We're also teaching kids about subjects they literally couldn't care less about. Every single class I took on World History, Arts, and English literature was very close to useless. I bet the artists and English lit lovers would say the same thing about Chemistry and Physics.

We don't trust 16 year olds to make decisions on what they do and do not want to study, so we force them to study some things we know they won't like. And why?

Because we want them to have a level of understanding of those fields, even if it's shallow. It's good for society if as many people as possible understand algebra or World War I or how to read and write at a high level. If for no other reason than that as a democracy, we need our citizenry to have a certain base level of knowledge of how the world works.

Citation needed on the "broad base of knowledge being useful" tidbit.

The first hand experience of people having been a student once isn't enough information in which to judge a whole profession. If that were the case, we should be letting only users of software direct how software is made.

Also, experiences can be really variable for different people. Some students might have many great teachers and be in a position where school is very positive for them. Other students could be facing an entirely different picture about the kind of schools and teachers available to them, esp. given the variances in local and state politics, class levels, income, and attitudes towards teaching.

"Some students might have many great teachers and be in a position where school is very positive for them."

I've never met anyone who said this about her public high school education. In university, many people said this about their educations in private schools, so I assume such a positive experience is possible. I'm convinced it's rare in public-funded secondary schools in the USA.