This is an insignificant contribution to the significant debate identified in the paper’s title. Levich begins with one-and-a-half pages on the distinction between education and training (“education, liberal education, is distinguishable from training with respect to form and breadth of knowledge, marking off by its possession the educated person from the person who is simply well-trained in the practice of a skill.”) He then proceeds to refute five common, shallow arguments for the inclusion of what he chooses to call “computerdom” in a liberal arts education. All of these arguments can be reduced to the notion that computing is an important current technology and therefore belongs in the liberal arts curriculum; the refutations can be reduced to the idea that technologies are important for training but not for liberal education. The five arguments are indeed fallacious, but the refutations also are. The denigrating term “computerdom” obscures the fact that computing is a branch of science as well as a set of technologies. Levich argues that physics and biology are legitimate components of a liberal education; by the same token, so is computer science. Though liberal education does not properly include the practicalities of technologies, it certainly should include some knowledge of the theoretical rudiments of major technologies. Levich uses the example of printing and observes that “neither the theory of the printing press nor training in its use are essential or even desirable components of a liberal education.” But obviously an educated person should have some general understanding of a technology that transformed the civilized world, including the world of the liberal arts.