The post rants on a bit about how the most poorly taught classes in library school happen to be the core classes – the ones you need to take.
I really hate to say it, but this appears to be a library-school universal. I've never heard anyone express unequivocal satisfaction with the core courses in their librarian education. And before anyone asks, yes, we understand that pedagogical quality is going to vary, and that we're going to like some subjects more than others. I'm not talking about ordinary vagaries of teaching here; I'm talking about library schools falling down on the job. Classes that suck, rather than merely not rocking.
There is also an interesting theory about why librarians don’t, won’t, can’t code.
Librarians can't code because too many librarians and library schools have their noses so far up in the air about computers that they are neither recruiting coders (which is purest, sheerest madness-why are we not using the exodus of women from comp sci to our advantage?) nor creating them.
Well I have to agree with Jessamyn from librarian.net who thinks there’s a bit more to it than just that.
It's not just that librarians can't code, it's that they can't even agree that coding is what (some) librarians ought to be doing.
And I have to add that there is also the issue of $$ – in the end (once everyone agrees that programmers is needed) it comes down to how much money a library has to spend. Programmers ain’t cheap!