Speaking of CS curriculum, many folks hold rather inflammatory positions on what should and shouldn't be in the mix, and are quite willing to rant at a moment's notice. I like a good rant as much as the next person. Joel Spolsky bathes in gasoline then promptly applies a blowtorch to himself in arguing that 100% Java based curriculums don't make for good programmers. Heck, they're not even really CS programs. Spectactular!!
N.b. Spolsky is ranting against completely Java based curriculums, not introducing Java as one part of the program.
And for the record, I agree with 95% of what he said. I disagree with the weeding out for weeding out's sake, and not preparing students for PhDs as a means of job security. On the first point, I've met zero faculty who took glee in weeders, although in any degree such courses naturally arise. Second, by the time an undergraduate finishes their degree and completes a PhD, even if straight out of school, you're up for tenure, have tenure, or have moved on. Having potential PhD undergrads work with you, do interesting stuff, and succesfully go on to grad school does more for your job security than making sure they can't do a PhD. What's a good rant without a little hyperbole though?
Besides, I was under the illusion that everyone got an A in 6.001. Didn't seem that hard to me, although my head exploded when Sussman used the last lecture to discuss how to build a Turing complete computer out of cellular automata.