I would say that it is a good thing that the core courses are static in time. It means the field is mature enough to support an undergraduate program at all. Ph

I would say that it is a good thing that the core courses are static in time. It means the field is mature enough to support an undergraduate program at all. Physics and Chemistry majors spend most of their time at school catching up to the historic state of the art up to early 20th century. If they want to know the most up to date advances they have to either pursue a self directed continued education, or enroll in a graduate level program. As a matter of fact, a rapidly changing curriculum would be at least a yellow flag. In the worst case, it's the pseudo sciences that go up and down, chasing the passing fade du-jour. This is more like a smell test than an objective indicator. The correlation is there, but it is not well understood. Not necessarily every rapidly changing curriculum is a pseudo-science, but a closer look is probably due. That was probably the state of the art of Computer Sciences ~65 years ago. The Foundations were already known, but the field was still too much of a virgin land to be settled by undergraduates. It was rather a diverse group of mathematicians, scientists and (mechanical and electric) engineers who were just exploring the territory. It eventually coalesced into what we have today, so it is a good thing that the pace has slowed down by now.