It isn't a "dumbing down" - it is changing the mix.

When it's leaving out background information, it's dumbing down. Programmers should at least know the basics of how indirection works. Why is it that so many interviewees with gold-pated GPAs would tell me null pointers used up no memory? Do they have the foggiest idea what happens when they add a member in a Python/Ruby program and how that differs from adding a pointer to a struct?

There's a difference between having the background information and treating everything as if it's hazy magic. It's excusable for the buyer of a car to treat the product they've bought as a magic black box. It's inexcusable when a "mechanic" or "engineer" is incapable of doing anything but treating things like magic black boxes.

Scripting languages were for unwashed systems administrators, and no real programmer would touch them.

But all of the smarter people in my program knew two or more of them.

no real programmer would touch them. Functional programming was a weird little academic thing with no future. OO was "if it is a noun make it a class".

I worked for a company that had to fight against those prejudices and low levels of knowledge to sell licenses. We sold licenses to Fortune 500 companies so they could run billion dollar businesses on a "scripting language." You know what prepared my for working there? A generalist Comp Sci education!

20 years later, I literally haven't run a compiler in years. I use libraries for data structures. I don't need to worry about allocating memory, billion dollar industries run on scripting languages.

But you are a savvy user of those libraries because you have the background knowledge. You don't usually need to worry about allocating memory, but you know what the gotchas in extreme corner cases are. And if you had to have a custom library written in C++ for your dynamic language application, you'd know how to spec that out and hire for that while looking out for the details. I had at least a foggy idea past the buzzword level when I graduated. How about the kids who are graduating nowadays?

I got my CS degree in 98

In 98 I was in grad school.

You can only do so much in 4 years. What was "generalist" 20 years ago is "specialist" today, and it should be.

Here is what I see in way too many recent grads with a 3.75 GPA. They don't know any of the background, past a handwavy level. They have misconceptions that are outright wrong. Many of them seem to spend 4-5 years doing nothing but using libraries and gluing stuff together. Hell, we learned that stuff too -- but we learned a bunch of other stuff at the same time, plus we learned what we didn't know and what to do about it. Then again, there was a contingent who only cared about learning X-Windows, because there were lots of coding jobs in X-Windows. Aren't the people who only learn particular technologies that are in the job market the moral equivalent?

Comp Sci is dumbing down to the level of consumers of magic tech. I know engineers and physicists who would have some idea of how to begin to recreate the tech they use if civilization would fall. I think a lot of Comp Sci graduates, if they wound up with nothing but machines running machine code, would qualify for Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B.