Curriculum Alignment
What’s taught, what’s hired
Compared against HEC's and NCEAC's official computing curricula. Computing disciplines only, so it says nothing about the other fields this site tracks.
Courses parsed
Matched a tracked skill
Postings considered
Demanded, not taught
The headline finding
Demanded in the market, absent from the curriculum
Asked for by at least 5 companies. Taught in neither curriculum.
- 01
Troubleshooting
electrical mechanical
247 postings183 companies - 02
Azure
cloud devops
293 postings161 companies - 03
AWS
cloud devops
285 postings153 companies - 04
Excel
analytics bi
153 postings107 companies - 05
React
web ecommerce
146 postings98 companies - 06
Power BI
analytics bi
158 postings95 companies - 07
GCP
cloud devops
154 postings92 companies - 08
CRM
marketing tech
119 postings86 companies - 09
Node.js
web ecommerce
103 postings79 companies - 10
Linux
cloud devops
103 postings74 companies
Top 10 of 61, by company count.
Where it does line up
Taught and demanded
In both places, ranked by postings. What the curricula already get right.
- 01
SQL
programming
556 postings6 courses - 02
APIs
programming
478 postings3 courses - 03
Python
programming
422 postings19 courses - 04
Git
programming
348 postings1 course - 05
Reporting
analytics bi
340 postings1 course - 06
JavaScript
programming
264 postings1 course - 07
Data Engineering
data ml
263 postings6 courses - 08
CI/CD
cloud devops
251 postings5 courses - 09
ETL
data ml
232 postings2 courses - 10
Data Visualization
analytics bi
232 postings4 courses
Top 10 of 36.
Methodology
- Sources and scope.NCEAC’s BS Computing Disciplines (2023) and HEC’s Computer Science booklet (2025), compared against technology it + engineering postings — 1,428 of them.
- What counts as a skill. Both lists count teachable technical and professional skills only. Workplace attributes (on-site, shift, full-time), credentials and languages are excluded because a curriculum can't teach them; soft and office/admin skills are excluded because curricula do cover them, through general-education requirements the course parser can't itemize skill-by-skill.
- Taxonomy-based matching, both ways. Matching is taxonomy-based: a skill outside the active taxonomy is invisible on BOTH sides of this comparison, not just one. A curriculum topic and a market demand that are both real but both unnamed in the taxonomy will never appear here.
- Curricula state minimums.They define a floor, not a ceiling — universities routinely exceed them with electives and specializations neither document lists. “Not taught” means not in the national minimum curriculum, not that no graduate has encountered it.
- Course parsing is imperfect. Both PDFs mix table layouts, template course codes, and free-text descriptions. 776 courses were extracted; 230 matched at least one taxonomy skill by title or stated topics. A course matching nothing may teach no tracked skill by name, or may simply lack topic text in the source — both are reported as unmatched, not silently distinguished.