Not exactly.
Also, what you're currently experiencing is neither new (I recall that same frustration in the 80's as a college student in a STEM field) nor the result of any shift/commoditization.
It's the result of laboratory coursework on campuses requiring a disproportionate bite out of a STEM major's schedule, and the nature of STEM disciplines, which really
require a sequence of learning that is both additive and dependent in order to master the discipline (as required of a BS degree, I mean). The other thing is that STEM classes with labs run on a five-day schedule (three lectures, two lab blocks) or a four day (three lectures, one lab block) and that lab block interferes with humanities coursework, which tends to run on a different kind of 'schedule' week to week. It's hard to fit the two schedules together.
There really ISN'T a lot of 'wiggle' room in those STEM majors past the 200-level, either. It's a lot of information, is the problem, and while you could make room for more humanities coursework and fine arts... it would be at the expense of that hands-on time in laboratories. And that is where good STEM students learn to be fearless in tackling and solving real
problems, which is our real value in later workplace/graduate studies. That's really where we learn to be autodidacts. So the lab bit of things cannot be "virtualized" nor can it be trimmed/ditched without losing something pretty essential.
Besides, exploring some of those other things is what the general education core is for on most campuses. I know this because I've been involved in producing the standards/creating courses that meet them on two different campuses. That really IS the goal.
The other option is to take overload credits, but I also know from experience that this can (because of those lab hours, darn them!) be easier said than done. This is yet another reason why I consider it DEEPLY distressing that high school students are caught up in a sort of arms race that doesn't allow for "fluff" in order to make themselves look "better" on paper to elite colleges.
Okay-- so that shift, though? That is about "distance" coursework, offering "certification" (the kind of thing that only trade schools used to do), and two year programs, or requiring internships, etc. etc. Things related to "the needs of industry" are particularly troubling. Those things are transparently about JOB TRAINING.
The troubling part is: a) this is higher
education (not post-secondary
job-specific training), and b) wait a second... aren't companies supposed to TRAIN their hires at their own expense, not choose from those who have paid to be trained to specs?? Neat trick, that.
Education is portable and broadly applicable to learning NEW things that can fit into, or add onto, the framework that has been carefully built, but it almost always requires refinement/shaping in order to fit the needs of
particular demands in the workplace. Training, on the other hand, is about learning particular tasks, protocols, or skills-- which may or may not have any other application or use.
