There is a gulf difference between what I consider Computer Science and Computer Programming. They are easily mistaken as one in the same. The easiest way to explain the differences between a computer scientist and a computer programmer is a computer scientist develops algorithms optimized for binary logic; they are in a sense the mad scientists in the lab. Where as a computer programmer knows a set of computer languages and creates solutions; which they are in a sense the practical applicators of what computer scientists create.
Now there is a lot of overlap between the two in varying degrees based on the skill set one has. Most computer scientists have programming skills and most programmers know how to optimize code, but it's what the primarily focus on that splits the difference.
What this author is trying to say is computer programming can be a trade of a learned skill set, much like a brick layer is a learned skill set; albeit a crude example. If companies are bemoaning about the lack of computer programmers and the skill sets in the market, then they need to realize that mandating a college degree is not needed. It makes no sense that 120+ credit hours from a collegiate university where a large chunk of those credits have nothing to do with the skills sets needed for the degree are needed. When in actuality, 1 to 2 years of full time study in just computer programming is more than enough. This is the same for other trades like electricians, plumbers, machinists, and the other vital skill sets needed for society's infrastructure. We do not expect the vital skill sets for these (electricians, plumbers, etc. etc.) professionals to have 4 to 6 years degrees. IT makes no difference to me if an electrician has read and studied G. Chaucer's Canterbury Tales or if a plumber understand the photosynthesis of pine trees. Yet for some unknown reason companies think you must have the lick and seal of a university degree to be a "good" computer programmer.