Something that has always bothered me about STEM degrees in the US is the requirement for about a year of non-STEM coursework as a degree granting requirement.

Something that has always bothered me about STEM degrees in the US is the requirement for about a year of non-STEM coursework as a degree granting requirement. I think this is ridiculous. Sure, yes, general education is important. And this is what secondary education should be for. The idea of consuming a year (or more!) of someone's time while pursuing a STEM degree on such coursework is, in my opinion, deeply misguided. This is particularly true in a systems where a student is paying from $30K to $60K per year for this education. Sorry, but, if I have to spent $50K per year the last thing I want to do is burn it on course work that is utterly irrelevant. Taken a different way, this means that a STEM Bachelors in the US could be completed in three, rather than four years. That is huge. That means higher graduation rates and people available to work faster. That does not mean that nobody would or should take these courses. If someone is interested in sociology, history or political science, by all means, provide the courses as electives --not as graduation requirements. Let's be free market and let the market decide. You can stipulate that a student must take five electives to graduate. These electives are not on forced subjects. You can take more STEM courses or choose to go into non-STEM classes (geography, world history, business, whatever). Yes, this would likely reposition some of the stuff nobody cares about. And that's the right way to do it. If you have to pay back $200K to $300K in student loans, the system should not force you to burn 1/4 of that cash on bullshit no company is ever going to pay you for. I truly think this is one of the great injustices, and maybe even the tyranny, of a system that, in my opinion isn't connected to reality at all. These non-STEM courses are cheap (in terms of the cost of offering them) courses that universities stuff into the student's shopping cart. The profit margin on these is probably outstanding when compared to some of the other subjects (for example, Chemistry requires labs; Robotics requires machine shops, tools, etc.). From a competitive perspective, any nation that can focus their STEM degrees strictly around STEM to graduate people with the same capabilities as the US in 3 years rather than 4 is going to have an advantage over the long run. Not only are out graduates absolutely saddled with ridiculous debt, they have to invest another year or more for the same job-relevant education. Like I said above, no company is going to pay someone for that shit. Sadly, I don't think this will ever change. There is no political value in going after this issue. If politicians can't use something to their benefit, it gets no attention at all.