Responding to all the comments saying "engineers are better" or "historians are better" or someone is else better, I think all those arguments are just moot. T

Responding to all the comments saying "engineers are better" or "historians are better" or someone is else better, I think all those arguments are just moot. To effectively lead big nations or corporates, doesn't one need to be able to comprehend and deal with issues much beyond just ones education or work background? Wouldn't it require an engineer who understand the non-engineering aspects or vice-versa? Once, I got a list of CEOs of fortune 100 companies compiled with their education background researched. The education column was half full, my contractor could not find the education of all (nor I think, I could). Of those, whose education we could find, it was all over the place, engineering, psychology, accounting, law, chemical and what not.