Having recently (last year) enrolled in a Computer Programming program, I can say this is likely the case. The class has a number of people who are simply enrolled to get a piece of paper that states they know how to code and then there are those that are breaking new ground in learning.
I have the logic down quite well but my biggest issue is the syntax - it would appear that Stanford thinks I'm doomed to fail.
One of the most touted advantages of Scheme (and other Lisps) as a teaching language is precisely the (lack of) syntax which allows the student to focus on logic.
One might as well claim that C++ has no syntax, as its source code is nothing but a linear series of undifferentiated octets. Scheme and other lisps have plenty of syntax; it's just expressed at a different level of abstraction than the one most languages use.
C++ is an abomination - it should not only be avoided when teaching, but we should make all the effort to avoid it whenever possible. Learning programming using C++ as a language is like learning to walk on a grass-covered minefield - almost every feature hides something that can blow your leg off.
Anyway, the fact remains that you need much fewer syntax lessons to get started with Scheme compared to anything else.
I have the logic down quite well but my biggest issue is the syntax - it would appear that Stanford thinks I'm doomed to fail.