> My impression is that the vast majority of "savings" was never achieved by promised efficiency gains or elimination of pure waste, but instead simply by cutting projects, i.e. slashing some form of public service or benefit in order to save tax money. Which is obviously inferior.
That doesn’t seem inferior at all. There’s very little to be gained by doing everything the same but with less money; the only way to make an actual difference is to quit doing the stupid shit that’s expensive. That’s what 90% of the world means by efficiency, i.e. don’t do the things that don’t need done.
You can say the it's up to the student to put in the effort but that really just sounds like confirmation that it's not part of a college education. If you want more out of an education you have to do it yourself, don't expect much from college.
I guess what I'm saying is that an undergraduate CS degree is just a vocational degree. College does not prepare you to read TAoCP. If you want a solid CS foundation you have to self study.
I like your sentiment, but your "good computer science education" sounds a lot like a "true scotsman". A lot of the people I work with have BS's in CS and a lot don't. I haven't seen any correlation between a real in depth understanding of computer science and a CS degree.
I agree programmers should be able to read and understand Knuth's books, but I don't think a CS degree is preparation. Would you think someone needs a CS degree if they already have a good understanding of the books?
My complaint with college is that it seems to be mostly fluff. If you show up and pay the bills then you'll get your degree.