People disagree about what universities are for. Some argue that they should prepare students for work, while others believe their main purpose is to pursue knowledge for its own sake. I will discuss both views before explaining why I think the two aims can coexist.
Those who favour an employment focus point out that a degree is a major investment of time and money. Students and their families expect it to lead to a good job, and employers complain that graduates often arrive without practical skills such as teamwork, communication and technical competence. Courses that include work placements, for instance, help students understand real workplaces and often lead directly to job offers. Governments also have an interest, since universities that supply skilled graduates strengthen the national economy.
On the other hand, supporters of knowledge for its own sake argue that a university should be a place of open enquiry. Much of the world's most valuable progress began as pure curiosity rather than a commercial goal; research into the structure of atoms, for example, eventually made modern electronics possible. Studying subjects such as philosophy or history also trains people to think critically and to question assumptions, qualities that no narrow vocational course can fully provide. If universities become training centres for current industry needs, they may neglect fields whose value is not immediate.
In my opinion, these purposes are not opposed. A graduate who has learned to think independently is usually more adaptable at work, while practical experience gives theoretical study a clearer direction. The best degrees therefore combine a solid academic foundation with opportunities to apply it.
In conclusion, although employability matters greatly, universities should not abandon the pursuit of understanding, and a balanced curriculum serves both students and society better than either extreme.