That's excellent, I might even call it extraordinary. Meaning, that is outside the ordinary.
I knew a guy in college, at UCSD, who was trying to take a full CS load while working at Nordstrom. This was in the 90s, so rent, tuition, and costs weren't as high around UCSD as they are now, but making enough to cover rent alone can be a challenge. He was trying to take calc, physics, datas structures and algorithms, and humanities.
Data structures had a pretty tough teacher that semester. I didn't have to work, and I was putting in 20 hours a week at it, to get a B+. That's not a lot for this course, either.
He dropped it. You did ChemE while working, so I bet you could have handled the CS course load at UCSD while working. But I just can't see this as a viable path for most people. In short, I agree that there are extraordinary people who can handle it, but it's not something we can reasonably expect. You can major in communications this way, but CS will lose a lot of talent.
Memories like this, and others, are why I get so angry at times when I hear billionaire CEOs talking about the shortage of engineers in the US. We have talented people here, smart and eager to work hard, failing because they are underfunded. The massive wealth of these CEOs exists only because they can access a highly educated workforce in a safe, stable, peaceful, business friendly democracy.
If they're going to talk about how this environment is failing them, they aren't doing enough. Seriously. It's appalling that talented people who had the grades and test scores to study CS at public (elite) institutions in Facebook's own backyard are failing out of CS because they can't pay the rent and balance the part time job with the demands of a very rigorous curriculum, while billionaire CEOs talk about how the government is failing to produce or give them access to enough engineers.