I wouldn't say that my CS degree taught me to program, but it gave me a fundamental understanding of things that would otherwise be black boxes, which has helped me to estimate the correct fork in the road on numerous occasions. This understanding also helps me write more performant code than I might otherwise. So I would say that it's still useful. It gave me a good mental framework to build off of.

They also chose to study CS on their own; I don't see the separation. Perhaps these individuals would have been mediocre programmers had they not studied CS.

I'm not trying to say that CS degrees aren't valuable. Just that being a programmer and Computer Scientist are different things. Just because many great hackers are also Computer Scientists doesn't imply that they were great hackers because they studied CS.

Most of the great hackers I know have been hacking since they were kids. This doesn't mean studying CS didn't add anything, just that studying CS alone won't make you a great hacker. Just a Computer Scientist.

A programmer and a computer scientist may not be 1-1 but there is significant overlap. Correlation may not directly imply causation but you can't discount it.

Whereas being a "hacker" has very little overlap with either programming or Computer Science. You can be a "hacker" in any number of disciplines.

If you want to be a great Computer Scientist, learn Computer Science but you'll also most likely have to learn some programming.

If you want to be a great programmer, do a lot of programming but you'll also most likely have to learn computer science.

If you want to be a great hacker, figure out what that means to you.

yep, this is cause and correlation misconception. are good programmers more likely to study computer science? or does studying computer science make you more likely to be a good programmer? my unqualified hunch, and what i think you're suggesting, is the former.

You got it. That's what I was going for.