There are exceptions, but neither really teaches these things in most universities. My EE classes were about the skills needed to design a RasPi, not use one, which was "electronics technician stuff", not "serious electrical engineering". And CS is about lofty concepts of algorithms and type theory, where mere "programming" is a dirty business that sometimes can't be avoided. Hardware in CS? Oh, dear.... (Clutching my pearls, heading for my swooning couch.)

Using a RasPi is in that middle ground of intellectual disrepute where hobbyists teach each other and have lots of fun. It's what you do after school.

CS must teach at least some hardware, no?

Not really. Hardware and machines that actually run algorithms are just an implementation detail. :)

Anecdata: Mine did (CS, Manchester, 92-95). First year a certain amount of hardware was mandatory, second and onwards was optional (and I opted out.)

(Many people opted in because it gave you a chance to be lectured by Steve Furber and later work with him on 3rd year projects, IIRC.)

Also for years only Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and UMIST where considered the truly good CS degrees.

Manchester Uni CS certainly was partially hardware-based up until '97 or so.

Was doing CS, but plenty of hardware topics were available, such as creating your own processor on an FPGA, etc.

How can you possibly write good software without an appreciation of hardware??

Certainly did in my program. Computer Org & Design has been a canonical part of CS for a long time.