I don't think this has much to do with AI and has a lot to do with the current grads declaring their major 4-5 years ago when a confluence of factors crashed together to make programming a job straight from utopia for a short while.
The end result of this will be dirt pay for juniors to weed out who is in it for the passion and who is in it for the money.
Considering that ChatGPT was just one month old at the time of data collection, I think that is fairly safe to say.
> major 4-5 years ago
6-7 years ago, really. 4-5 years ago would realistically put us more like in the timeframe of now.
> a confluence of factors crashed together to make programming a job straight from utopia for a short while.
Things weren't horrible in 2018-2019, to be sure, but there were already signs of a coming downturn at that time. That, granted, was temporarily reverted thanks to said confluence of factors, but that came later.
CS grads also have the lowest underemployment rates in the list.
Art history grads will take whatever jobs they happen to find. CS grads will hold out for jobs in their area of expertise (and earn the higest wages because of it).
> CS grads also have the lowest underemployment rates in the list.
Which is quite surprising. The market for scientists in the area of computing has never appeared to be very large. Not to mention that in my anecdotal experience, any CS grads I've ever met gave up the dream and had accepted lowly programming positions like our summer jobs in high school, or moved towards some kind of business management-type job, which is ever further away from CS.
Having a bachelor's degree in CS doesn't mean that you're underemployed if you work as a programmer or something in business. The criteria for underemployment in the referenced report is:
"...graduates working in jobs that typically do not require a college degree. A job is classified as a college job if 50 percent or more of the people working in that job indicate that at least a bachelor's degree is necessary; otherwise, the job is classified as a non-college job."
Normally there is an implied understanding of relatedness. A medical doctor with a medical degree might reasonably suggest that their degree was required, but a medical doctor with an art history degree wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Clearly anyone can become a doctor under that scenario.
Granted, the work of a programmer is derived from computer science, like the work of a janitor is derived from chemistry, but it is a stretch to think those jobs are related. Someone who applies the work of scientists is not doing the same work as the scientist. Perhaps they would be right to say that programmers and janitors do require a degree, but it wouldn't be a CS/chemistry degree. And, well, a business manager has absolutely nothing to do with CS. That one is well and truly like a medical doctor with an art history degree situation.
So, strictly speaking, those jobs would be considered underemployed when done so under a CS degree in any reasonable context. But you do rightfully highlight the bigger problem, which is to say that it is self-reported. Perhaps your key point here is that CS graduates are more likely than art history majors to be out to lunch? Given the stereotypes, that may be a fair assertion.
> Granted, the work of a programmer is derived from computer science, like the work of a janitor is derived from chemistry,
Nobody enrols in a chemistry degree with the intention of pursuing a janitorial career
Most people who enrol in CS degrees do so with the intention of pursuing a career as a professional programmer. At the undergraduate level, people studying CS because they want a career in CS research are a minority
A person who wants a career in programming, enrols in a CS degree because they believe it will help get them there, graduates and then gets a programming job, far from being “underemployed”, is employed in the exact job they did the degree in order to get
I see that although unemployment is higher for CS underemployment is lower than many other majors. So I wouldn't immediately discount CS but the report is saying that CS isn't an immediate high paying job.
Only with hindsight will we know if this is momentary or systemic. Back after the dotcom crash, there were several years of struggle and hustle for new grads, and many people never really got any footing. The past roughly decade has been an anomaly in terms of compensation, number of jobs, etc.
How much hindsight is sufficient? 2 years, 5 years, 10, 20, 50...
Wages for the past 50 years have been trending down in terms of real purchasing power regardless of career/job. The number of jobs too if you average together a complete boom bust bailout cycle and normalize population growth.
I wouldn't read too much into a few percentage points differences at 1) single digit values and so close to the overall unemployment rate, 2) at a single timepoint.
Good data to think about and resonant with common concerns here, but perhaps no need to panic just yet.
And arguably the worst possible timepoint to look at to boot. Layoffs were running amok, while the AI boom, and what reinvigoration it brought to the industry, hadn't happened yet. ChatGPT was only a month old at the time.
The end result of this will be dirt pay for juniors to weed out who is in it for the passion and who is in it for the money.