These universities demonstrate remarkable short-sightedness. Studying different subjects, particularly at the undergraduate level, makes people intellectually well-rounded and far more interesting. Imagine telling Leonardo that he cannot study painting and engineering at the same time.
A double-major typically means you use major A's elective slots to take the core classes for major B, and vice versa. The upshot is that as a double-major, after sophomore year I would have no time to take any classes outside of those 2 departments. Counter-intuitive as it seems, staying a single-major allowed me to take a much greater variety of classes.
It seems to me that the highest level of CS education possible is a combination of theoretical CS, programming, as well as a ferocious study of the humanities. The best and the highest goal (in my opinion, obviously) is to build a wide understanding of the world around you, integrating many different thought processes and situations into your daily existence. Programming is "easy". Software engineering is something we learn in industry. Why should we be trained in those - let's get educated?
Bad example. Imagine Leonardo attending any modern day university for education. It's also a bad example because Leonardo did much, much more than painting and engineering.
I do agree it's a bad idea to split students by degree by more than a few miles, though. I'd avoid any school that did that.
It's fascinating, in retrospect, the things people will come up with to try to make themselves feel superior.
Sure, we had some occasional teasing ("H and Less Stress" was another one) but I found it invaluable to go through H&SS' general studies curriculum. Everyone in H&SS studies philosophy, history, communications, economics, writing, and math (among others) in addition to their core major classes.