[Archelaos]

I would say that the difference for me was that I already had a more specific plan of what I wanted to achieve, so it was easier to focus on the more useful fundamentals. And even in computer sience itself, it is not set in stone what the fundamentals are that should be covered in 6 years. The field has become so specialised that many new courses have emerged in recent years, such as bioinformatics or humanities computing. The latter is now branching out into subfields, because what an archeologist needs (digital maps, 3D models, image processing) is very different from what a philologist or archivist needs (text encoding, long term storage, information management). And wat makes humanities computing particularly difficult is that it requires a deep understanding of fields that are very far appart and hardly overlap. Think of it like this: Normally you train an historian for 6 years and a computer scientist for 6 years. What should a curricilum for both look like in a time frame of 6 years?

I think the most important benefit of a university degree is not so much what specific fundamentals you are trained in, but that you get an idea of what it really means to know the fundamentals of a subject and how to get there. Later in your career, you can then use these strategies to deepen your understanding of everything that comes your way. Of course, it is easier if your education roughly matches what you will find on the job. But you never know what aspects of your training might help you later on. In my case, I would say that the many difficult debates and deep essays in philosophy prepared me much better than probably computer science might when it came to working out a plan for a software module with others and writing an accurate specification.