All curricula for any given academic discipline evolves over time. This is also true for the Information Systems (IS) model curriculum. Curriculum evolution is driven by several factors, such as changes in technologies, industry shifts to meet customer needs, and perceived student deficiencies. One outcome of such factors has been a change in the entry point into the IS major due to the perception that IS majors need a different method of entry from other computing majors [e.g., Computer Science (CS)]. The current entry point for many IS majors is a programming course, often taken by a variety of majors. This paper addresses the question: is there a difference in performance in this initial programming course for students of different majors? More precisely, does major differentiate performance in the first programming course, such as CS1? The data clearly show this is not the case when there is a level playing field. The paper demonstrates that non-computing majors perform as well as computing majors given equal preparation. It is a misconception that changes to the IS curriculum are necessary when based on the belief that IS majors, as compared to other computing majors, need a different entry point. The data presented in this paper suggest the underlying presuppositions for IS curricular changes are misguided--supporting the need for preparation prior to a first programming course.