of the possible. It would also teach practical skills around systems programming and software development, and well established widely used protocols.
I don't fully understand this mentality. We don't look at everything we want to accomplish and say"what's the fastest way to get there?" a 4-year university degree certainly isn't if you want a job, money or credibility. The journey is amazing; I have 2 undergrads and a MSc not because of the material benefits, but because I absolutely loved school, especially the second time around. #3 grad school was a little disappointing but that was due to my expectations. I'm now near 50 and thinking about starting my PhD as a quasi-retirement project. Maaybe I'll go to school with my kids!
I understand both your perspectives. I have an ME degree that, at the end of the day, I did mostly for fun and have never really used.
On the other hand, I also understand the perspective of those who maybe don't care for school, want to/need to minimize the time and money they spend on it, learn "just the facts" they need to get hired to pursue software development mostly in the vein of a trade, and the paper that is often needed to get hired or pursue various types of opportunities. In that light, it's understandable they don't want to learn a lot of theory they won't use much, much less take unrelated science distribution and humanities courses.
I think the problem is that once you're working in the field, not having a bachelors can be perceived as you lacking in skill for the positions you're applying for, regardless of if that's the case. And the bachelors is (improperly) being used as a gauge for competence rather than being shown as a jumping off point toward a career in software development, which can be reached by alternate avenues.
I also discovered that if I want to move to basically any European nation, despite having years of experience in the USA, I would not be able to work in software or emigrate without some sort of bachelors.
Speaking from experience, that's not necessarily true. EU countries accept equivalent experience in lieu of academic qualifications.
Assuming that you are offered a position that pays well, and have around 5-ish years of experience, emigration is a breeze.
My experience with getting might not be universal since I work in a niche CS field, but getting a work permit (also alluded to by other commenters) was trivial and likely applies to everyone.
The mentality comes from people in the more recent generations having to deal with harsher competition and lower economic prospects, and not having certain expensive pieces of paper lock you out of many opportunities. The problem is that trade schools need to be reformed/expanded, or employers have to reevaluate how they evaluate things.
