<p>Fair enough.</p>
<p>Then you know, for most of us with decent IQ, it is trivial to skate by in most liberal arts classes, even during our first 2 years in college. Most science classes demand precision in our work results, often with an exact right or wrong answer. Conversely, for most humanities classes, results are subjective and can be argued. </p>
<p>Given this context, engaging in endless rhetoric in humanities can earn you an A. Rhetoric in science will get you an F. Moreover, just the sheer complexity of science subjects make science classes substantially more challenging. Therefore, the probability getting weeded out of foundational science classes are infinitely higher. Also, being good at science requires a lot of practice, engaging in rhetoric a bit less. </p>
<p>Engineering trains you to think in a structured manner which enables you to problem solve in a systematic approach. To give you this structured problem solving approach, you first need to learn by repetition on how to solve a complex problem in a right way. Therefore, although an engineering student is learning this process in a very rigid approach, when he gets out of school, this foundation will enable him to solve previously un-encountered problems.</p>
<p>Another words, engineering education is not about the miniscule details, but about learning a structured problem solving thinking approach.</p>
<p>If you ever saw the movie Apollo 13, the engineers in the movie were depicted in creating all kinds of ad-hoc solutions to seemingly impossible problems, like building a C02 extractor with socks, paper and tapes. That was creativity in engineering at its best.</p>
<p>As for my qualifications, I previously served as a principal design engineer for a leading Silicon Valley fab-less semiconductor firm for years and earned numerous design patents while leading large scale engineering groups. I am sharing this with you not as an act of self-aggrandizement but to let you know I have a decent idea on this subject.</p>