>>12170855Not OP, but I did a double major for both, and I know a friend who does interviewing. Basically
>lots of bad CS majors, but by their sheer number, there are a lot of great ones, but they're a low percentage>math students are pretty close to the best CS majors>physics and engineering students are good but not as good as the aboveHe said that the decisions to hire went about 60% CS majors, 20% math majors, and 20% split between engineering and physics majors. Now, software engineering (real software engineering, not app or business bullshit) has a pretty tough interview process, and it's hard for almost every applicant, but by far the people best equipped for both the content and the style of the interview are CS majors. Shocking, I know.
>>12171003The question in general isn't
>What can <specific degree holder> do that <other degree holder> can'tAn interview process cares about your degree as a basic barrier to entry, but they don't stress about your *specific* degree. In engineering, they care about having any accredited engineering degree. In software engineering, which is fairly anti-credentialist all the way to the FSM, they care mostly about having any STEM degree and verifying you can do the work via a long interview process. You need to stop reducing your worth in industry down to the degree, because nobody actually cares. Take what you can out of your curriculum regardless of what it is.
>>12171123There's no denying there are a lot of shitty CS majors, just by the sheer explosion of popularity in the undergrad major. However, this is a general observation among engineering as well, though it's a better gated by ABET in the states - the ABET standards for CS suck, and almost every good school out there doesn't follow them. All that being said, there are a lot of amazing CS majors who are generally the top 5% of any decent to good department, and they don't get any exposure since they tend to be the quieter, non-meme-y types
