Because they're in large part neither functional nor artistic. Both force one to think in novel ways. The certification-for-its-own-sake majors do not.
There are reams of low-grade degrees in which the majority of teaching is in memorization, not mastering new ways to think. That doesn't advance society, particularly when it burdens young people with debt.
I have a degree in physics with a minor in literature. I took one upper div lit class a quarter. I never memorized a thing. Instead I read a ton, both assigned and peer review, and wrote a ton, both essays and creative. My lit classes are far more memorable than my physics classes because I learned the skill of communicating my ideas. "Low-grade" creative writing taught me that my ideas will never be conveyed as I hoped; good criticism can be immensely helpful; and rewriting my work is when something truly useful comes together.
> There are reams of low-grade degrees in which the majority of teaching is in memorization, and not mastering new ways to think.
The biggest complaint from anyone I know who studied medicine/pre-med is the sheer amount of memorization involved. Must be a useless field of study.
This is a straw man. Nobody said memorization is verboten.
A certificate granted for mainly memorization, where no new modes of thinking or doing were involved, is not worth tends of thousands of dollars. If a med school matriculated students who never did practical and had never deliberated treatment modes and tradeoffs, et cetera, yes, it would be close to useless.
And here is your straw man. Nobody said they were worth that much. You haven't demonstrated that a significant portion of any major exhibits these traits.
Four years of a young person's time is worth tens of thousands of dollars. So beyond the direct cost of education, that is the opportunity cost, to the individual and to society. I think that's money well spent for e.g. a proper liberal arts degree. It isn't for a piece of paper pursued for its own end.
This is the basis of your entire point, and you haven't backed it up with anything of substance. You can keep tossing red herrings, but this hasn't been addressed.
I would certainly believe that person. However, saying "this major at this school has low standards" is not the same as saying "a bunch of majors at all schools have low standards and are thus worthless."
What exactly do you think an English major is like? Humanities majors absolutely force you to think in new ways, and I'd argue much more so than engineering or CS majors.
I agree, and was on the edge in not including that major, but did so because there are English majors and there are undergrads who got a degree in English. At a lot of tier 2 public universities (e.g. the one I went to), the latter dominate. A student showing initiative can get a top-notch liberal arts education. But the average student won't. They'll skim, read the SparkNotes and pass through unchanged because the point isn't studying literature but getting a diploma.
Students who want to learn anything should be given the opportunity. I strongly believe that. But more people with degrees doesn't make for a better-educated population. And driving money into encouraging that doesn't necessarily advance society either.