Fix the curriculums so I can justify restarting a new grad hiring pipeline in the US.
CS (along with ECE/EECS) degrees have been watering down their curriculum for a decade by reducing the amount of hardware, low level, and theory courses that remain requirements abroad.
Just take a look at the curriculum changes for the CSE major (course 6-3) at MIT in the 2025 [0] versus 2017-22 [1] versus pre-2017 [2] - there is a steady decrease in the amount of table stakes EE/CE content like circuits, signals, computer architecture, and OS dev (all of which are building blocks for Cybersecurity and ML) and an increased amount in math.
Nothing wrong with increasing the math content, but reducing the ECE content in a CSE major is bad given how tightly coupled software is with hardware. We are now at a point where an entire generation of CSE majors in America do not know what a series or parallel circuit is.
And this trend has been happening at every program in the US over the past 10 years.
I CANNOT JUSTIFY building a new grad pipeline in cybersecurity, DevSecOps, CloudSec, MLOps, Infra Silicon Design, or ML Infra with people who don't understand how a jump register works, the difference between BPF and eBPF, or how to derive a restricted Boltzmann machine (for my ML researcher hires) - not because they need to know it on the job, but because it betrays a lack of fundamental knowledge.
I can find new grad candidates with a similar profile at a handful of domestic CS programs (Cal included), but (Cal specific) someone with a BA CS from LAS who never touched CS152, CS161, CS162, or CS168 isn't getting hired into the early career pipeline for a security startup when they took CS160, CS169L, or CS169A because they are "easier", or isn't getting hired as a junior MLE if they didn't take all the more theoretical undergrad ML classes at Cal like CS182, CS185, CS188, and CS189. And even worse if they are a BA DS without a second fundamental major like AMATH or IEOR.
> Give me a new grad with strong fundamentals, a love of programming, and an interest in the domain and I'll teach them in sixth months whatever they missed in college that's relevant to the job
I 100% agree. A lot of core foundational classes that at the very least build the mindset of how to problem solve are not offered or have severely reduced the curriculum and content offered.
> until the implication that it's learning the nitty-gritty details that's important.
Not what I meant. What I mean is you can't understand or ramp up on (eg.) eBPF without understanding how the Linux Kernel, syscalls, and registries work. If you don't have the foundations down, I can't justify spending $120k base plus 30% in benefits and taxes hiring you out of college.
> These are kind oddly specific criteria
I'm giving random examples from individual portfolio companies
> Are those really things you think new grads need to know
This is the kind of curriculum a new grad from Cal (be they on F1 OPT or a citizen) are competing with when my portfolio companies have hired new grads.
Like many in the AI space, Farid said that those who use breakthrough technologies will outlast those who don't.
"AI" professor tells everyone to use "AI". With the usual fatalism that nothing can ever be done about anything.
One option for example would be to fire all "AI" professors. Another one would be to outlaw "AI", just as nuclear energy was outlawed in Germany and DDT was banned worldwide.
The elephant in the room: the H1B visa and the influx of Indian workers into the U.S. labor market. Many of them are willing to work for lower wages, demand less, and have fewer rights—essentially becoming exploited labor for Corporate America. Why would a corporation hire an American graduate who won’t tolerate these conditions when an H1B worker will?
Instead of confronting the issue directly, people often sidestep it with other excuses. The reality is, if we eliminated all H1B workers, every American in the IT industry, including recent graduates, would have a job. And don’t try to convince me that a Java developer from India possesses skills that our university graduates don’t.
I would like to know what is meant by "Computer science jobs".
To me, Computer Science would be like research type jobs. I know nothing about this field, but I expect it has always been and always will be very hard to get into this field.
Then you have these programming jobs:
IT would be working on Internal Applications for a Business. These days would usually mean supporting or in-house custom developing for things like SAP or Oracle. This is what I did, in the 70s/80s/90s it was all in-house systems. Starting early 2000s, systems like SAP. I have since retired but I know where I last worked, that company was moving these jobs outside the US. From friends still there, those moves have increased quite a bit. Maybe work could be still available in small companies.
Then there are working at startups, which is rare but gets all the press, I know nothing about this area.
Then there is working a a company that develops software for sale (like SAP), I tend to think this is starting to go the way of IT work mentioned above.
The high salaries commanded by FAANG engineers right out of college motivated a lot of students to take up computer science as a major and this led to a massive oversupply. It might take a few years to cool.
Engineering and construction type careers in general, anything involving "capital investment", are very sensitive to market conditions. That is, future expectations. Very boom and bust, dependent on credit.
