For reasons I can only speculate on, EE programs enlist way more people.
It may be because EE is older and more entrenched, or because of ties with the industry. Engineering of any kind has centuries of prestige, historic industrial support, historic large buildings and grants, etc. I would bet on the comparative ease of hiring staff for EE, though. It does make some kind of sense for some academy-prone people to go the academia route in EE. Especially if you sprinkle in some industry side-jobs, because the industry side is not that cushy by itself. This likely makes it easier to staff EE faculties. For CS, academia only makes sense if you have direct industry support (like doing machine learning w/ direct support from a FAANG), and you can expect something like that in very few places in Europe (Zurich, London, maybe Amsterdam?). Otherwise, you really have to hate making money and being respected to get into CS academia. There's a distinct lack of staff for CS, and they let anyone be assistants (at least they did half a decade ago). I remember there being some competition for math positions, and a free for all in CS. Some smart CS people do get fooled into joining, and last around a year until they see it's a waste of time. No amount of academic benefits in later life can offset the accumulated difference in pay.
As an actual failed EE student (moved to CS after 1 year of EE an eternity ago), I definitely agree that it's way harder. I even think that it's not just my affinities, but it objectively requires more effort and is more dense with difficult stuff. What's ironic is that the (officialy!) best EE student of that generation is now a Rust dev for some crypto company (last time I saw him on LinkedIn).
One of my high school teachers, who I respect a lot, argued that what a CS grad can do, an EE grad could as weel, and more. Therefore he recommended the EE career.
I wanted to get away from physics so I ignored that, and in hindsight it was 100% the right choice. But the advice was well intentioned and I considered it.
It may be because EE is older and more entrenched, or because of ties with the industry. Engineering of any kind has centuries of prestige, historic industrial support, historic large buildings and grants, etc. I would bet on the comparative ease of hiring staff for EE, though. It does make some kind of sense for some academy-prone people to go the academia route in EE. Especially if you sprinkle in some industry side-jobs, because the industry side is not that cushy by itself. This likely makes it easier to staff EE faculties. For CS, academia only makes sense if you have direct industry support (like doing machine learning w/ direct support from a FAANG), and you can expect something like that in very few places in Europe (Zurich, London, maybe Amsterdam?). Otherwise, you really have to hate making money and being respected to get into CS academia. There's a distinct lack of staff for CS, and they let anyone be assistants (at least they did half a decade ago). I remember there being some competition for math positions, and a free for all in CS. Some smart CS people do get fooled into joining, and last around a year until they see it's a waste of time. No amount of academic benefits in later life can offset the accumulated difference in pay.
As an actual failed EE student (moved to CS after 1 year of EE an eternity ago), I definitely agree that it's way harder. I even think that it's not just my affinities, but it objectively requires more effort and is more dense with difficult stuff. What's ironic is that the (officialy!) best EE student of that generation is now a Rust dev for some crypto company (last time I saw him on LinkedIn).