I can't argue with a single word of his article. But there still remains individuals like me, who actually should study the softer subjects, like history.
That's because people like me have the ability to move up the ladder no matter where they are placed, and defining myself too sharply by becoming, say, an engineer would have resulted in a frustrating and fairly unprofitable career.
As it is, I moved through the sales ranks, on into marketing (there is a difference), self employment, and so forth.
So for me, the broader education was best. But not for everyone. Not for most, even.
Reminds me of when I was getting my B.S.. The dean of the College of Arts & Sciences called me into his office before the first semester of my senior year. He said "Mr. ____. You DO realize that to graduate from the College of Arts and Sciences, we DO require that you take some coursework in the "arts"". At that point, I had 105 hours of nothing but Science, Engineering and Math.
I think they're surprised that NYTimes didn't try to justify their choice, that they just spent time name-calling, as if Trump doesn't have policies or arguments. In other words, they were asked for...