This interesting manuscript proposes a framework (ACM, which stands for Align My Curriculum) for checking the agreement university courses and desired market skills in this field. The model is constructed in reference to the computing courses offered at the King Addulaziz University (Saudi Arabia) and relevant jobs posted at the most popular job search websites.

The manuscript tackles a very relevant issue (relevance and significance of university training for the job market). The method is solid and profusely described, which ensures replicability.

However, the manuscript has, in my opinion, some caveats that should be addressed before publication: - Most of the details in results belong to the methodology section (packages used in R, other software such as the web crawler...). The reader may miss them when reading through the methods, and they are in excess in the results. I suggest rebalancing these two sections. - Conversely, there are some details lacking in the results section; e.g. what's de meaning of the Precision, Recall and F1-score metrics, and what do they indicate about the quality of the model. In other words, which would be the values indicating a good fit? - Likewise, there is too much repetition between the introduction and the related work (lines 63 - 85) and, furthermore, between the other three blocks (Architecture, Results, Conclusions). The text is already very readable, but would improve in readability if those repetitions were removed. - As a consequence of that, the conclusion (which, in essence, summarizes the previous sections) is not compelling enough. The authors should probably be more clear about the real magnitude and the practical implications of the observed gap.

Minor concerns include: - Captions and references to figures are not in numerical order; i.e., in the text it appears Fig. 2, then Fig.1, Fig.2, etc. Check whether all the figures are necessary (e.g. 3rd figure, currently named Fig.1) and whether some of them wouldn't be clearer as tables