I see what you mean, but I don't quite agree. argonaut seems to be refering to relevance to CS ("even those doing CS heavy work"), not just the things that CS g

I see what you mean, but I don't quite agree. argonaut seems to be refering to relevance to CS ("even those doing CS heavy work"), not just the things that CS grads end up doing (which probably is more likely to be software engineering than CS). And when it comes to logic, discrete math et. al., the relevance of it refered to the relevance to CS, not to enterprise programming, web programming, or whatever it is that CS grads end up doing. I wouldn't really say that to argue for having courses that are mostly relevant for CS in a CS course is to argue for vocational training - it would be more like arguing for a more specialized (to CS) education, as opposed to a more broad education (CS plus other things that might not be directly relevant or transferable to CS).