First, I would like to comment on the idea that far too much reinvention occurs within the introductory CS realm. I agree completely. Unfortunately, I have also found that professors feel that they know something others do not and thus, they have to teach their class their way. The reality is that they spend an excess amount of time reinventing the wheel rather than seeing the wheels already developed. Writing one's own book is important for prestige (and egotism) amongst professors and one would prefer to use his/her own book than anothers. [How many Java books are out there? How many beginner's manuals? All profess to be better than the rest!]

Another huge issue within the university setting is the problem of the role of a professor. In many institutions, research is valued over education. Professors focus very little on their teaching styles or the material that they are presenting. Now, this leads to a problem with Computer Science PhD programs. Find a program (or a hiring institution) that offers (expects) students a course on how to teach or the importance of education. Professors are former PhD students. Many of them spent a good 7 years of their life researching one topic. Most never left a small enclosed office for extended periods of time. Most of them have limited communication skills. Once they leave the PhD program, they are hired on the basis of their knowledge and performance. Certainly, there is no measure of teaching ability during the hiring process at Brown (information from Tom Dean). Schools should mandate that professors focus at least partially on education. Unfortunately, I highly doubt that will ever happen....

Another issue presented in the article regarding undergraduate education concerns students and industry. The article feels that universities do not adequately prepare students for work in industry. I vehemently disagree. In fact, I would go as far as saying that Brown (and many other schools) focus too heavily on making students immediately hireable. With such a shortage of knowledgeable computer scientists, industry does and must continue to hire people who have excellent knowledge and aptitude to learn and teach them the specifics of their company. Now, one of the advantages of focusing on such industry-style teaching is that students are able to acquire summer internships which ease their application into industry. But, this goes back to my last reaction- what is the goal of a computer science department?

Another issue raised was large classes. Yes, one gets less out of a large class than they do a small interactive class. But, honestly, with professors who CANNOT teach let alone run a discussion, would smaller groups really help? It is far easier to lecture...

Finally, there is constant mention of how a university should have a collection of information and external knoweldge to ease the learning and preparation for industry. Agreed.

I too think that universities should place an emphasis on the educational aspect of professorial hiring. Are universities around for the betterment of their students or their faculty? Who is paying and who is getting paid?

Honestly we'd probably have to say that they are for both. If this is indeed true then I believe universities should hire people who both are intelligent and are prone to research as well as people who are good educators and want to focus on their classes as well.

For what good is a really smart professor if they cannot teach anyone? Not much to the student, that's for sure.

But it might be a little too much to assume that all professors have the ability to teach. So it might be a good thing for a university to provide training in this manner.

Finally, having thought about a good deal, I find it virtually amazing that a university would hire people without any scruples as to their ability or eagerness to teach. This seems a grave error in our educational system to me.