It doesn't. The objectives only seek to leverage the concrete validity of STEM as a stable platform for "arts & design," which are intuitive and incredibly debatable by nature.
As a teenager I was totally turned off by engineering. It seemed like a bunch of dudes who wanted to discover the best way to make something, but with a total disinterest in why that thing should be made.
The art (and design) people seemed to get it. They were intensely curious about the bigger idea, and wanted their output to connect to some visceral and/or moral and/or political outcome.
So I wound up in an art program. I learned how to make aesthetically satisfying objects and was exposed to a ton of cool things that have happened in art history.
Later on when I got into software, I came to it with a mentality of wanting to make "things" that were in some way complete and satisfying. That turned out to be enough of a motivation to learn programming, and it turns out the demand for software is insatiable regardless of your background or skill level.
So if I were to talk to someone who was going into school, I would tell that person to do what excites them, and suggest that STEM doesn't really deserve to have a monopoly on creation.
There is an objective, correct answer to questions in science to the point where disagreement is simply wrong. I don't think there is an objectively best art or anything like that. So the studies are nothing alike, even if art and design can provide real value to technical projects.
To be fair the site is very vague - I can't really see how this would be different from something like industrial design/architecture ?