I have a PhD in mathematics and have worked in tech for more than 30 years as a programmer. I went to a Renaissance era university in Scotland which is required by law to require of me a broad education rather than something very specialised. Because I entered the science faculty, as an undergraduate, I had to balance that with something from the humanities and I chose Philosophy, naïvely thinking that it would be easy. Philosophy is in no sense of the word "easy" and not something you can "bluff your way through". In fact, it is more difficult than mathematics and more difficult and arduous than computer science.
I also teach at a university level and would advise young people reading this to pursue, these days, a philosophy education (or a mathematics education) over a software engineering/computer science education.
This is the conclusion I have come to as well. So much of what happens in society can be best explained (imo) by human psychology and our relationship with ego, desire, perceived success etc.
I was born and educated in Scotland, worked in the UK for a decade or so, then moved to the US and worked for big tech for 15 years while living in the US and becoming a US citizen. I then chose to move back to Scotland, where I continue to work for the same US big tech company but get paid UK wages with UK employment benefits. So, I've lived significant portions of my life on both sides.
Here in the UK, I get 29 days paid vacation plus ten or so (not sure) public holidays. If I am sick on vacation, I can claim those days as sick days and regain the vacation time. Edit: plus, my contract is for 35 hours per week whereas in the US it was 40.
Regarding money, I am doing the same job that I was doing in the US (same team etc.) but took, what was at the time, a 25% reduction in gross salary. However, by the time you add in the higher taxes, my take home pay (from my salary - my stock awards are the same) is about 40% lower than it was in the US.
Now, I am nearing 50, my corporate career progression is plateauing/settled (by choice, btw) and I have a teenage daughter. A big reason for coming back to Scotland was so she could be educated here and experience European life and culture during her formative years. The other big reason was to have a better work-life balance. I have so much non-work time here, I can actually pursue non-work interests; whereas my US work colleagues seem to always be Slacking and "checking in" while they are on vacation; never seeming to have an identity beyond their job.
I have also lost 13kg (29lb) in weight.
For us techies, the US is the place to get rich, but, in my experience, there are significant lifestyle compromises that you must make in order to do so.
Edit: I was curious about the numbers, so I did a little arithmetic to work out the hourly wage I earned in the US and the hourly wage I earn here in the UK, taking into consideration the vacation days.
My UK gross per hour wage is between 11% and 15% lower than my US salary, depending on the (volatile) exchange rate. Of course, UK tax is much higher (my marginal rate is 49%). So, the difference in take-home pay is more than that.
Yes, when we design mathematics degree courses, there is, of course, only so much of the overall subject that can be covered.
However, the definition of a mathematics major is, I think we'd agree, "someone who has majored in mathematics". So, regardless of how much of the corpus we manage to cover, having a degree in mathematics means that you majored in mathematics (if I am understanding US terms correctly).
The original post was, I think, equivocating a degree in computer science with being a mathematics major. Which could be regarded as being incorrect, perhaps pedantically, merely by definition alone.
However, also, I am making a distinction (although I wasn't very clear, I admit) between theoretical computer science (the topic) and a computer science degree. It is generally accepted that theoretical computer science is a topic in applied mathematics, but it doesn't then follow that having a computer science degree means that you are a mathematics major.
Computer science degrees have theoretical computer science (the topic) as a component; the extent to which that component makes up the degree syllabus varies greatly from university to university and, perhaps, has also changed over time.
I, unfortunately, wasn't very clear, in my original comment, that I am making a distinction between theoretical computer science (the topic); and being a computer science major.
Theoretical computer science is generally regarded as a topic in applied mathematics. However, it doesn't follow that, therefore, a computer science major is basically a mathematics major.
Theoretical computer science (the topic) is a component of a degree in computer science. How large of a component it is varies greatly from university to university and, perhaps, has changed over time.
From my observations of being in the industry so long, I would tend to agree that the content of computer science degrees has changed since the 80s and 90s.
I should have made a clearer distinction between theoretical computer science and a computer science degree.
Theoretical computer science is a topic in applied mathematics but a computer science degree isn't, typically composed only of classes in theoretical computer science. The extent to which it is varies from course to course and from university to university. In much the same way as in a mathematics degree there are pure maths topics (number theory, analysis, graph theory etc.) and applied topics.
Some context for what I am about to say: I read mathematics at university (in US terms I am a "math major") and have worked as a software engineer for almost 30 years; being around for the rise of the Internet, mobile phones and cloud computing; most of which I have spent at US big tech companies. I am an also fellow of a mathematics academic institution here in the UK.
Without hesitation, computer science is certainly not a mathematics major.
Having some knowledge of some aspects of a subject, doesn't make you qualified in that subject. At least, not at the university level.
Mathematics is an enormous and ancient subject. The maths that a CS student is exposed to is really a very small sliver of a few topics; applied to certain uses. Many other subjects (almost all numerate ones) have a similar relationship to maths.
Consider economics: aspects of it also make use of (applied) mathematics, but no one could seriously make the claim that an economics major, even one who has extensive capabilities in numerical modelling, is basically a mathematics major.
Theoretical CS could be described as "a form of applied mathematics"; but Theoretical CS is only a component of a CS degree; and, from what I see with young graduates today, a decreasingly smaller part of it (I am not making a value judgement - just an empirical observation).
Oh wow, what an uninformed opinion. Not surprising, sadly, given that so many in tech are so one-dimensional.
Perhaps a course in art history would help you understand that visual art has never been solely about image reproduction. Even cave paintings were allegorical. My goodness.
I am 47 years old and have had two suicide attempts in my life, various interventions and other close calls and I just want to say to you that, even though things can seem hopeless, your life can get better; but you absolutely need to seek professional help.
I did and that and medication (I have Bipolar disorder) has probably saved my life.
As a mathematics major, I find it encouraging to see non-mathematicians sing the praises of the subject. So I applaud that. But I think the author is overstating/slightly wrong about a few things, perhaps because her exposure to mathematics has been through the lens of physics.
Maybe a more humble rewording of some of her statements e.g., "Anyone that follows and completes this curriculum will walk away with the knowledge equivalent to an undergraduate degree in mathematics." would be helpful.
Her suggested curriculum doesn't include anything from Number Theory, which is a foundational part of an advanced mathematics education. It is also one of, if not the most, beautiful topics one can study in mathematics.
I find it odd to call out "Introduction to Proofs" as a topic in and of itself. Proofs aren't really a topic in the way analysis or number theory is. At advanced levels, devising theorems and theirs proofs is what mathematics is.
I have a PhD in mathematics and have worked in tech for more than 30 years as a programmer. I went to a Renaissance era university in Scotland which is required by law to require of me a broad education rather than something very specialised. Because I entered the science faculty, as an undergraduate, I had to balance that with something from the humanities and I chose Philosophy, naïvely thinking that it would be easy. Philosophy is in no sense of the word "easy" and not something you can "bluff your way through". In fact, it is more difficult than mathematics and more difficult and arduous than computer science.
I also teach at a university level and would advise young people reading this to pursue, these days, a philosophy education (or a mathematics education) over a software engineering/computer science education.