rvac

You more or less answered your own question. The very fact that they are able to misinterpret the standard is sufficient proof that the standard lacks a clear and complete semantics. If the standard were formalized, it would not allow misinterpretations.

Think of simple mathematical equations: you can only misinterpret them if you don't know enough mathematics, the equation itself allows only one meaning.

It's a human using Siri to answer your questions.

Because many of the topics covered in a typical CS curriculum have direct applicability in industry. For instance, many courses in the area of software engineering make it a goal to try to simulate the "real life" conditions of a software project (e.g. working in a team, having stakeholders with different needs). So it would be hypocritical to then claim to not pay attention to what industry says it needs.

Of course, this should not mean that whatever industry asks for is law - sometimes they simply get it wrong (it is usually not very difficult to realize when), which is exactly the point where universities can help by not educating students to repeat the same mistakes. Something like saving companies from themselves, I guess.

It's interesting how the author laments that CS graduates are not up to date with the latest technologies, while admitting himself that the technologies "change every 10 minutes". By this logic, students starting a CS education should have no idea what they just signed up for, since the up to date courses desired by industry do not even exist yet - heck, the technology does not exist yet.

That said, I personally know several academics who argue that it is simply not a university's responsibility to follow the demands of industry. While a bit extreme, I see the point they are trying to make.

Once you understand that these universities are more or less (publicly or privately owned) corporations, their behavior starts making more sense. As far as I know, many of them actually turn a profit.

Wawawiwa!