Futurism⁠88%

Computer Science Enrollment Now Declining Under Dark Cloud of AI ⁠51%

By Frank Landymore⁠67%

7/24/2026, 8:33:26 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Biased Writer Voice, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 35.4% saturation with 158 hits. Analysis detected 1,105 faulty-reasoning hits from 446 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠51% (10,829 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 50.50% of the article peer group.

For years, the conventional wisdom for ambitious students and languishing jobseekers alike was “learn to code.” 
Do that, the ubiquitous advice went, and you’d be able to find yourself a six-figure job anywhere. 
But in an age when bosses are hellbent on using powerful AI agents to perform the duties of software engineers, that advice is now looking increasingly obsolete, if not outright backfiring. 
And the youngsters appear to be getting wise to that new reality. 
For the first time in nearly twenty years, computer science enrollment declined during the 2025-26 academic year, according to new research from the Stanford economist Jacob Light reported by Business Insider . 
A separate survey from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center found that undergraduate enrollment in another IT degree, computer and information sciences and support services, dropped by a precipitous 8.1 percent in the fall of 2025. 
Light said that the dropoff could be related to AI, and not necessarily a direct result of AI taking over coding jobs. 
“The decline could reflect changes in the education production function as generative AI alters how students complete coursework, changes in students’ expectations about the returns to Computer Science skills, responses to labor market conditions that themselves partly reflect AI adoption, broader weakness in the technology labor market unrelated to AI, or other contemporaneous shifts in student demand,” Light wrote, per BI . 
“Therefore, I treat the enrollment patterns as descriptive evidence rather than as an estimate of the causal effect of ChatGPT or AI exposure on student demand,” he concluded. 
There’s probably nuance under the hood. 
When The Washington Post dived into the National Student Clearinghouse data earlier this year, its analysis suggested that some of those disappearing computer science enrollments are being funneled into related disciplines instead, like data analytics and data science. 
In any case, it’s clear that programming jobs, at least in big tech, aren’t as secure as they used to be. 
Over 120,000 tech jobs have been cut in 2026 so far, according to the industry layoffs trackers Layoffs.fyi . 
A significant portion came at companies like Meta and Google as they ramped up their AI spending . 
One report found that AI was cited in the announcements of more than 54,000 layoffs last year. 
Whether AI meaningfully replaced those jobs or was simply used as a scapegoat by employers to gloss over other reasons for the cuts, though, is a matter of ongoing debate. 
More on AI: Sixteen Nobel-Winning Economists Warn That Major AI Job Losses Are Coming 
The post Computer Science Enrollment Now Declining Under Dark Cloud of AI appeared first on Futurism . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.8%Frank Landymore: 4.4%Futurism: 6.1%Confirmation Bias14.8%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.9%Futurism: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 16.1%Frank Landymore: 5.8%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic16.1%This article: 8.5%Frank Landymore: 1.5%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic8.5%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Frank Landymore: 1.9%Futurism: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias6.3%This article: 2.2%Frank Landymore: 10.6%Futurism: 11.3%Framing Effect2.2%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.5%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.5%Futurism: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.9%Frank Landymore: 1.4%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias4.9%This article: 11.7%Frank Landymore: 2.9%Futurism: 4.4%Pessimism Bias11.7%This article: 13.7%Frank Landymore: 20.9%Futurism: 22.5%Negativity Bias13.7%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.1%Futurism: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 13.9%Frank Landymore: 1.6%Futurism: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error13.9%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.8%Futurism: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.9%Futurism: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Frank Landymore: 2.1%Futurism: 2.1%Recency Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 1.3%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.1%Frank Landymore: 5.5%Futurism: 6.8%Appeal to Authority3.1%This article: 13.7%Frank Landymore: 2.5%Futurism: 2.6%False Dilemma13.7%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.2%Futurism: 2.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 35.4%Frank Landymore: 9.7%Futurism: 10.5%Hasty Generalization35.4%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 8.2%Futurism: 9.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.1%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 19.5%Frank Landymore: 5.1%Futurism: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.5%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 13.9%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof13.9%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.6%Futurism: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.4%Frank Landymore: 5.1%Futurism: 4.4%Anecdotal11.4%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.3%Frank Landymore: 3.2%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.3%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.3%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground1.3%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.9%Frank Landymore: 4.3%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote13.9%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 2.2%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 17.7%Frank Landymore: 17.6%Futurism: 20.7%Biased Writer Voice17.7%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 2.2%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.2%Futurism: 2.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Frank Landymore: 1.2%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.3%

446 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers53%attributed speech209writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJacob Light • 32 words • 0.0% coverageNational Student Clearinghouse Research Center • 36 words • 0.0% coverageJacob Light • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJacob Light • 62 words • 100.0% coverageJacob Light • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageThe Washington Post • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageLayoffs.fyi • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Washington Post

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words16% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice-37.8 ptsWriter: 37.8%The Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.