It’s hard for me to express how deeply I disagree with this philosophy. I started out in the hard sciences with a MS in biochemistry, so I certainly don’t use any of the direct “skills” I learned in my major-specific courses in my current career as a programmer. Micropipetting, mass spectrometry, and gel electrophoresis have yet to come up in writing software (at least in the jobs I’ve had).

What is continuously useful are three main categories of skill: general critical thinking, analytical writing, and empathy. The first is helpful when solving any problem at all, the second when proposing solutions to new problems, and the third when understanding what problems need to be solved, both at a code level (what does the user need, what documentation do my coworkers need) and at an interpersonal level (how should I focus pairing sessions with this colleague, what projects and teams would they function well on, how can we help to ensure their professional growth).

I have to say that, on average, the humanities courses I took did a much better job of teaching these skills than the science courses.

Of course, even outside of immediate practical benefit, I learned a lot of really interesting stuff in those classes! A lot of them helped to shape the way I still see the world today.

Sure, we can try to pare down “higher” education to what has historically been called vocational school (in the US) or similar, but I think we’re potentially losing a lot along the way.