The education is more rounded than I had expected. The required courses for my science degree include English, History, a Foreign Language, Psychology, Literature (classic), and the Public Speaking course in which I'm now participating.
Understand your point(s), but how many of those "required courses" will actually be viewed as beneficial by your employer and which will actually be of benefit to you in what you actually do or will do? Public speaking will help.
As to foreign language(s), psych, and lit., I've taken those courses in the past, and I can quite honestly say, other than for a social fluency in a langauge that doesn't help me on the job or past jobs at all, I don't remember much nor has or would have much of it come in handy.
It's great to know I suppose, but I'm not sure all the time that is spent on it wouldn't be better served simply focusing on the relevant and leaving the learning of those things to people that need them or desire them. Forcing people to "learn French" say, they are simply going to try to get the best grade possible whether that actually entails learning the material or not, and which is often for the short term.
My wife spent a year in France and was fluent socially at one point. Today, she barely remembers the language. Whatever is taught, it should be far more up to the individdual to select the topics than they now can. For example, instead of allowing only one course in poly-sci, why not allow them to replace other "gen ed" coursework with more in order to allow them to develop either a relevant minor or an area of personal interest.
This is a good debate, this thread.
I have a better grasp of the big picture in business processes and project management than my more narrowly-trained colleagues. I can write better, more well-reasoned reports and give more cogent training for the same reason.
Liberal arts, when taught effectively, do teach critical thinking and logical reasoning "about something", unlike the empty critical thinking taught in schools today.
When I socialize with clients, I have a wider range of ways to connect than those who concentrated more narrowly.
Those who concentrate very narrowly on their technical specialty are certainly valuable and necessary(who would want Albert Einstein to have majored in psychology in college???), but my point is there is a place for all kinds of skills learned in a wide variety of ways, and you just don't usually know in advance how something might be of benefit in the future.
I'm a political science and economics major, and in my experience I've actually found that, except for political theory, most of my poli-sci classes have actually been far less useful (i.e., intellectually stimulating, since few liberal arts classes are actually practically useful) than other "gen ed" requirements such as English, theology, and even biology.
When it comes to the liberal arts, I really believe the professor is often more important than the subject: a good professor can make any subject challenging and stimulating; a bad professor can make anything nearly worthless.