Right because numbers are only used in counting and never come up in engineering.
As for law, let's look at the numbers (which I was taught to do in engineering, which is apparently quite peculiar):
For example,
Michigan's law program distribution of undergrad degrees (which I'd argue is likely fairly typical) is as follows:
[image
]
This is not surprising considering more humanities/social science career paths lead into law than engineering does.
So, unsurprisingly, the quantity of humanities/social science majors surpasses engineers, but what about quality? Which major scores the highest on the LSAT? Well, according to a 2013 poll of data from
LSAC:
[image
]
Mechanical engineering is the highest engineering major, at 13th, right in between History (aka "past basket-weaving") and Anthropology (aka "how humans weave baskets"). At the top, classics (aka "meta basic-weaving"). Even art history (aka "appreciation and interpretation of woven baskets throughout time"), at 4th, philosophy (aka "thinking about basket-weaving"), at 6th, and music (aka "playing baskets like a drum"), at 11th, sit above mechanical engineering. If Law is being used as a "general" degree to compare how well different majors "teach you how to think", then engineering does a worse job than some of the most basket-weaving-y "basket-weaving" majors. Again, I don't mean to disparage engineering degrees (as 13th is nothing to sneeze at) but I want to highlight the importance and benefit of the humanities/social-sciences.
To bring this back to the debate at hand, none of this supports the arguments that further reductions in humanities will improve engineering education or that a technically focused education (sans humanities) leads to just as (if not more) well-rounded graduates. The former argument has never been addressed (just assumed to be true) and the latter appears to be weakened, if not contradicted, by the fact that those with humanities majors do better on the LSAT, which attempts to be a general critical-thinking exam, than those with engineering majors.
This leaves us with:
(1) No evidence that the quality of engineering grads is in decline (besides anecdotes)
(2) No evidence that, even if the above was true, it was due to the "dilution" of engineering education by the humanities
(3) No evidence that, even if the above was true, the solution would be more technical classes in place of humanities classes
(4) Some evidence to suggest that those with a background in the humanities perform better in more "general" critical-thinking areas, such as LSAT scores, than those in engineering
(5) By combination and extension of (1) to (4), replacing humanities classes with technical classes may lead to a decrease in the general critical-thinking capacity of graduates, especially when dealing with the subjective elements of life in a multi-cultural democracy, and no guarantee of an increase in technical competency, which there is little to no evidence to suggest is in decline. (Which is my argument in a nutshell)
