I think you have the Central Park analogy backwards here. What Central Park provides (nature and openness) is scarce among what surrounds it (an incredibly urba

I think you have the Central Park analogy backwards here. What Central Park provides (nature and openness) is scarce among what surrounds it (an incredibly urban and dense landscape). On the contrary, research institutions compose the majority of top U.S. universities, and are not in danger of being supplanted by something else should they adapt their charters. Similarly, NYC wouldn't be putting it's urban character at risk by zoning more parks. I have trouble understanding why there can be no middle ground between the status quo and pure vocational training. As I mentioned in a comment below, most arguments against middle ground that I've heard boil down to, at the core, nothing more than circular-reasoning like, "this is the way it's always been, and we want it to stay this way because things have always been this way." Why don't universities make an addendum to their charters to maintain the goal of being world-class research institutions AND provide pragmatic, real-world training? What sacrifice would be made? Would the quality of university research truly decline? Whether students are wrong to pursue higher education for purely economic reasons is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. What is a fact is that many students do pursue higher education for purely economic reasons, because society tells them from a young age to do so, and it's reasonable to assume that a degree from a top institution in a technical field will lead to a high paying job. The business community certainly could do more to shoulder any perceived burden for professional training and/or certification; however, traditionally research-focused universities should also work to better support the motivations of the majority of their undergraduate (and paying) student body, as Stanford has done here.