I am going to dissent a little here. Before that, though, let me say that I am a huge fan of learning foreign languages. I am reasonably fluent in a couple of them, and can read several others. That’s been an important part of my life. I think it has moral and educational value, and I fully support curriculums that require foreign language study, or college admission requirements.
That said . . .
– At most American high schools, foreign language teaching is abysmal. Unless your high school is special, two years of study of any language will be next to useless for anything other than checking an admissions box. Unless your child intends to continue foreign language study in college – which may be tough in most engineering programs, if that’s what he does – he will get negligible moral or educational benefit out of two years of introductory language study in high school.
– Giving up the last two years of a four-year computer science sequence is giving up an opportunity to acquire real depth in a subject matter the student cares about. And also, I suspect, to associate with other successful, ambitious, self-challenging students in class on a daily basis. (Not that such students aren’t found in introductory language courses – they are – but the concentration won’t be anywhere near what it is in advanced CS courses.) Those are real costs.
– If class rank matters (and it certainly does, for UT/TAMU and for merit competitions), then you may want to check whether the weighting on advanced CS classes vs. intro foreign language matters.
– Many, many colleges recommend two or three years of foreign language study. They are right to do that. But in years of observation on CC, I have often seen kids with great academic credentials but not the recommended language study get accepted at colleges that rattle their sabers the most about language study. And, you know what?, the colleges are right to do that, too. They are not turning away the best candidates on rigid grounds. (The same would not be true, by the way, of the University of California system.) They accept candidates whose curricular choices show thought, seriousness, ambition, and willingness to challenge oneself.
– I firmly believe that no one should do anything significant only because it improves his or her chances to get into a selective college. (Merit aid is another matter.) That’s too risky. What kids should do are things that make them better, smarter, more engaged people. Things that are good for them, and that will give them clear benefits no matter where they go to college. Those things have permanent, noncontingent value, and – bonus! – I think they make students the most attractive candidates possible to selective colleges, too, even if they haven’t exactly checked all the boxes.
For those reasons, I think staying with the CS program makes a lot more sense. It isn’t even really a close call.