A systematic approach for system developments?

I have heard, that students do no learn anymore nowadays things about a systematic approach how to develop and bring-up a system.

Instead, the buzz word meanwhile is: "Agile SW Development".

"Hmmm":

I was (and I am still) a big fan of the "V-Model-Approach":

• break down the system ("Analysis")
• and build up the system ("Synthesis")
• accompanied with correlated test cases

What does mean "agile" in system development nowadays?: to change all the time your mind?, to drift into different directions? to divert from the intention? just to be "fast" on implementation?

Sure, "fast development", but fast does not mean to skip important tasks during a development (esp. not during the "Analysis" which helps a lot for the "Synthesis" of a system, "to be fast" to hit the goal). "Fast"? as :"efficient" = doing (anything) just fast? But why we do not want to be also "effective" = doing the right things? Doing the "wrong things fast" is soooo easy, esp. nowadays with AI and tools!

Here is an example where I think, the "old school" V-Model still works: It is based on my leisure time project to create a "Visual Flight Radar" (VFR) system to watch airplanes flying over my home.

Is it true, that students do not learn anymore the methodic of system design and development?

Is "Agile SW development" (SCRUM) the answer to speed up development without to do a "due diligence", an "analysis"? Is the focus nowadays to be "efficient" (just fast, but not anymore "effective" = the right things)?

But a properly done "Analysis" phase would help you to be "effective", which sounds to me: it is still very important to achieve the project goal and to hit the market with their needs - with the "right thing" instead of the "fast thing" created.

To be honest: when I see nowadays, employers are seeking for new hires confirming they know "SCRUM", are familiar with "agile development". But nobody ask anymore about your ability to do an "Analysis", with due diligence, followed by a proper, aligned "Synthesis". It sounds to me: meanwhile it is more important to demonstrate you can handle tools, instead of "thinking yourself", no needs about: how to solve an issue and how to implement (even without any tool needed).

Are employers looking meanwhile for "tool experts" instead of searching for "problem solving people"? Do employers trust tools meanwhile more instead to hire "smart people" as new employees? OK, they cannot hire "tools" as new employees, luckily for us.

I have learned in my old days: "when you cannot analyze and design a system without any tool - a tool will not help you." The tool is there to be "efficient" (to implement faster). But if you do not have a clue how to be "effective" (doing the right things, even using the right tools) - you cannot be successful.

Have we forgotten what does it mean to be an effective engineer? (just judged meanwhile for efficiency?)

What do you think?: Is tool knowledge meanwhile more important as providing personal skills? Is the ability to use tools meanwhile more important compared to the ability to think (without tools)? Is creativity meanwhile what you could do as well with (existing) tools, instead to develop new tools helping to implement what are your ideas in mind?

Is an engineer meanwhile more a "tool expert", instead of a creative and innovative person?