But the fact you have to include that caveat is itself evidence that it generally isn't.
We have to get over this blind devotion to the idea that college is so awesome that even questioning its value is heresy, and take a hard look at the facts. Yes, frankly, the value generated by the humanities right now by our colleges is not commensurate to the money we are pouring into it, nor the debt slavery we're imposing on people for it. That doesn't mean it's worthless, but the solution isn't letting the humanities continue to rot while they hide behind our blind obeisance to "education is of infinite value so we need not consider the costs! Ever! Don't even ask or you're no better than a knuckle-dragging hillbilly!"
Beyond a sober reconsideration of exactly what sort of benefits we are getting are better benefits than what we are now. But first, we have to ask the questions.
I think social sciences when done correctly do produce good thinking, as any theory is only as good as its reasoning. In my opinion the real tragedy occurs when soft and hard sciences mix. Many times, especially in this setting, because someone with a hard science mindset doesn't understand, or ignore, the premise of soft science. I personally think this is why there are so many wild disagreements on things like systems engineering within the tech community.
It can also be argued that college isn't the best format (age, place, duration) to learn social science, but that can be said about many areas of study. It would also be to, as much of the debate do, ignore the lack of alternatives. In technology there are many examples of people dropping out and having success, at least as a practitioner, in their field. In many other areas this isn't as true. It might even say more about CS education than anything else.
Of course college also has value as an experience. It's where many people find their independence and meet long standing friends, colleagues and partners. Which would be perfectly fine to do anywhere else, but plumbing probably isn't it.