Asking "should" is useless. A better question is "what subjects will be taught in undergrad." The answer is a half-assed mixture of watered down theory and ivory tower toy software "engineering." Probably less than 5% of CS students actually want anything to do with being a "computer scientist" - you can post angry comments online about how CS is actually a branch of mathematics and software engineering and programming != CS, but a university, save maybe the top schools, is never going to change their CS program to a de facto math program because it won't sell - there's no market for it. However a university will lose all its credibility if it doesn't pretend to care about theory, so there will be one or two theory classes, most of them will be optional. Because professors are professional wankers, the courses on software engineering and OOP will use contrived examples and students will learn very little, and professors will hate teaching them. The students will hate all of their classes because they also "hate" their lives.
The same thing happens with liberal arts. A bunch of people whine about not being able to get a job after studying literature for 4 years, so the college starts offering classes like "Business Writing" and makes everything practical, although it in fact makes everything more useless. If a grad has "RElevant courses: theory of computation, studied godel" on his resume, he will get laughed out of the interview. For probably worse, many software companies have found you can ignore large parts of theory and still makes lots of money - just look at the poor haskell wankers, all on welfare talking about types, boy, they sure do like typing, all word etc.
People say trite things like "college is for learning how to learn" or "college is about self enrichment, not practical skills. go learn a trade", however that's not true anymore. Colleges try to be both and succeed doing neither. The fact is that almost everyone is totally useless, takes many times more than they can give back, couldn't be self-sufficient in a million years, can't even fix trivial problems with their household appliances, can't function without such and such medication, and goign to college and reading a few books will not change it.
The pro-intellectual glorification of "scientists" online, especially on reddit, is a culture that can arise only in groups of people who lack context, i.e. people who have never had to hunt for their food or forage for berries or do anything, perpetual children who would take "living in a world of abstractions" as a compliment, i.e. people I don't like, i.e. people I write about, i.e. a caraciture of me about a year ago.
Here's a better question: why should anyone produce computer "scientists"? Why do problems in the area of computer science need to be solved? We're better off without them all together. You say it's absurd because you're thinking of 1950 and I'm thinking of 100,000 BCE.
The solution is to boycott universities and kill your own food and forage.
This isn't a particularly extreme position however it is in fact the only solution.
Oh boy there are so many things to learn I can't make up my mind they're all so interesting i'm assionate about learning and I like to learn for the sake of learning to make myself a better person additionally I care about the theory of compuation and abstract math and I like automata and formal languages.
You're welcome, post facto.