>CS is a broad field. You don't need to know much about business if you're going to be a CPU designer at Intel or a cryptologist at the NSA. A lot of people would argue those sorts of things would the the "Science" part of "Computer Science". Business software is very much applied, rather than pure science.

When I had the programming related classes, it was mostly the theory of automata, numerical methods, iterative solutions to math problems etc. By the time I got my hands on a keyboard (about 7 years later), most of that stuff was already in the compiler, and in a far better version that what we learned. Taylor's polynomial to calculate a sine of an angle? Forget it, there was a lookup table for Chebyshev polynomial in the ROM of the little ZX Spectrum already, much faster and precise with fewer terms involved. So seemingly we learned that for nothing.

OTOH, maths gave me the analytical skills, so when the time came I was able to fathom how does a hotel/warehouse/retail/wholesale/production line work, and was able to see through it. Specially to peel off the procedures they had in place to check against the common errors in the manual operation, and to introduce some other procedures to ward off the most common errors they made via keyboard.

OYAH (on yet another hand :), I've seen programmers with little or zero scientific education unable to do trivial things, like calculating the monthly total when part of the month was billed at one price and the other with another, or trying to do some graphics without ever understanding the coordinate system, and/or (the most impractical part) not being able to understand a workflow - how will their code interact with the user over time, what does the user do and when, and what should code do at each step.