It is interesting to note that when the article refers to the "Nine Subject Areas" of the computing curriculum, it mentions that each has a ".. significant theoretical base, significant abstractions, and significant design and implementation achievements." This is particularly relevant to the current state of our GISP, where the subject of the 15/16 track vs. the (forthcoming) 17/18 has been a hot topic.

In order, the article lists the three major processes of computing: Theory, abstraction, and design. However, the article goes on to claim that all undergrads should have a significant amount of theory mastered. This seems to conflict with the Brown school of thought, where implementation is stressed and theory secondary. However, many of the top people in the CS department learned first from the theoretical side of things, and used that knowledge to aid in their implementation when the time came. Is this a coincidence, or a direct correlation?

Unfortunately, the only way to know for sure is to take a look at an intense "implementation class" in a year or two (i.e. CS32), and compare the theoretical students to the "coders."

The recurring concepts that the article lists seem to have been handled pretty well in my personal CS education. 15 did a great job of binding and using conceptual models to aid in understanding. In my opinion, I believe that this is definitely the way to go in not only cs education, but all education. To see a real-world application of subject matter as a student adds incentive and motivation, and in some ways it may aid in the learning process. It helps to know how your software might be used by real people. That way you can predict what they might expect from it, how they might use and/or misuse it, etc.

Efficiency is not covered in 15 as much as in 16, nor are trade-offs and consequences, but it is safe to say that (with the exception of security), most of the essentials are covered from an implementation standpoint by the beginning of a potential concentrator's third semester.

The idea of standard lectures integrated with hands-on experience and interactivity is definitely something that has been discussed, and the technical end to do this efficiently and safely (i.e. not having Johnny checking his e-mail during class) are in the works (right Jon? :-) ). This could definitely be a good thing; I see one possibility as the lectures being theory based, and then a combination implementation/programming hands-on section. This would have to definitely be thought out quite a bit, because I have been involved in so-called interactive classes and lectures before, and the majority of them have been a huge flop. First off, while an instructor may understand the material, understanding how to teach it in a traditional, lecture-style format is completely different from teaching in a multi-media, hands-on, possibly question-driven environment.