> > If the objective is to create well-rounded, cross-disciplinary citizens, then no, that is a horrible idea.
Why is it that everyone thinks a STEM education means you are automatically not well-rounded or cross-disciplinary? There are universities with STEM programs that mitigate this problem successfully by creating the right requirements for the degree.
...
> And why can't someone get both a liberal arts education and a "practical" education?
I generally agree that this would be ideal, but it is also constrained by how much money we have as a society.
---------------------
So, a) we'll require everyone take liberal arts, to solve the problem of b) it's too expensive for everyone to take liberal arts?
The main issue I've heard people cite with majoring in the liberal arts is that liberal arts majors don't make enough money to cover costs. Raising the costs of being a liberal arts major seems like a pretty roundabout way of solving that problem.
Why is it that everyone thinks a STEM education means you are automatically not well-rounded or cross-disciplinary? There are universities with STEM programs that mitigate this problem successfully by creating the right requirements for the degree.
...
> And why can't someone get both a liberal arts education and a "practical" education?
I generally agree that this would be ideal, but it is also constrained by how much money we have as a society.
---------------------
So, a) we'll require everyone take liberal arts, to solve the problem of b) it's too expensive for everyone to take liberal arts?
The main issue I've heard people cite with majoring in the liberal arts is that liberal arts majors don't make enough money to cover costs. Raising the costs of being a liberal arts major seems like a pretty roundabout way of solving that problem.