In regards to film versus digital based teaching, I think the best approach is to ground instruction in the image, not the means of capture. I've been tutoring both digital and film hobbyists to get myself through grad school and have found that though the methods of capture differ, the end result is of course the same, an image. Tonal range is still tonal range, composition is still composition, and lighting is still lighting, ect....
On the pragmatic side, many young students entering photography programs already have a broad understanding of electronic media. This base knowledge will continue to expand, and soon it will simply be easier to talk to students (and clients) about pixels and megabytes, than it is about grain or reciprocity failure. For the time being, I imagine programs will take on some of the qualities of a patchwork quilt. I believe a key to wadding through the differing skill sets is to watch what hardware students show up with. When the majority of students grumble about film based purchases, we'll know it's time for film to move into its well earned fine art-granny flat. After all, students are tomorrow's professionals and if they want to work digitally as students, they'll probably want to do so as pros.
Take Care, Shawna http://lightwriting.net
