Entrepreneurs are always going to be more constructive thinkers than critical thinkers and thats why the are valuable.
There's a difference between arguing and critical thinking. I've often found myself in discussions with graduate students in humanities subjects where the main arguments end up being, "have you read <name>? <name> says <argument related to a given argument>." Pretty soon, it's opinions built on opinions built on opinions, and the shoutiest voice wins.
In science, eventually we can actually test whether something is factually true. At least in history, there is some ground truth as well, but often it's still more vague than we'd like it to be.
I think more technical degrees scientific/technical fields end up forcing a more practical approach to critical thinking. Who cares if something makes sense in the context of some random ivory tower theory? The better question is: does it help me enjoy and appreciate life more completely?
I absolutely believe history can teach critical thinking as well as a technical field, but I think technical fields teach it by default. If I say something wrong about biochemistry, nature itself will beat me to a bloody pulp. In the humanities, another human has to do it, and may not be standing on very firm ground when they do.
Non-engineering fields when taught poorly also more prone to suffer from regurgitate-to-pass syndrome. You can get by in a lot of badly taught classes by reciting the book if you're not forced to apply your knowledge. Most engineering classes by default force application, which also naturally reinforces critical thinking in the "why isn't this working" steps.
That said, I love history, I love art, all of these things enrich my life and help me understand how people work, interact and are motivated. These things also help put life in perspective and figure out what's really important.
Which seems like a bad idea.