I don't think STEM majors do not learn how to think critically and write--at least all of them. I majored in biochemistry, and I did plenty of writing in college, as well as a lot of intense critical thinking and independent research as an undergraduate (I went to a SLAC though; I TAed in graduate school and at a research university the way STEM classes are run is a different story). But I don't think that everyone needs to major in a STEM field if they are not talented in that area, or that it serves everyone well and that kids with humanities degrees are necessarily destined to poverty. I find all this emphasis on majors as a direct vocational skills to be a bit misguided, because in reality, among my peers who are in their late 20s and early 30s, people are finding success in a whole range of areas, especially those going to elite schools.

I found this comment by a reader in response to an article in Time. It addresses the constant refrain from some on this thread that graduates in the humanities are the ones who are capable of critical thinking and problem solving:

"what would be lost [by reducing humanities graduates] is exactly what employers say they really need: the kind of educations that teach students how to think, innovate, communicate, work in teams, and solve problems."

I'm sorry, but this REALLY irritates me. I've got nothing against the humanities, but I really get annoyed by this idea that the ONLY place you can learn critical thinking, communicating, and problem solving is through them. Yes, a good liberal arts background will help teach you these skills. But so will a good engineering or science background (and surely other degrees as well which I know less of). I've been working on a multinational science satellite mission for the past decade. You're really telling me that because I got an engineering degree, I don't know how to work with a team, pose complex and creative problems, and think critically about how to solve them?

Another way to ask this question: would you really want a doctor or airplane-designer to NOT have critical thinking, creativity, communications, and problem-solving skills? Do you really think they could do their jobs well without those skills?

The same general skills taught in the humanities are ALSO taught in other disciplines. Focus on why your major is important and valuable, please, not why things we ALL learn are valuable.

When those who espouse the humanities begin to argue that they are the ones best able to write, communicate, problem solve and think critically and STEM graduates not have those skills to the same degree, it does come across as a shade desperate.

No great surprise when you consider that according to the article:

"Only 8 percent of students now major in the humanities, according to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, down from a peak of more than 17 percent in 1967.

Worried that enrollment in these subjects will continue to slip, university officials say it could lead entire departments to disappear."

http://nation.time.com/2013/03/07/who-needs-philosophy-colleges-defend-the-humanities-despite-high-costs-dim-job-prospects/

Of all the majors to pick on, why philosophy? Phiolosphy is far from the bottom of majors based on job placement and income earned. The lowest starting salaries of any majors are earned by elementary ed majors - some 100 majors behind philosophy majors which are in the upper third.

Why aren't we picking on poli sci or biology majors?

Can we focus on how marketable philosophy and other liberal arts majors fare in today's job market compared to STEM graduates? What it took to get a job a decade or two ago is not the yardstick for making career choices today.

No one is arguing that someone with a philosophy major can go to law school or med school and make a good income in those professions.