Many of the ideas I talked about in my first paper response were addressed herein. I did not necessarily agree with what was said. Just because industry takes the large majority of cs graduates, does not mean that "...Undergraduate course design should take into account the requirements of industry while maintaining a committment to sound pedagogical practices. The introductory courses should emphasize fundamental principles in the discipline, while advanced classes shouls often have applications as a strong theme." (3.2) This bothers me. I believe that academia is not necessarily about future job applications. Some will vehemently disagree with me, but I see a major difference between technical educations and academic educations. Computer Science is not auto repair; I see no reason why prestigious universities should pander to industry. There is too much theoretical and applicable knowledge to waste students education preparing them to go and sit in Bill Gates' basement.

MY COMMENTS: I have to agree with Saul. As I said before, industry's role in CS education should be minor. Specific industries should not be able to influence the curriculums, because their interests will most likely be too specific. It is not good practice to give so meone an education that will only be useful at one company.

I absolutely dissagree, I do think that industry should have a lot to do with CS Education..but it shouldn't be the determining factor. I'm not saying that students should only be taught how to use the hottest languages but I AM suggesting that the students that are produced by a top notch university should produce students that can go with the changes that are inherent with the field, this requires a lot of theory and a lot of programming expericence. Once you learn one, it's that much easier to learn another.

(re: Amanda) Don't you think that if you're being engaged mentally throughout post-secondary education without feeling as if you're being prepared for the rat-race it will be beneficial in the long run?