Yes, there is a lot of poor logic. Uni-dimensional education is a double edged sword. In either direction. STEM has a certain utilitly, but for many its only u

Yes, there is a lot of poor logic. Uni-dimensional education is a double edged sword. In either direction. STEM has a certain utilitly, but for many its only useful for introductory jobs. Specialization is too great. And Like accounting, it is a limited skillset, especially for senior management positions. So, yes a technical degree will put you in a better 1sr year salary than an english major (or whatever) but its not going to make a career happen per-se. Their is also dis-utility. There is a power curve thing. Unfortunately, STEM grades are more transparent and the use of curves is prevalent. Two things follow: not everyone is in the 10% (or top 10-20 schools). And there is a clear signal on who is not. Both this guy and the english major now have to go to grad school or what not to prove something. Maybe they both do MBAs. But then you have an engineer with an MBA, and still this is arguably not great either. He's arguably at a dis-advantage in soft-skills (empathy, creativity), and his former advantage in quantitative elements vs the english major is less. For some roles, this is fine. But There are plenty of smart people good at maths that make poor investment bankers, or poor economists, or poor product-dev guys. Just like the english major with the weak quant skills, but they are just missing the boat from another angle. Alternatively, for grad school in STEM you are unlikely to gain entry in the lower half of your class. So again, for the lower performers this can limit options. The only people that really have business dedicating their (entire) undergrad to science are: phd candidates, medicine, and applied engineers (like civil). And then those top or the top-top 10-20% of they best who are going to be able to leverage the full value of the degree. Go on to Ms, or otherwise put it to use in a deeper career trajectory, or go on to NASA or Google, etc. What needs to happen with the rest, though, is intesting. The level of technical skills for basic competence is higher today than 30 years ago, so people need to be doing more 3+1 or 4+1 or 2+2 degrees, combining a technical qualification with a proper education in another area, such as liberal arts or something inter-disciplinary. Being one-dimensional is now a bit of a liability (in either direction). The HN audience is not a great sample, as there are people here for whom total technical dedication indeed pays off (and makes sense). And/or who are bright enough to absorb knowledge in other areas independently. But one is best aware of what is the general and what is the exception. The odds are long otherwise.