Renewal of technical education

I studied Electrical Engineering at KTH over 30 years ago. The first year was filled with various courses in mathematics that most people recognize as algebra, a variable and some specialization-specific subjects in electronics. Although it seemed distant in the first year, there was of course talk about the jobs that the program could lead to. The link between mathematics and the future professional role was probably less clear - we had not chosen mathematics. I think most people saw the courses in mathematics and especially those that came later, such as multivariable calculus, vector calculus, function theory and differential equations, more as an entrance ticket to working life than as something you would work with. 

My first job was at Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson in a department that worked with network planning, among other things. On one or two occasions I used integrals in my work. This led me to make a survey among my classmates about how many actually used the mathematics that we spent so much time on during the study period. The result was 2%, which means that the rest had never used mathematics at university level at all.

Last fall, my daughter started Industrial Economics in Linköping. It was a déjà vu experience when I could recognize exactly the same courses that I myself had read. The biggest difference seems to be that what I was able to buy as printed compendiums for a few crowns, she has been forced to buy as fine hardback books for hundreds of crowns. Another difference is that the length of the course has been extended to nine semesters - has the human material become dumber?

There is now a lot of talk about how to get young people to choose technical education and about adapting to the needs of industry. What I see now frightens me. Is it really the case that the university has already reached the optimal education in the 1970s and that it has therefore not needed to be changed at all for the basic subjects in terms of scope and depth? Is industry served by this? Does recruitment to technical education benefit from a cemented view of what students "should study" in basic subjects?

I believe that it is time to fundamentally review the technical courses we have and perhaps discuss with industry whether an intermediate level that is perhaps three years long would be better. That would probably increase the inflow of students and certainly also the throughput. In any case, there seems to be no awareness of the problem among the universities unless a certain approach over half a century is questioned. The industry is not the same today as it was 50 years ago.