Am I missing something, or is this article just another variation on "my CS program didn't prepare me for my particular career of choice because it didn't teach

Am I missing something, or is this article just another variation on "my CS program didn't prepare me for my particular career of choice because it didn't teach me everything I needed to know on day one?" You can make this claim about any CS program you want and how it should teach agile development practices or Ruby or version control or whatever particular thing you've found useful during your day job, but that really shouldn't be the measure of a degree program. I think an undergraduate program should be measured in two ways: - Does your education enable you to identify general types of problems and know how to solve them? (as in "oh, this can be expressed as a graph search problem and I can create an admissible heuristic, so I can use A* to find the shortest path between these two points, done") - Did your education provide a solid enough understanding of the fundamentals to enable you to learn most things that you don't understand fairly quickly? That's it. How hard is it to learn git (or your source control of choice)? A particular development methodology? iPhone programming? The average turnaround time I've seen from hiring a new college graduate to having that person be a meaningful contributor to a large project is between two and three months. I'd much rather that CS programs keep preparing them for more and different theoretical things instead of limiting that for the sole purpose of trying to make that transition period a few weeks shorter.