Just to add another angle to this: of course you can have CS classes and all that good stuff, but would the businesses only employ these kind of graduates? Or would they spread even thinner to grab market share or increase profits and hire non-experts as a result, for which "easy" and intuitive tools have to be developed and employed? I mean, I see this problem with abstraction, maths, compilers, Lisp, etc, you know, the fundamental stuff. That is, the deeper you go it will become that much harder to find people willing or able to dive deep. So eventually you run out of manpower and that what? Use these "intuitive" tools, probably.

I mean, this is already a thing today. Programmers who can hack together a CRUD app in <insert popular web dev stack> are a dime a dozen. People who know more about compilers than "oh yeah I got a C in that class" are pretty hard to find.

At some point businesses who need "deep experts" have to hire non-experts and invest in training them. This is what I have seen in practice. You don't use the "intuitive" tools, you hire people who are willing to learn and teach them the other tools.

First, "computer engineering" is already a name for an established discipline. And regarding academic computer scientists, a significant amount of them are on the "systems" side; it would be inaccurate to call their work a specialization of math.

At my university, "computer science" and "computer engineering" were under different departments, and the latter focused less on algorithms and more on embedded digital hardware.

At mine they were the same department and degree, but different course “tracks”

That's still the case for a lot of CS programs. At least mine is still part of the maths department. We also had a distinction between CS and Software engineering, and even between normal CS and a hybrid program between CS and Software engineering.