I had 3 courses for basic python, java and haskell in my first year. In my second year we were assumed to know how to use basic C, and were taught some basic assembly as a small part of another course. Third and fourth year, we were expected to use (not taught) basic C++ and advanced java. Not listed are several less popular languages which were used but not taught for other courses.

I think I would have enjoyed more programming courses, but I wouldn't have learned anything particularly useful.

I feel like a CS degree based around learning programming languages would be a huge waste of time. Languages are what you should be able to pick up very quickly on your own. They are just a tool. It's more important to understand the concepts used in computers and software. Plenty of people learn programming languages as a hobby, or as a teenager, etc. A CS degree has more to offer than that.

Similarly, getting an art degree isn't about learning how to use photoshop.

I do wish you wouldn't use quotes around "CS" so much. What you were studying is exactly what computer science is. I agree it's probably a bad name for it. Maybe "computation science" would be better. Somehow people have this idea what "computer science" and "programming" are the same thing. It gets on my nerves a little. They're both interesting and important disciplines, but miles apart.

Also, if your professors didn't relate things back to the real world, that's a shame (and I would say a failing on their part). Lots of computer science concepts/techniques are useful for real world things.

"Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Edsger Dijkstra

The name of the field misleads a lot of people into thinking that CS is only about programming, but it's way more than that. Personally, I think all of my CS background from university is what distinguishes me as a software developer instead of just a "programmer".

> Personally, I think all of my CS background from university is what distinguishes me as a software developer instead of just a "programmer".

I consider myself a software developer because I work on the software from top to bottom. From business requirements, to user interface and usability design, to architecture and algorithms. Someone who is responsible for all aspects of code, but not other areas of the application's development, is a programmer to me.

It's funny how all these labels we throw around in the industry have no generally accepted definition.

I think 'Software Engineer' is thrown around too often.

That title should be reserved for those who pass (a currently nonexistent) certification like other professional engineers, and indicates that they are capable of working on life-critical systems like car software, medical systems, space shuttles, etc.

Unfortunately startups and web/mobile app companies may abuse this and require engineering certification for job openings when it's just unnecessary.

did you go to berkeley, by any chance?

The University of Waterloo in Canada. Great school if you really love math. But like I said, too many of my professors didn't make the slightest effort to relate the theoretical concepts to the real world.

ah. i was going to point you toward/ask about berkeley's more real-world classes since it sounded like you went to Cal.