I think you guys are really just touching on the surface argument of this. I think it's pretty well defined that people have different interests, some liking "liberal arts" while others liking a more scientific based approach. I think there's some interesting questions that can come from sirknightingfail's original post, most of which, I think, are addressed at the education system.
I won't say I have experience in every education, and I do think it's nice that we have people like lordpat, who can give a very different perspective. These different perspectives are helpful in seeing how similar school education may seem, at least to an extent. I think some major questions that arise are questions like:
To what extent should we teach the "basics" of certain subjects? Why are subjects considered more valuable than others, and should they hold that value?
I've seen a lot of argument about this, but it's always interesting to hear more perspectives. I think it's fairly certain that everyone should have atleast some knowledge of the arts and the sciences, but to what extent should we decide that, "Oh, now you only have to learn what you want to learn." We have that in our College system of schools, but what I'm always curious about is if there's a need for the amount of knowledge which we're demanded to know. Is it fair that an artist to learn about Calculus in order to get to a college to have a stable career? Is it fair for an engineer to have to have in-depth studies on books that s/he hates, in order to get to a prestigious college to have a good life? Or even then, is it fair that a college is almost completely mandatory to have any sort of life at all?
Food for thought, no actual answers but the questions are more for the pursuit of knowledge.














