Or mathematics, or physics, or astronomy; and I'd rather hire any of those than a modern CS graduate, everything else being equal.
> Given a particular school a median CS major is typically always a better programmer/problem-solver than an equivalent Physics or Applied math major.
The highest scoring undergraduate degree for those who take the MCATs is Math/Stats. The second highest is Physical Sciences. Far and away, last place is Specialized Health Sciences, with Biology also lagging[1]. The reason isn't because "Math majors are smarter", it's because they are choosing to go into a field that isn't the directly assumed career path. A Math major HAS to stand out compared to the average CS major when going into a programming field, just as an English major HAS to stand out compared to a Finance major when going into finance. If I am interviewing a Math major and a CS major, chances are the Math major is "better" (whatever that contextually means), simply because they've already stood out above all the CS majors. All that being said, let's not pretend our undergraduate degrees are anything more than a rubber stamp.
[1] https://www.aamc.org/download/321496/data/factstablea17.pdf
May be at the school you studied at. Having taught / studied at Cornell (a highly ranked CS school) and Syracuse (ranked ~50th in USA) there is a huge gap between difficulty & level of effort required in undergraduate courses. Ignoring it as if its just a rubber stamp is a huge mistake. Honestly while there were several good students at Syracuse, I can frankly attest that even an average CS Major at Cornell is better than the 90% of students at Syracuse.
Mature.
> there is a huge gap between difficulty & level of effort required in undergraduate courses
I'm not arguing the difference between the quality of education between schools. I'm commenting on its usefulness after the rubber stamp. I went to a top college. I still question whether or not $200k was worth it to buy my first job.
> I can frankly attest that even an average CS Major at Cornell is better than the 90% of students at Syracuse.
I can frankly attest that I don't give a shit when their resume ends up on my desk. The amount of A students that end up with a B- in life are roughly the same amount that went from B- to A. A+ end up in academics, which is the only place where that aspect actually matters. I care about practical utility, not a slip of paper. "Westchester Community College" ends up in the same pile as "Cornell" if they have 2+ years of work experience.
My father teaches at Cornell as well, but at Weill in NYC. In the last 4 years, he's accepted 1 doctor from Harvard Medical School (#1 in the country) to his fellowship program. He typically doesn't take any because he thinks they value the history of their education more than the usefulness of it in practical application. While I was growing up, EVERY year when reviewing his applicants, we would inevitably have a dinner conversation about "those entitled shit heads".
> Ignoring it as if its just a rubber stamp is a huge mistake.
Whatever floats your boat. However, I'd caution you to warn your students exactly the opposite.
Whether or not that's true is another discussion, but that's the point he's making.
I have a degree in CS & Math, so I'm guessing I'm good to go :)
The consequence is a lot of people that know nothing beyond basic algorithms and data structures who try to code their own geographical databases using arrays/linked lists and wonder why queries like find the nearest neighbor to X and find all objects within this shape take forever. The answer is, they used the wrong data structures. But convincing them of that is like pulling teeth. Also, according to several of them, C = C++, and every language gets compiled to C so why would you use anything else...