University of Maryland. We didn't do proofs for year 1, we mainly did them for our discrete math and algorithms classes. Our curriculum was very focused on learning theory and coding that up (ie, a regex engine or an interpreter and compiler), not really any proving.

At UWaterloo 2 required first year courses are heavily proof based. One is basically intro to proofs. And second year there’s required graph theory/combinatorics course which are also proofs. 2nd year formal logic. 3rd year algorithms courses are highly proof based as well.

This isn’t a flex tho, cuz there’s so much optional advanced math that isn’t required. Everything in the combinatorics and optimization department at UWaterloo basically. Most of us UW CS grads are normies who didn’t do any of the hardest stuff including me :-)

I graduated UMD in 2007, and I remember some of the upper level theory courses (which I tended to concentrate on) being quite proof-heavy.

UT Austin. Our dept was in the college of natural sciences. The curriculum itself was very formal. The big compromise with industry was to use Java, but other than that it was a pen and paper kind of thing. I thought it was great. The engineering part I learned in industry, but I could have also continued into a phd.

At my smaller state school there weren't really any proofs in the cs degree at all. They ended up having to relax the math requirements even because so many international students (big money for the school) were failing their integral calculus.

Not going to name my school, but had a similar experience.

At Massey University in New Zealand. The CS papers had almost no math.