The teachers who grew up without computers wouldn't change the curriculum because they wouldn't see the point.
Even those who grew up with computers might not have realized you could solve problems easily with computers instead of the older methods. (I believe most people don't know they could plug a formula into Wolfram Alpha and get its integral for free.) Even if they knew, some of them might take the dogmatic view that the extra effort in learning so called "fundamentals" would build character of sorts.
So the few people who actually believe that the curriculum should be changed have to wait until they get older, rise to positions of authority, and then they maybe they could propose changing some things around. So you get at least a generation or two of students learning things the old way, because society moves slower than technology does.
---
While we're on the topic -- I've always thought that the philosophy department took a long break during the mid-20th century. The logic department teaches Gödel, maybe passingly mentions Turing's work, but while everyone is busy trying to correct other people's interpretation of Gödel, they seem to be oblivious to almost 100 years of advances in our understanding of computation and programming language theory (the language of logic is analogous to programming languages). It seems somewhat similar for physics too -- interpretation of quantum physics seems to be a niche thing.
I'm not saying there's nobody who knows these stuff, but it just seems like the teaching of philosophy has stagnated for almost a century, given the weight put on learning the classics vs the newer discoveries in the past 100 years.
The nice thing is that we have the Internet these days, so at least people who are interested can find what the material they want to learn.