Tech employers are saying it's efficiencies gained in AI that led to layoffs for the past few years. Yet they have increased headcount in engineering offices in other countries at the same time.
This is also happening at small and midsize companies that ship software. It's easy to find this information, particularly for the largest companies like Amazon, Microsoft, and Google.
Like the article states, there are a number of confounding factors. But it's not AI, no matter how much founders and CEOs want it to be true.
Maybe the internet is complete. Programming was not that big until the internet came along. Writers started writing for web sites, some of them even started learning to code. Huge hoards of people were needed to "build the internet" as we know it today. That process has IMHO been stabilizing for a while now. Every local restaurant has a web site of some sort - some even have an event calendar that is updated regularly. It's not just Google and Amazon, the electronic version of the entire world has been built out. Payment systems are in place - even hobbyists or crafters can take payments online. It took 30 years with countless dead ends and restarts in a number of areas, but we finally have a stable functioning internet with common development tools and practices. Maintenance of this thing is going to take fewer resources than building it took. It kinda makes sense that jobs are getting harder to find.
I've been working in product development and embedded software most of this time, and I don't see too much change.
I'm a CS professor and this is not really what we are seeing. I'm not at Berkeley but it's an R1. Yes, students on the lower end of the GPA scale are having a harder time finding jobs. But in terms of my program's ability to place students after graduating, the vast majority have been placed.
It's important to also note that some who have not found a place did so because the thought they could find a better salary by holding out for longer. So yes, probably average post-grad offer is going down, that's true. But it's definitely not true to say "everybody is struggling to get jobs"
12 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 33.2 ms ] threadCS (along with ECE/EECS) degrees have been watering down their curriculum for a decade by reducing the amount of hardware, low level, and theory courses that remain requirements abroad.
Just take a look at the curriculum changes for the CSE major (course 6-3) at MIT in the 2025 [0] versus 2017-22 [1] versus pre-2017 [2] - there is a steady decrease in the amount of table stakes EE/CE content like circuits, signals, computer architecture, and OS dev (all of which are building blocks for Cybersecurity and ML) and an increased amount in math.
Nothing wrong with increasing the math content, but reducing the ECE content in a CSE major is bad given how tightly coupled software is with hardware. We are now at a point where an entire generation of CSE majors in America do not know what a series or parallel circuit is.
And this trend has been happening at every program in the US over the past 10 years.
I CANNOT JUSTIFY building a new grad pipeline in cybersecurity, DevSecOps, CloudSec, MLOps, Infra Silicon Design, or ML Infra with people who don't understand how a jump register works, the difference between BPF and eBPF, or how to derive a restricted Boltzmann machine (for my ML researcher hires) - not because they need to know it on the job, but because it betrays a lack of fundamental knowledge.
I can find new grad candidates with a similar profile at a handful of domestic CS programs (Cal included), but (Cal specific) someone with a BA CS from LAS who never touched CS152, CS161, CS162, or CS168 isn't getting hired into the early career pipeline for a security startup when they took CS160, CS169L, or CS169A because they are "easier", or isn't getting hired as a junior MLE if they didn't take all the more theoretical undergrad ML classes at Cal like CS182, CS185, CS188, and CS189. And even worse if they are a BA DS without a second fundamental major like AMATH or IEOR.
[0] - https://eecsis.mit.edu/degree_requirements.html#6-3_2025
[1] - https://eecsis.mit.edu/degree_requirements.html#6-3_2017
[2] - https://www.scribd.com/document/555216170/6-3-roadmap
-------------
Edit: can't reply so replying here
> Give me a new grad with strong fundamentals, a love of programming, and an interest in the domain and I'll teach them in sixth months whatever they missed in college that's relevant to the job
I 100% agree. A lot of core foundational classes that at the very least build the mindset of how to problem solve are not offered or have severely reduced the curriculum and content offered.
> until the implication that it's learning the nitty-gritty details that's important.
Not what I meant. What I mean is you can't understand or ramp up on (eg.) eBPF without understanding how the Linux Kernel, syscalls, and registries work. If you don't have the foundations down, I can't justify spending $120k base plus 30% in benefits and taxes hiring you out of college.
> These are kind oddly specific criteria
I'm giving random examples from individual portfolio companies
> Are those really things you think new grads need to know
This is the kind of curriculum a new grad from Cal (be they on F1 OPT or a citizen) are competing with when my portfolio companies have hired new grads.
TAU - https://exact-sciences.m.tau.ac.il/yedion/2021-22/computer_s...
