Well I think at the root level he is correct. In most Heidegger intro classes this is the section you learn to enter Heidegger's thought. Whether it represents the key is a difficult manner, but it is usually the stepladder
 

I've never done an undergrad philosophy class, just listened to a few podcasts, so I'm ignorant of what's typically taught.

I would have expected anglo-analytical profs to be more in tune with Kant than Husserl, since Kant is in their historical line, whereas Husserl appeared after Frege, who to me appears to be the figure after which analytical tendency split of from traditional philsophy.

Applying simplistic quantification (google book fight), Kant appears more often than Husserl in B&T. That's an indication of what Heidegger is grappling with.

The phrase "Zuhandenheit/Vorhandenheit inversion [of Husserl]" was new to me. I can see where B&T is the standard introduction to Heidegger in philosophy departments. Which seems reasonable to me in historical terms -- most people writing about Heidegger to a knowledgeable audience will assume familiarity with B&T. At the same time, other departments tend to go with the later essays in an introductory course.

I see Mormon Metaphysics has posted on another pecularity in how Heidegger is taught, that he "reifies language".
 

I always found that short book of essays The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays as a good way to get into Heidegger. That said, I find the concerns of B&T rather interesting and perhaps of wider relevance than Heidegger's main focus. I suspect that's why ready at hand and present at hand are seen as key. They are where Heidegger tends to pop up in more applied areas. I've seen some very interesting books on UI design in computer engineering that make use of that notion.
 

I agree the B&T div I discussion of rth and pah are a good intro.

It's the blog post's contention that there's too much "inversion [of Husserl]" and not enough attention paid to Kant. I can see the inversion as part of an intro to phenomenology class, but if an intro to H class has to first understand Husserl (what's to invert), they'll lose precious time. Now, having to first do Aristotle, a la Question Concerning Technology, that would be time well spent.
 

In my undergrad experience I only ever had to read the introduction to B&T for my postmodern class. I know the existentialism class read the whole work, and when I suggested QCT as a starting point to my old professor years later he told me he was already doing that.

I'd call his break from objective presence a pretty good starting point.