It's sad to read the comments on the NYTimes article. Even people who claim to have years of experience in the "field" can't tell the difference between Computer Science and computers. Dijkstra said it all:<p><i>"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."</i><p>In my most humble opinion, the value of CS education is not to prepare young people for a job in IT. Instead, its value is in teaching young people how to think in an abstract and rigorous manner. This is much more valuable, and it's useful regardless of what one's future career path is.<p>These days students think they can hack everything. They think they can BS on their homework essays, they think they can BS on their exams, they abstain from precise reasoning because it's too much work. Well, guess what? You can't BS a computer. All those sub-human morons commenting on the NYTimes article, the ones who work in IT and who are so afraid of outsourcing, should keep in mind that CS education is, at its core, <i>applied philosophy</i> and <i>applied math</i>. The label "Computer Science" is a misnomer. Yet once again, I blame the Bourbakists. If Turing had lived a few decades before, Theoretical CS would be a part of Math, not a separate field.