I can't comment on the US experience, but as a student in the UK in the 80s and Canada in the 90s I concur with Mark Tarver.
This is not just a CS issue, it's universal and the real damage is being done in the second tier establishments where grade inflation and dumbed-down courses are endemic. The tier one establishments (Oxbrige, Ivy League etc) can still use their own screening methodologies for aptitude and smarts to minimize the problem. As a result---and to continue Tarver's analogy of the Cultural Revolution---the 'party' is looking after its own whilst the rest goes to rot.
> This is not just a CS issue, it's universal and the real damage is being done in the second tier establishments where grade inflation and dumbed-down courses are endemic.
It's worse that that, because the dumbing down doesn't just effect universities. Secondary school science education has also been badly hit. The links that follow contain actual questions from GCSE science exams (note for non-British people: a GCSE is an exam typically taken by 16 year olds).
"For example, in a biology exam, a question asked whether you see with your eye, ears, nose or mouth -- "
No it doesn't. The question is "which organ contains light receptors?", which although simple, does requires some knowledge of scientific jargon. And this is on the foundation paper, for which the maximum mark is a C - IIRC, the intermediate and higher papers don't include questions this easy.
This type of question is not for A-Level candidates, it's for distinguishing between the weaker students. Of course it's worthwhile keeping track of what kind of questions appear in exams as a benchmark of educational standards, but only looking at the worst examples you can find does not give a clear snapshot.
> although simple, does requires some knowledge of scientific jargon
Knowledge of jargon isn't the same as knowledge of science.
The problem is not so much that the questions are too easy, it is that they are not science questions, because they don't test knowledge of scientific concepts.
It would be easy to ask questions that are science questions but that are also easy questions (for less able or younger examinees).
For example in physics one could ask: A man went to the top of a tall building, and threw a glass from it. The glass landed on concrete 30 m below. What happened to the glass when it landed? he then dropped a rubber ball; what happened to the ball when it landed?
Or a simple biology question: A woman wanted to breed striped cats. She had a male cat and a female cat. Both cats were coloured black all over. She painted white stripes on both cats, then got them to have sex. Is this likely to produce striped kittens?
These are very easy questions, yet to answer them one needs to understand important concepts about science. Teaching science is about teaching concepts, not about rote learning of definitions. Unfortunately the bumbling incompetents who're in charge of education don't seem to understand that.
This is not just a CS issue, it's universal and the real damage is being done in the second tier establishments where grade inflation and dumbed-down courses are endemic. The tier one establishments (Oxbrige, Ivy League etc) can still use their own screening methodologies for aptitude and smarts to minimize the problem. As a result---and to continue Tarver's analogy of the Cultural Revolution---the 'party' is looking after its own whilst the rest goes to rot.