IITD - bgwalter ↗ Like many in the AI space, Farid said that those who use breakthrough technologies will outlast those who don't. sleepyguy ↗ The elephant in the room: the H1B visa and the influx of Indian workers into the U.S. labor market. Many of them are willing to work for lower wages, demand less, and have fewer rights—essentially becoming exploited labor for Corporate America. Why would a corporation hire an American graduate who won’t tolerate these conditions when an H1B worker will? jmclnx ↗ I would like to know what is meant by "Computer science jobs". yangikan ↗ The high salaries commanded by FAANG engineers right out of college motivated a lot of students to take up computer science as a major and this led to a massive oversupply. It might take a few years to cool. red_rech ↗ I’m still desperately looking for an out from this industry. HPsquared ↗ Engineering and construction type careers in general, anything involving "capital investment", are very sensitive to market conditions. That is, future expectations. Very boom and bust, dependent on credit. strict9 ↗ Tech employers are saying it's efficiencies gained in AI that led to layoffs for the past few years. Yet they have increased headcount in engineering offices in other countries at the same time. stronglikedan ↗ These types of headlines should always end with "for those who cannot or will not move." phkahler ↗ Maybe the internet is complete. Programming was not that big until the internet came along. Writers started writing for web sites, some of them even started learning to code. Huge hoards of people were needed to "build the internet" as we know it today. That process has IMHO been stabilizing for a while now. Every local restaurant has a web site of some sort - some even have an event calendar that is updated regularly. It's not just Google and Amazon, the electronic version of the entire world has been built out. Payment systems are in place - even hobbyists or crafters can take payments online. It took 30 years with countless dead ends and restarts in a number of areas, but we finally have a stable functioning internet with common development tools and practices. Maintenance of this thing is going to take fewer resources than building it took. It kinda makes sense that jobs are getting harder to find. ModernMech ↗ I'm a CS professor and this is not really what we are seeing. I'm not at Berkeley but it's an R1. Yes, students on the lower end of the GPA scale are having a harder time finding jobs. But in terms of my program's ability to place students after graduating, the vast majority have been placed. joquarky ↗ > But it's definitely not true to say "everybody is struggling to get jobs"
"AI" professor tells everyone to use "AI". With the usual fatalism that nothing can ever be done about anything.
One option for example would be to fire all "AI" professors. Another one would be to outlaw "AI", just as nuclear energy was outlawed in Germany and DDT was banned worldwide.
Instead of confronting the issue directly, people often sidestep it with other excuses. The reality is, if we eliminated all H1B workers, every American in the IT industry, including recent graduates, would have a job. And don’t try to convince me that a Java developer from India possesses skills that our university graduates don’t.
To me, Computer Science would be like research type jobs. I know nothing about this field, but I expect it has always been and always will be very hard to get into this field.
Then you have these programming jobs:
IT would be working on Internal Applications for a Business. These days would usually mean supporting or in-house custom developing for things like SAP or Oracle. This is what I did, in the 70s/80s/90s it was all in-house systems. Starting early 2000s, systems like SAP. I have since retired but I know where I last worked, that company was moving these jobs outside the US. From friends still there, those moves have increased quite a bit. Maybe work could be still available in small companies.
Then there are working at startups, which is rare but gets all the press, I know nothing about this area.
Then there is working a a company that develops software for sale (like SAP), I tend to think this is starting to go the way of IT work mentioned above.
https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/careers/computer-science-major...
"Between 2018 and 2023, the number of students majoring in computer and information science jumped from about 444,000 to 628,000."
Around 40% of MIT graduates are now in CS https://alum.mit.edu/slice/conversation-new-computing-dean-a...
Further, COVID has reduced a lot of friction for remote work, so now there is also global competition for these jobs.
The layoff and market conditions helped me realized just how useless my career has been.
I knew I never wanted to work professionally in software, but it was the only thing accessible that pays well.
Even now it’s the only thing keeping me afloat, so I don’t see any way out but slow painful [career] death.
This is also happening at small and midsize companies that ship software. It's easy to find this information, particularly for the largest companies like Amazon, Microsoft, and Google.
Like the article states, there are a number of confounding factors. But it's not AI, no matter how much founders and CEOs want it to be true.
It's the pursuit of lower cost employees.
There's plenty of jobs - just not always in the most popular areas.
I've been working in product development and embedded software most of this time, and I don't see too much change.
It's important to also note that some who have not found a place did so because the thought they could find a better salary by holding out for longer. So yes, probably average post-grad offer is going down, that's true. But it's definitely not true to say "everybody is struggling to get jobs"
Most people don't speak or write literally about this kind of subject.