I take huge exception with this remark. I graduated with a BS and MS engineering at a top-20 US engineering school. I also earned an MS at a top-25 computer science program. I found the CS program dramatically more challenging. My CS classmates were some of the brightest problem solvers I've ever worked with in my life.
Then in my career, I have worked alongside some brilliant software developers who had academic backgrounds in non-technical fields like history or English.
I don't know if there's a way to assess someone's problem solving ability based on their field of academic study. It would seem that those from science and engineering fields (CS inclusive) would generally fare better.
Your dismissive comment about "most CS folks" is just offensive.
You are a data point of one, and I have no idea how well you can apply the scientific method to solve problems and understand the state of your system.
I am not judging you, my statement was a generalization.
I would also say, most people in the hard sciences that are not CS cannot code their way out of a paper bag.
I agree with you, some of the best, most rigorous thinkers I have come across had a liberal arts background.
This isn't a quantitative statement about the kinds of people, but the things they focus on. I think CS is hard, but one thing that seems to be repeated is that super capable people can get by operating in an unscientific open-loop fashion which causes cognitive blind spots, and those blind spots are in using experimentation and the scientific method to solve problems.
Then in my career, I have worked alongside some brilliant software developers who had academic backgrounds in non-technical fields like history or English.
I don't know if there's a way to assess someone's problem solving ability based on their field of academic study. It would seem that those from science and engineering fields (CS inclusive) would generally fare better.
Your dismissive comment about "most CS folks" is just offensive.