Disagree that slump is an engineering decision that we'd be passing off to the contractor. Historically it's been specified primarily to control water content and workability. Controlling water content is an admirable goal, but most engineers now specify a maximum water to cement ratio for durability reasons anyways (and are even required to show exposure classes for concrete if using ACI 318-08 or newer). For the purposes of limited the water content, doing both is at best redundant and at worst conflicting. For workability, I would argue this is not an engineering decision but means and methods. Obviously the concrete needs to be workable enough that it can get into voids and be distributed well without being so workable that it damages the formwork. But if the final end product is a well-consolidated pour with the minimum strength and maximum water content that I need for my design, I'm not sure why the slump should matter to me, the engineer.
I would still advocate that slump be tested for each batch so we have some idea of consistency between batches of the same mix design as noted above. But that's more of a comparative test. I want each slump to come out to about the same number because that indicates that the batches are relatively consistent and I can expect my final results to be somewhat consistent. I don't necessarily care what that number is, so long as it's consistent.
Call it lazy engineering, I guess. I'd call it giving the contractor the flexibility to build as he/she sees fit as long as the final product provides what we need.