> One point of view arguing for a non-stem degree is that it teaches you to read, write and think. And there is some logic to that thought. Even if you spend 4

> One point of view arguing for a non-stem degree is that it teaches you to read, write and think. And there is some logic to that thought. Even if you spend 4 years just learning about, say, Sociology, you have to read up on a debate, summarize the background, have an opinion, be challenged and so forth. And you are on your way to 10k hours. true in principle, and I don't totally disagree. but I have two counter-counter arguments. first, at least in my experience, is that humanities focus a lot on the procedural elements of writing Scholarly Papers. you do learn about constructing good arguments and writing style to an extent. but a lot of time is spent on those highly specialized bits that don't really matter outside of academia. second, writing is often required in stem majors too! the volume of writing was definitely less than in humanities courses, but I wrote lots of reports and documentation for my CS major. some of that was very contrived, but I don't feel it was less helpful than writing a million english or history papers.