All of these answers fail to describe something essential:
Most jobs with writing code are doing the equivalent of fabrication, not engineering, and certainly not science.
If this doesn’t make immediate sense, it may help to understand the equivalent when working with classical materials. A scientists would study metallurgy and how to make new alloys. In engineering, one would evaluate how large of a girder can be made from the material, or the limits of wear and tear in scenarios. Fabricators would receive the material in the form of pipes, which they assemble to fit the means of things like a kitchen, a bathroom, or maybe a whole house.
A technician, like someone that works HVAC or automotive, would take pre-constructed subsystems and fit them together with a bit of adjustment using fabrication.
Most careers that involve code are doing fabrication, or technician work. Increasingly, software jobs are technician roles. The jobs require continual awareness of new libraries and frameworks, and how to ensure their ease of assembly and configuration.
But that’s not what computer science schools are out there to teach. You don’t go to oxford, or any other Ivy League university to learn how to be a fabricator. If you went to a school like that, and learned you don’t have the appetite or ability for science..... that’s the dice.
The same thing goes for Fine Arts schools with concept studio core curricula.
It doesn’t mean that programs teaching legitimate science should do less of that.
