> and because they never mastered it they can't really use it, and because they can't really use it they find work that doesn't strictly require it, and then conclude it's useless...
But isn't this statement too specific to apply to the generalization that you're disagreeing with? "Most 'real world' work doesn't require CompSci" is a generally true statement, because most "real world work" is incredibly mundane and repetitive.
So, isn't your take kind of the inverse of what you're talking about? "I enjoyed ____, so I sought out industries that required ____". Almost as though computer science is a specialization within "real world" work?
I guess I think that most industries are not the industries that you're seeking out. Most software developers are employed to combine already-solved problems with new inputs for money.
But isn't this statement too specific to apply to the generalization that you're disagreeing with? "Most 'real world' work doesn't require CompSci" is a generally true statement, because most "real world work" is incredibly mundane and repetitive.
So, isn't your take kind of the inverse of what you're talking about? "I enjoyed ____, so I sought out industries that required ____". Almost as though computer science is a specialization within "real world" work?
I guess I think that most industries are not the industries that you're seeking out. Most software developers are employed to combine already-solved problems with new inputs for money.
What do you think?