Regarding your criticism about this thread generally, I assumed that @ucbalumnus started this thread because in the other thread certain posters were repeatedly casting aspersions on “some majors” while refusing to either identify these majors or to articulate a standard by which the majors were deemed unworthy, and that this thread was an attempt to more openly discuss the issue.
FWIW, I agree that is “abrasive and rude” to suggest that certain college majors aren’t worthy of a college degree. I’d add that to my mind is also extremely condescending and more than a little elitist, but nonetheless that is what some posters apparently believe, so it seems worthwhile to air these ideas more openly so that the issue can be better understood by all. Below are some examples of what I mean, so others will understand the context of the question presented in this thread.
Here a poster suggests that colleges offer “pseudo ‘academic’ fields of study” to allow students with “weak academic skills” to graduate . . .
Here the same poster laments that many majors are essentially worthless . . .
And again, suggesting that many majors exist so that colleges can graduate “unprepared/ underprepared students.”
And again . . .
To my mind, repeatedly casting aspersions on “some majors” without identifying them is much more “abrasive and rude” than openly identifying such majors so that they can be openly discussed.
For full disclosure, I feel the same way about your post in the other thread where you wrote that you wouldn’t name the “much easier” “drop down” majors “for fear of offending but they are well known and have many graduates.” What are these majors? Why bring them up if you won’t identify them? If identifying them is so offensive, then why make the claim in the first place?