I can only speak for the US, and I'll limit my remarks to undergraduate education there. I've been a student or faculty member at a wide range of colleges and universities from tiny (few hundred students) to massive (tens of thousands). Also a wide range of college focus, including liberal arts colleges, specialized focus colleges, and comprehensive universities. Not everything I can say is current, of course, since the participation started in the early 1960s.

Undergraduate education in the US, is normally very broad, encompassing much of the knowledge of "Western" (now broader) thought. The goal is to "produce" an "educated person generally" and one who is well placed for a lifetime of productive activity. There isn't a focus on "training for the job market", but many of the skills are useful there - thinking, writing, analyzing, debating, etc. In addition to the general education requirements, students normally have a major (possibly two) in which they focus more deeply. Computer Science has been a potential major for only about fifty years and the education has changed as the field has changed. Of course, it is still changing at a rate faster than many other fields.

The "hot job market" for CS graduates is an incredibly transient thing. The market runs both cold and hot. Students are a bit fickle about what majors they want to study based on news reports and such. Sometimes it is CS and other times it is Finance, depending on general economic conditions. Other fields don't seem to have these extreme cycles. I can't remember a "hot" market for mathematics since the early Sputnik days.

But, I don't know of very many places in which the faculty that design curricula think of their job as vocational. While most of our students do wind up working in the field, the faculty really wants to position their students for a wider range of option, primarily advanced education. If we don't make it possible for our students to enter an advanced program, we have failed. That, at least, is the perception that I notice.

Vocational education does occur in "Junior Colleges" of course, some of which have that mission (though not all do).

Also, I wonder about a perception that companies simply want colleges to teach students the latest tools and languages. I actually doubt that is true. I think they want intelligent people who can fairly quickly be productive, but who have the depth to grow with the future needs of the company. They don't really want "just programmers", though when you pin down the people who do the hiring that is what they say - since that is their job. What the company really wants is someone who can think, write, analyze, .... More important, that is what they need.

An anecdote. I once had a class of technical wonders who did essentially everything you asked of them. Mixed in was a student with somewhat modest technical skills. My prediction for her was that she would eventually wind up being the boss/manager of the whiz kids since she was the one in the class that always asked "why are we doing this? why is it important?". I still think that perspective is what leads to success. Not just "how does this work?"

I can only speak for the US, and I'll limit my remarks to undergraduate education there. I've been a student or faculty member at a wide range of colleges and universities from tiny (few hundred students) to massive (tens of thousands). Also a wide range of college focus, including liberal arts colleges, specialized focus colleges, and comprehensive universities. Not everything I can say is current, of course, since the participation started in the early 1960s.

Undergraduate education in the US, is normally very broad, encompassing much of the knowledge of "Western" (now broader) thought. The goal is to "produce" an "educated person generally" and one who is well placed for a lifetime of productive activity. There isn't a focus on "training for the job market", but many of the skills are useful there - thinking, writing, analyzing, debating, etc. In addition to the general education requirements, students normally have a major (possibly two) in which they focus more deeply. Computer Science has been a potential major for only about fifty years and the education has changed as the field has changed. Of course, it is still changing at a rate faster than many other fields.

The "hot job market" for CS graduates is an incredibly transient thing. The market runs both cold and hot. Students are a bit fickle about what majors they want to study based on news reports and such. Sometimes it is CS and other times it is Finance, depending on general economic conditions. Other fields don't seem to have these extreme cycles. I can't remember a "hot" market for mathematics since the early Sputnik days. I have also lived through periods in which you couldn't find CS students anywhere.

But, I don't know of very many places in which the faculty that design curricula think of their job as vocational. While most of our students do wind up working in the field, the faculty really wants to position their students for a wider range of option, primarily advanced education. If we don't make it possible for our students to enter an advanced program, we have failed. That, at least, is the perception that I notice.

Vocational education does occur in "Junior Colleges" of course, some of which have that mission (though not all do).

Also, I wonder about a perception that companies simply want colleges to teach students the latest tools and languages. I actually doubt that is true. I think they want intelligent people who can fairly quickly be productive, but who have the depth to grow with the future needs of the company. They don't really want "just programmers", though when you pin down the people who do the hiring that is what they say - since that is their job. What the company really wants is someone who can think, write, analyze, .... More important, that is what they need.

An anecdote. I once had a class of technical wonders who did essentially everything you asked of them. Mixed in was a student with somewhat modest technical skills. My prediction for her was that she would eventually wind up being the boss/manager of the whiz kids since she was the one in the class that always asked "why are we doing this? why is it important?". I still think that perspective is what leads to success. Not just "how does this work?"