To be clear, I'm not necessarily arguing that it's advantageous. I'm arguing that his experience does not qualify as a liberal arts education, and he shouldn't criticize it at such. You seem to place his experience into a second category:

>as opposed to receiving a generalized American-style "liberal arts education" (referring to the uniquely American method of having a core curriculum and general education requirements)

Neither a core curriculum nor general education requirements qualify an education as "liberal." At least, they shouldn't. The liberal arts are subjects, first and foremost. The humanities, social sciences, and hard sciences. Their power lies in their great history of consideration throughout civilization, their prevailing and constant influence on the affairs of the world, and the nuanced questions that lie at their center.

The liberal arts are inherently inter-disciplinary, and thus invite exposure to more than one. Moreover, the "teaching" of the liberal arts is far different than "research" in the liberal arts, a point often missed in larger university settings. If they are not taught well, you're not receiving an education of any sort.

I'm not criticizing Nelson's education, or at least, don't mean to. But what he's criticizing is not what he thinks. It may be that pre-professional economics degrees normally do impart critical thinking skills. Nelson seems to think they don't. I don't really care; what I know is that these requirements don't meet the demands of the liberal arts: http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/undergrad/academic-excellence/f...