I think the problem is that in the American education system, anything needs to be taught at a university. There are trade schools, but there are no "real" trad

I think the problem is that in the American education system, anything needs to be taught at a university. There are trade schools, but there are no "real" trade school degrees that actually mean something. The idea of academic research is valuable in pretty much any field. Do we want academics studying film as an art form? If you mediate about this question, I think you'll come to the conclusion that we (as society) do want that. Similarly, I have no doubt that these professors care first about their research, second maybe about teaching, and consider anything else as sideshow. Because that's how it is in any academic discipline (with whatever rigor you want to attribute to the scientific aspect of it). However, in the US, people go to university to learn a skill. I'd ask: Why? I have a friend who became an extremely skilled TV producer, and he has never seen a university from the inside. He did a dual-path education, working for a public broadcaster and visiting a trade school for film at the same time. This dude is superb at what he does. I see this pattern in many areas. University and practical skills are often distant. In some sense, they should be. Yes, the Humboldian ideal states that researchers should also teach. But they teach research. Today, to become an excellent researcher, you essentially have to forgo practical experience - there is so much pressure to be excellent in other areas. The weirdest arena to see all this are business schools. These schools exist to educate practitioners. They make their money making MBAs, who generally have zero interest in academia. However, talk to any academic professor (which is the high status position compared to "professors of practice") at a business school. What do they really care about? Their research, their academic peers, their PhDs. Everything else is a nuisance that pays the bills.