Unfortunately, Compilers is no longer a required class to get a CS degree. My (possibly flawed) understanding is that in the heyday, it was.
It's really a shame, because learning about compilers applies all that stuff you're supposed to learn about languages and automata theory, gives you an excellent example of how to design a large software system, gives you insights into programming language design, and above all demystifies the process of what happens when you compile your own code.
My university requires a class called "Languages and Machines." According to the instructor, it used to be two classes, "Languages" and "Computation."
We started doing some language fundamentals and comparative analysis of different languages (how basic data types are implemented, structs, closures, etc.). Then we talked about various function calling conventions, beginning with a simple stack machine language and slowly building on that to support recursive calls, etc. By the end, every passing student had written non-trivial programs in at least 3 different languages, and written very simple yet enlightening implementations of the basic components of compilers (lexer/parser, AST, code generation, basic optimization, etc.).
I would've preferred a full-blown compilers course, but that class was still my favorite CS class.
Compilers was one of the few classes where I thought the S actually met the C in CS. I applied real algorithms I'd learned in Algorithm and data structures I had learned in Data Structures to support the theory of computation I had learned in The Theory of Computation.
No one said "deep." Even if all CS grads did get "deep understanding" of compiler internals, chances are that would not cover the new paradigm of dynamic languages. My point is that only the most diligent CS grad is going to be able to create or even contribute to a full-blown, widely used modern programming language.
Then everyone with a cs-degree must be immortal.