> Undergraduate degree is ~90% generic learning ~10% specific learning. If you mean generic learning about a specific field then I tend to agree. If you mean "

> Undergraduate degree is ~90% generic learning ~10% specific learning. If you mean generic learning about a specific field then I tend to agree. If you mean "general learning" at all then I disagree. It's because one learns generically about a specific field that it allows them to learn quicker later on in life about various topics within that field. I'm proof of this given that after my CS degree, I wanted to do a coding bootcamp and was immediately hired to be an instructor, I self-taught myself that program within 2 weeks and then taught it to others (with a non-CS background) for 3 months. Moreover, the quality of learning is different since I noticed I was way quicker at building stuff out or diagnosing bugs compared to the best students in their final week. The reason why was simple: I've written a lot more code and experienced a lot more bugs than they had. > You also learned logic, planning, typing, troubleshooting, project management Partially agree, partially disagree, in many cases I knew those things and merely applied it. I've learned logic, planning, typing and some forms of project management at elementary school (e.g. a touch typing course, basic if this then that logic, etc.) and high school (calculus, fairly advanced statistics etc.). There were more advanced versions in some cases (e.g. logic, certain forms of planning), but in most cases I relied on skills I've learned during elementary/high school. There are a lot of presentations given before someone enters at university. > You would (should) outperform a history major in many of these tasks, and should be at a disadvantage in many others. Don't know, I think some might be pretty good at typing, certain forms of logic and perhaps project management as well.