The Vanishing Safety Net of the Coding Degree

For most of the last two decades, a computer-science degree was the golden ticket of higher education. Parents pointed to Silicon Valley starting salaries, guidance counsellors urged teenagers toward Python tutorials, and universities rushed to expand their engineering faculties. Enrolments quadrupled in the United States between 2005 and 2023; in Australia and Britain they followed a similar curve. The logic was simple: in a world built on software, the people who built software would always be employable.

That logic has cracked, spectacularly, and the fractures are widening each semester.

Over the past two years the global tech sector has cut more than half-a-million jobs. The victims are not only mid-career engineers made redundant by cost-cutting; they include freshly minted graduates from places such as Stanford, Princeton and the University of Melbourne who expected a buffet of offers but instead found an empty table. Recruitment freezes at the old giants Google, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, have collided with an explosion of generative-AI tools that automate precisely the “grunt work” junior coders were trained to perform. Inside Big Tech, executives now boast that a quarter or more of the production code running their platforms is produced by artificial-intelligence assistants, not humans.

The result is a brutal mismatch between what students have spent four years (and six-figure sums) learning and what entry-level vacancies now demand. Basic software construction, writing a login page, stitching together APIs, refactoring legacy code, has gone from being a rite of passage to a liability. If ChatGPT or GitHub Copilot can crank out boilerplate in seconds, why pay a graduate to do it in weeks?

Universities can hardly claim surprise. The AI research that underpins today’s productivity leap came out of their own labs. Yet many curricula still teach programming as though the labour market hasn’t moved since 2015: piles of syntax loops, a smattering of algorithms, maybe an elective on machine-learning theory that never touches real-world product deployment. Meanwhile, recruiters filter résumés for experience integrating large-language-model APIs, curating training data, and interpreting model hallucinations, skills often relegated to postgraduate seminars, if taught at all.

The human cost is sobering. Across the United States, unemployment among recent graduates aged 22–27 now sits well above the national average. In tech it has risen even faster, feeding anxiety that a six-figure debt no longer guarantees a foot in the door. The same trend is emerging in Australia, where CS majors who once drifted easily into cloud-computing teams at Atlassian or Canva now compete with global applicants, and with the very tools those companies are shipping to market.

Some pundits insist that this is merely a painful transition: once young coders learn to “partner” with AI, they will write higher-level abstractions, design robust architectures and manage fleets of synthetic developers. Perhaps, but that rosy view assumes a static demand curve for software talent. It ignores the incentives pulling companies toward ever-leaner head-counts. Amazon’s chief executive has already warned staff that new AI workflows will “reduce our total corporate workforce” in the years ahead. Anthropic’s chief executive goes further, predicting that half of all entry-level white-collar jobs, not just in tech but in finance, consulting and law could disappear within five years.

This is more than a sectoral shake-out; it is a generational shock. The gains from generative AI accrue to shareholders and venture capitalists; the risks fall squarely on graduates who borrowed heavily to acquire suddenly devalued credentials. If policymakers allow that imbalance to harden, they will have engineered a new cohort of disenfranchised, highly educated workers. The social consequences, from deferred home ownership to political alienation, will stretch far beyond Silicon Valley.

What should change?

1. Curricular overhaul, not window dressing. Intro courses must shift from rote coding to systems thinking, data stewardship and AI governance. Students should exit first year able to prompt, critique and debug language-model outputs as fluently as they once wrote Java.

2. Internships that pay in skills, not coffee tokens. Employers still hiring must treat placements as crash courses in real AI-enabled workflows, not free labour pools. Asking interns to label training data is defensible if they also learn how that data shapes model bias.

3. Public investment in transition safety-nets. If governments subsidise research that makes junior coding obsolete, they have an obligation to cushion those displaced. Loan-forgiveness schemes tied to upskilling in AI safety, cybersecurity and digital public infrastructure would be a start.

4. A cultural pivot away from credential fetishism. The electrician’s apprenticeship that looks tempting to a frustrated PhD student is not a failure; it may be pragmatic resilience. Societies obsessed with white-collar prestige need to re-value skilled trades and hybrid tech roles that resist automation.

Above all, we must retire the cliché that “learning to code” is an insurance policy against the future. Automation is moving up the value chain faster than any previous technological wave, and no degree, however fashionable, can guarantee permanence. The safer bet is adaptability: mastering the art of learning itself, anticipating the next tool, and remembering that human creativity still begins where autocomplete stops.

Photo Credit: DepositPhotos.com