Its unfortunate, but almost inevitable. Eric Roberts wrote about CS' latest rise 6 years ago [1]. Looking at its prior "peaks", its always come down to a resour

Its unfortunate, but almost inevitable. Eric Roberts wrote about CS' latest rise 6 years ago [1]. Looking at its prior "peaks", its always come down to a resource issue - there's simply not enough space for everyone. As a consequence, schools started to do several things: A) Limit enrollment to the better prepared; B) Increase retraining for other STEM instructors/teachers to teach CS; or C) increase enrollment to unmanageable standards (my Intro to AI course has grown in the past 3 years from 45, to 80, to 120 next spring). Each has their own downfalls - higher enrollment requirements limit lower socioeconomic students, retraining programs cost money and can produce subpar instructors (2 month retraining PD vs a 2 year), and increased teaching loads make becoming an instructor unattractive. It doesn't help that CS PhDs are highly sought after by large tech corporations, pay MUCH more, and with less work (maybe). We haven't really solved how to teach CS, problem solving is still a difficult thing for humans to learn and we don't really have a better way to teach it. Even if we include all the current "soft skills", at the end of the day problem solving is the trait many companies want. If history repeats itself, the CS bubble will burst. Not necessarily plummeting, but new students seeking STEM careers will pick programs without as many barriers of entry or low quality instruction. I don't really have a solution to the problem, just acknowledging that the issues the domain will face as enrollment continues to increase. [1] https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/CSCapacity/ https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/CSCapacity/