3 ms·

Re: the choice of 2005 as origin, if you rebase on 2009, then CS degree growth looks on par with other STEM fields. Thus I think is's misleading to say CS major

Re: the choice of 2005 as origin, if you rebase on 2009, then CS degree growth looks on par with other STEM fields. Thus I think is's misleading to say CS majoring is "flat". At a certain end-to-end view it is, but that obscures that it crashed, and is now rapidly growing, not that it's been stagnant and unchanging. In the early 2000s it was widely perceived as the economically smart thing to go into a technical field other than CS, especially petroleum engineering, chemical engineering, and similar areas, or maybe even better, a non-technical field like law. They had higher pay and were seen as more stable employment options. CS employment was seen by many people as unlikely to ever fully recover from the dotcom crash, partly because of mass outsourcing. So unsurprisingly, new enrollment numbers were low, and some departments at smaller schools even closed. Then from around 2005, CS began to be seen as a lucrative again, and enrollment has been steadily rising every year since then. Universities have responded likewise by reopening CS departments, hiring more faculty in existing ones, and increasing class sizes (so enrollment growth is actually considerably outpacing faculty growth). This does not look to me like a market that fails to respond to economic incentives, but exactly like one that does respond. Maybe it ought to respond even faster, although if it did in general, the CS-degree crash of the 2000s might've been even deeper than it was.

noobermin 9y ago
>if you rebase on 2009, then CS degree growth looks on par with other STEM fields. Thus I think is's misleading to say CS majoring is "flat". No, what you described is called "misleading with data" at best and "lying" at worst. There is a clear dip in CS on that plot that is suffered but none of the other points. Moreover, the growth is below the rate of increase in college graduates.
- _delirium 9y ago
  The clear dip in CS is what the rest of my comment is about. The point is that the entire premise of the original post, which claims CS enrollment is "flat" by cherry-picking a specific benchmark year and ignoring huge movement between that year and the present, is indeed "'misleading with data' at best", because CS enrollment is not "flat". If you pick an earlier or later year, you get different narratives. The post then spends a bunch of time musing on why CS enrollment supposedly doesn't respond to economic incentives, even though responding to economic incentives, i.e. rising and falling together with tech booms and busts, is precisely what the data shows it doing. Edit: better said here, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14441423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14441423
  - noobermin 9y ago
    You're right, saying it is "flat" rather than "lackluster" might have been better. I apologize for that.
- benchaney 9y ago
  Did you read the post you are accusing of "misleading with data"? He describes that exact phenomenon the sentence after you quoted. It's completely ridiculous to cut out context and then him out for not mentioning the context you just cut out.
appleiigs 9y ago
In that time (early 2000's), even if you had a strong interest in computers, you'd be pushed toward Computer Engineering instead of CS. Business school was a popular alternative with MBA enrollments peaking in the early 2000s.
- vkjv 9y ago
  Where I went to college, UMBC, Computer Engineering covered enough of Electric Engineering and Computer Science that it set you up for either a career or further education in either. In my opinion, it was the best value.
- _delirium 9y ago
  I did in fact have considerable pressure from family to change my major from CS to some form of Engineering in this time frame, ideally some "hard-science" engineering like Chemical Engineering. CS was seen as a dead-end, easily exportable coder job, and well-meaning relatives really wanted me to get an engineering degree instead.
danjoc 9y ago
>mass outsourcing winrar! Came here to say that. ctrl-f says you're the only other person to remember it. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=outsourcing https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=outsourc...
- mljoe 9y ago
  Yes, I know it seems silly now, but this was a very real scare that CS would be a worthless degree in the future. I was dissuaded from majoring in CS during the height of this, but ultimately changed my major back to CS when I realized that I was actually really good at it.

noobermin 9y ago

>if you rebase on 2009, then CS degree growth looks on par with other STEM fields. Thus I think is's misleading to say CS majoring is "flat". No, what you described is called "misleading with data" at best and "lying" at worst. There is a clear dip in CS on that plot that is suffered but none of the other points. Moreover, the growth is below the rate of increase in college graduates.

_delirium 9y ago
The clear dip in CS is what the rest of my comment is about. The point is that the entire premise of the original post, which claims CS enrollment is "flat" by cherry-picking a specific benchmark year and ignoring huge movement between that year and the present, is indeed "'misleading with data' at best", because CS enrollment is not "flat". If you pick an earlier or later year, you get different narratives. The post then spends a bunch of time musing on why CS enrollment supposedly doesn't respond to economic incentives, even though responding to economic incentives, i.e. rising and falling together with tech booms and busts, is precisely what the data shows it doing. Edit: better said here, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14441423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14441423
- noobermin 9y ago
  You're right, saying it is "flat" rather than "lackluster" might have been better. I apologize for that.
benchaney 9y ago
Did you read the post you are accusing of "misleading with data"? He describes that exact phenomenon the sentence after you quoted. It's completely ridiculous to cut out context and then him out for not mentioning the context you just cut out.

appleiigs 9y ago

In that time (early 2000's), even if you had a strong interest in computers, you'd be pushed toward Computer Engineering instead of CS. Business school was a popular alternative with MBA enrollments peaking in the early 2000s.

vkjv 9y ago
Where I went to college, UMBC, Computer Engineering covered enough of Electric Engineering and Computer Science that it set you up for either a career or further education in either. In my opinion, it was the best value.
_delirium 9y ago
I did in fact have considerable pressure from family to change my major from CS to some form of Engineering in this time frame, ideally some "hard-science" engineering like Chemical Engineering. CS was seen as a dead-end, easily exportable coder job, and well-meaning relatives really wanted me to get an engineering degree instead.

danjoc 9y ago

>mass outsourcing winrar! Came here to say that. ctrl-f says you're the only other person to remember it. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=outsourcing https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=outsourc...

mljoe 9y ago
Yes, I know it seems silly now, but this was a very real scare that CS would be a worthless degree in the future. I was dissuaded from majoring in CS during the height of this, but ultimately changed my major back to CS when I realized that I was actually really good at it.