Why does the Solow Model matter for undergraduate students? I've been looking at the economics undergraduate curriculum and have been thinking and wondering as to what specific skillset we want to equip undergraduate students with in the working world.

One can think about this by thinking about the ideal career outcomes of economics undergraduates. Most undergraduates with economics degrees should ideally end up in two occupations* (ideally meaning that their education will correspond to a desired occupation):


Data Analyst (using exclusively data to identify actionable information)
Business Analyst (using data and qualitative information regarding the economic environment relevant to a given business to identify actionable information).


With these two ideal career outcomes in mind its very clear as to why intermediate microeconomics, econometrics and market macro makes a difference. However as to why the Solow Growth model is taught on the undergraduate level is a bit confusing for me and Im left with any satisfactory answer.This is a relevant question because its a part of the core undergraduate macroeconomics education so its relevant for even those not intending to go to graduate school.

In terms of specific career outcomes (it could be that this list is lacking) why is studying the Solow model relevant for the undergraduate student who does not intend to go to graduate school? 

EDIT: Im not coming to say the solow model is useless, im asking why this is a part of the core economics curriculum. I myself am interested in economic growth in terms of understanding the economy and its fluctuations. Additionally I'm an economics educator not a student so these questions do come up in classes where im responsible to respond to them.
I disagree that:

a) The core curriculum should not include things that are relevant only for those pursuing graduate school.

b) A university degree should necessarily focus only on career outcomes for students.

c) There are only two relevant careers and therefore the only thing worth teaching is how to handle different types of data.

The core curriculum needs to provide a foundation for all future paths of students, which includes those going to graduate school.

Further, a university degree is foremost a scientific (or at times artistic) pursuit within a field and not a trade school. That is why professors are scientists (or at times artists) and not industry professionals. After a bachelor's degree a graduate should at least understand the basics of that field. Sure, many of those skills learned at university can partially be transferable to a job in the real world. However, that's a different story, which often does not involve the actual material learnt, but other skills learnt along the way, such as critical thinking and writing.

The Solow model is the foundation for beginning to understand economic growth and development. That is at the core of what the economics field aims to understand. Even  most policy debates will inevitably involve growing the economy or creating jobs. I would argue any student that is not interested in that question at all has no business studying economics. That is why the Solow model is in the core curriculum.

Lastly, there is a reason not everyone studies statistics and IT so that we can all become data analysts (for business or otherwise). The reason is that there are many other career paths.