>>12565723>>12558639(cont.)
>>EECS, Math+CS, Econ+CS degrees strictly dominateEh, I'm math/CS double major at a school that's well ranked for both. EECS and math/CS definitely get a lot of coverage, but their employment opportunities aren't actually better when it comes to strictly software engineering (anti-credentialist by culture, so it doesn't really matter what major you do to break into there) based on my experience doing new hire interviews. Also
>econ+CSLmao out of left field, nobody gives a fuck about this degree. Good to know this is what you're doing anon.
Now, that being said, what
>>12564067 isn't true either. The reason the best companies look for the best software *engineers* from new hires is because there *are* enough very talented new hires that outstrip people without a degree in both technical expertise and theoretical base / problem solving skills. They're drowned out by the fact that everyone and their mother goes for CS degrees and interviews for companies, but they exist in droves. The self taught guys are also good, but they usually work their way up from support engineering or IT into software engineering, and by software engineering, I mean any field where the software is written for very precise demands solving nontrivial problems where the margin for error is very low and the standards are very high. These include aircraft, embedded, cryptography, scientific computing, HFT, etc etc.. It should be abundantly clear that these fields are definitely proper engineering, and it's not really uncommon to see pure software guys go into different parts of the engineering process as specialization if they like (I know a guy who was in flight software who jumped into avionics after taking some classes offered at his place of employment, getting a funded masters, taking the necessary certification and technical exams and passing, etc etc..). Most don't do it because unironically going out of software is generally a pay cut lmao.
