Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The computer science degree isn’t dead

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 267 posts

Re: The computer science degree isn’t dead

#21

Post by alephnerd »

People can kvetch but the advice in the article is correct. The alternative of no degree is extremely difficult to succeed with unless you have a pre-existing network. And underemployment rates continue to remain lower for CS/CE/EE grads than other majors.

Additionally, getting into the best school possible is critical. The top 20 CS, CE, EE, ECE, and EECS undergrad programs in the US graduate around 15-20k students a years. That is a large enough pool to recruit from for NCGs. For diversity reasons, employers will often also recruit from Veteran programs and some respected regional colleges (eg. SJSU, CalPoly, or SCU in the Bay or UTD, UTA, or UTSA in Austin) and then call it a day, so where you go truly does matter.

Re: The computer science degree isn’t dead

#22

Post by shagie »

le-mark wrote: post #2

> The Federal Reserve Bank of New York recently placed unemployment for recent CS graduates in the United States at 6.1 percent, with computer engineering graduates at 7.5 percent. Compared to philosophy majors at 3.2 percent and art history graduates at 3.0 percent, those figures look alarming. Alarming doesn’t begin to describe it. This is an existential crises for our industry. The situation for entry level has be…

https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#--:... (note: Latest Release: February 4, 2026, based on data from 2024)

Yes, this has unemployment computer engineering at #2 with 7.8% and computer science at #5 at 7.0%.

Philosophy is at 5.1% unemployment.

The next column is also important to look at - the underemployment rate. Is the graduate in a profession that requires the degree.

    The underemployment rate is defined as the share of graduates working in jobs that typically do not require a college degree. A job is classified as a college job if 50 percent or more of the people working in that job indicate that at least a bachelor's degree is necessary; otherwise, the job is classified as a non-college job.
Philosophy has a 47.1% underemployment rate. Half of the graduates with a philosophy degree aren't employed in a job that requires a college degree.

Underemployment for computer engineering is at 15.8% (3rd lowest) and computer science is at 19.1% (9th lowest).

If you want a unemployment rate for computer science that matches philosophy the answer is easy - hold your nose and take the front desk receptionist job.

Also... sort by "median wage early career." Computer engineering and computer science are #1 and #2 at $90k and $87k. There's something important there too - most college graduates are not getting $100k/year jobs. That expectation of Big Tech wages out of college and turning one's nose up at a job that offers the median claiming that "it isn't competitive" may be contributing to the unemployment rate.

There isn't an existential crisis there. Most college graduates are finding jobs in the profession and computer science and engineering (from that data) are the highest paying college majors.

Re: The computer science degree isn’t dead

#23

Post by ehnto »

taurath wrote: post #19

If one is thinking about not getting a degree and trying to go straight to work, as someone who did so (albiet out of poverty rather than choice) but didn't end up like Zuck, please heed my warning: Social capital matters more than just about anyone who has a degree can understand and tell you or mentor you about, because the majority of them have always had it, and they tend not even to interact with people without…

To a much smaller extent due to where I live, I noticed this too. From merely the fact that I had a (local economy relative) high paying software job and that I could "make stuff happen" for people with capital or people in the "boys club", I was introduced to an entirely different layer of the city I had no idea about. I noticed how effortlessly the signals transfer and how it all feels very meritocratic, you don't even notice the layer and you just see the people. Until someone who's not in that layer shows up, and suddenly the doors close, the conversation chills and the barriers to the layer become evident.

I am very curious how this changes for young technologists in an AI era, where maybe non-technical people in this layer no longer see a self made technologist as a value add to their cohort.

I purposely use technologist over software developer, since I feelnthe generalist self-made developer typically commands an intuitive breadth of skills not just programming.

I also didn't make out like Zuck, though I am happily working and making games on the side.

Re: The computer science degree isn’t dead

#25

Post by Traubenfuchs »

mamidon wrote: post #5

This may be a cynical take, but as someone with 10+ years of experience why should I care if companies are too short sighted to value and train juniors?

It would actually be good for us…

I never understood why software engineers were so excited about open source and teaching everyone to code.

Why aren‘t we more like doctors or lawyers?

Re: The computer science degree isn’t dead

#26

Post by bluefirebrand »

JCTheDenthog wrote: post #3
le-mark wrote: post #2

> The Federal Reserve Bank of New York recently placed unemployment for recent CS graduates in the United States at 6.1 percent, with computer engineering graduates at 7.5 percent. Compared to philosophy majors at 3.2 percent and art history graduates at 3.0 percent, those figures look alarming. Alarming doesn’t begin to describe it. This is an existential crises for our industry. The situation for entry level has be…

I think we're going to see a big scramble to pick up the pieces in a few years when a bunch of vibe-slopped houses of cards come crashing down. I imagine it will be like the demand for COBOL developers but on a much more massive scale.

I sure hope you're right

I'm worried the slop can remain irrational longer than I can remain solvent

Re: The computer science degree isn’t dead

#27

Post by bluefirebrand »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #25
mamidon wrote: post #5

This may be a cynical take, but as someone with 10+ years of experience why should I care if companies are too short sighted to value and train juniors?

It would actually be good for us… I never understood why software engineers were so excited about open source and teaching everyone to code. Why aren‘t we more like doctors or lawyers?

Why aren't doctors or lawyers more like us?

Re: The computer science degree isn’t dead

#28

Post by wasabi991011 »

Terr_ wrote: post #8
mamidon wrote: post #5

This may be a cynical take, but as someone with 10+ years of experience why should I care if companies are too short sighted to value and train juniors?

To twist another saying: "Employers can be short-sighted for longer than I can delay my rent payment."

Why would their rent payment be affected in any way? They aren't a junior

Re: The computer science degree isn’t dead

#29

Post by wasabi991011 »

photochemsyn wrote: post #6

If you’re going to get a CS degree, do it in a master’s degree program. Get your undergraduate degree in anything else that involves at least some mathematics, I’d recommend physics, chemistry, molecular biology, planetary sciences - probability, calculus, linear algebra. Engineering is somewhat more on the vocational side, but that works too. Why? You don’t narrow your scope at the beginning!

In what way are those undergraduate degrees any less narrowing of scope than a CS undergraduate degree?

Re: The computer science degree isn’t dead

#30

Post by rippeltippel »

I agree with the "what" but not with the "how".

The article essentially says that, for a junior to be hired, they should demonstrate the same experience as a senior: deploy real system that solve real problems, know how systems behave in production, etc. That is precisely the skillset that someone builds up in a professional environment, i.e. after being hired.

In my view and experience (20+ years in the field) the value of junior colleagues is not in what they already know how to do, but in the freshness of their ideas, and the ability to learn the skills required to bring those ideas to fruition.

So, I agree that the hiring pipeline is broken, but for a different reason: companies stopped looking at juniors as a long-term investment.

I can think of a few reasons for that. In any case, that mindset is to blame, not the "kids" and their education.

Post reply on HN