Software engineering, as in the subset that wouldn't be included in a hybrid under the flag of CS, is far too short-lived for universities. Not because things are so fast-moving (perhaps they used to for a while but I think that's over) but because progress is more out with the old, in with the new than building on the foundations of predecessors.
Take a look at medicine for example, by far the most practical of the original set of sciences the organisational pattern of universities was designed for: we know almost infinitely more than 100 years ago, but very little of 1920ies medicine would be considered objectively wrong today. The part of software engineering that struggles to fit in with "CS and a bit of coding" from 2003? Much of that knowledge would be considered more harmful than helpful today, even in an org that does mostly legacy maintenance. ("at this point in the waterfall we will have defined the class hierarchy")
Things have cooled down a bit but I recall a time when companies were recruiting software developers who were still in school.
That doesn't happen with medicine. You don't become a cardiologist without doing the whole 10 years of studying. It reminds me of the medieval guild system: quality assurance.
But corporations will settle for quantity. They need warm bodies to code and they need it pronto.
Take a look at medicine for example, by far the most practical of the original set of sciences the organisational pattern of universities was designed for: we know almost infinitely more than 100 years ago, but very little of 1920ies medicine would be considered objectively wrong today. The part of software engineering that struggles to fit in with "CS and a bit of coding" from 2003? Much of that knowledge would be considered more harmful than helpful today, even in an org that does mostly legacy maintenance. ("at this point in the waterfall we will have defined the class hierarchy")