CS and EE are very different fields, there's lots to learn in each field. My curriculum was a blend of EE and applied maths/phys: I made carbon nanotubes in a

CS and EE are very different fields, there's lots to learn in each field. My curriculum was a blend of EE and applied maths/phys: I made carbon nanotubes in a lab, used quantum tunneling microscopes to look at atoms of gold, used VHDL to write games and generate the signals to display them in VGA, used control theory and electromechanical models to make a webcam rotate and move to track a face via PID, applied Kalman filters, etc.. But at no point did I learn how a compiler works, how linting works, what are fundamental differences between main programming paradigms, what data structures to pick for different kinds of problems, what are the fundamentals of an OS, how to be comfortable with LISPs, etc.. Once I was out of the academic environment without a PhD or a strong specialization (and just struggling to find any work), it was much more valuable to know binary trees and SQL than all of the EE stuff. So I was on the other end of what you experience, where at one point we covered without gaps quantum physics/chemistry --> barebones CPU, yet I wouldn't have known how to make something robust with it afterwards. And obviously, despite doing 'some' applied mathematics, any mathematician would look at what I did and probably roll their eyes at the amount of convenient assumptions made. There's just so much to learn out there that most of what we do in our lives is rely on abstractions, and it doesn't even have to be specific to computers: most people can use a bicycle without being able to draw a functional one[0]. [0] https://www.fastcompany.com/3059089/it-turns-out-its-almost-impossible-to-draw-a-bicycle https://www.fastcompany.com/3059089/it-turns-out-its-almost-...