This is kind of ironic, given that I have no degree in anything myself, but Rails developers with degrees in comp sci have an advantage. The complex stuff is useful much more frequently than people usually realize.
On the ruby-talk mailing list, there have been a couple examples of this which revolved around sets. Sets are a standard mathematical concept taught to children with Venn diagrams.
The first example came when people were trying to do set math with arrays when translating Peter Norvig's short Python spell-checker into Ruby. Translation is cool, but changing from sets to arrays just didn't seem logical to me at all. (To be fair, I don't actually know if it makes a difference in terms of performance.) The second example referenced this blog, where a happy Dr. Strangecode learned to stop worrying and love the standard library.
Wow, am I sounding pompous today. It makes a difference, though. In the long term, shortcuts don't lead to increased readability, increased performance, or increased ease of maintenance, and you want all those things. Also, the Norvig Python spell-checker had to import Python's collections. To use Ruby's Set, you need to require 'set'. So it's not even translation in that instance; it's a nearly literal and exact transliteration. The only explanation for not requiring Set in that case is ignorance of its existence.
It's sad but true; if a Ruby programmer learns the standard library, they've distinguished themselves in the marketplace. They've acquired a powerful competitive advantage. This wasn't true a year ago. It makes Rails' popularity bittersweet.
The good news is, if you want to learn the standard library, there are easy ways to do it. One is to read the docs. Another is Hal Fulton's excellent book The Ruby Way. And the best news of all is that if you were programming Ruby before Rails, that's not just a competitive advantage; at this point it's practically a gold mine.