It's unclear whether this is true or not. Prior to literacy bring widespread, it may have been looked at similarly: "I'm good at tailoring, you can't expect me to learn to read and write like a monk". But as it turns out, most people are actually capable of literacy. It's doesn't mean they become hemingways, but it allows them to do all sorts of jobs they wouldn't otherwise be able to do if we believed that literacy was a matter of personal taste or what you're "good at".
Perhaps the same is true of CS: we don't need everyone to be Hemingway here: plenty of jobs just need programming. I'm not sure what the alternative would be. Even if CS turns out to be above the capabilities of most people, that certainly shouldn't mean that it's a reasonable choice to spend an equivalent amount of money getting a degree that well known ahead of time to not get you a return.
That is a valid point and definitely we can acquire a lot of skills. Still there is natural ability and personal preferences and I would think a society where everyone can learn and do what they feel like they are good and and would enjoy - even with that changing over time - would be a way better society.
Now thats of course far from the current discussion, where people are forced to get into certain debts just to study for a profession they hopefully enjoy and will be ok enough in to earn back the money they invested to learn it in the first place.
Perhaps the same is true of CS: we don't need everyone to be Hemingway here: plenty of jobs just need programming. I'm not sure what the alternative would be. Even if CS turns out to be above the capabilities of most people, that certainly shouldn't mean that it's a reasonable choice to spend an equivalent amount of money getting a degree that well known ahead of time to not get you a return.