Short courses, at least where I come from, are 1-hr courses that are basically worthless if you are trying to accumulate credits. Our teaching language started with C++, eventually the university switched to Java (yes, I know, industry whoring). (Pascal was used in the early 90's). Beyond that, a few short courses were avialable in C++, and we were expected to pick up languages like Fortran, Lisp, Matlab (if that's a language), etc, for various courses. Spoonfeeding this was not. However, if it weren't for the Perl short course, half the students would have never even tried Perl -- and they would have not come to love it. That had a huge influence on me, but it was a delayed one -- once I started applying what I knew in industry it took off. Still, many folks who never saw Perl in college never picked it up -- partly because they weren't told why it was cool and didn't have folks to help them with it. Perl is not a language, unfortunately, that is heard of much on the streets. C++ and Java (gag, choke) are.

Regardless of what your ivory-tower (to use your phrase you used against me previously) opinions hold, eventually most students will wind up in industry, and interviews will ask "Did you learn XXX" in school? It's fine to say "I learned XXX" on my own, but there is a lot to be said to having course experience in a language. It's not as good as "job experience" to them, but it's close. They have some assurance that, at least, you have a strong chance of learning it correctly. A University does have to make a tradeoff between being a slave to industry and being a slave to raw academics. A good one will allow students to go in both directions. Especially in today's economy, a school that only produces Pascal folks (and can't say they used language XXX in coursework), is not going to get anyone a job. Is that a universities job? No. Especially not in the Greek sense. But unfortunately everyone does not live in the "ivory tower". People go to college and expect to get jobs in their chosen field.

Having course experience in Pascal (well, I do) is completely worthless to industry. No one cares about Pascal. It's a horribly broken language for doing anything interesting beyond simulating ATM machines. Do you list Pascal on your resume? I don't. Yes, I know how to write rigourously typed procedural code in a language with a poor standard library. Oh boy, we need that guy. Hire him right away!

I do agree that colleges should *not* act as technical schools, but to ignore the major applications of the areas being taught, by say, exclusively using Pascal in all courses, is absolutely stupid. For instance, a university teaching courses labelled after a programming language, after Freshman year, have problems. You should not be able to take a class labelled Perl for 3 credit hours, nor should you be able to comprise your education of languages -- but forced exposure to multiple languages is important, nay, CRITICAL, to thinking outside the box. Binding someone to one language will make them think only in that one language, to learn languages quickly (I frequently claim I can learn anything...and it's true...who can't?), you need to know paradigms from all over the place. Every obscure language helps. And when you are starting out, it's harder to pick up new languages from scratch, especially when they are as far apart as Pascal and Lisp.

My AI class, for instance, used Lisp -- not Pascal. Pascal here would be stupid. As for learning the language, yes, this was on us, but we were given pointers. AI in Pascal is a round peg and a square hole. As is OO Software Design in Pascal. Pascal is the straw-man here, but diversity in languages is important, and to teach Computer Science pretending languages don't matter is somewhat misleading -- yes, languages in theory don't matter, but languages are very very real.