Right, because those have no real-world use at all. Especially compared with high value add topics like "Gender Studies" and "Racial Inequality".
I agree with the not require them part, if that means specifically require them, but I'm fine with a requirement for electives. The "not getting hired" part is bunkum; no one is going to not get a job because they took an elective with, say, Zinn's History of the US as a course book. The debt part is up to the student--in a free society. Conservatives really have morphed quite rapidly into the "snowflakes" they decried so recently.
Depends who you ask. And if book banning continues you can bet there will be more people around later who don't believe those have "real world use".
We've gone through this before, what we now call "woke" we used to call "enlightenment". They question the use of going against the bible w/their pesky science and reason back then too.
It's not saying you won't get a job because you took an elective. its saying you're unlikely to get a job making the top 50% if you opt to get a degree in that subject. Its talking entire degrees, not electives. And there's real data to back this up, Ricter. We can show average salaries by degrees quite easily. For someone who rails so often agains the "rentier class", you don't seem to want to ensure kids these days have a fighting chance at making a living.
Another subject you seem to want to take the headlines on, and not actually look at what you're referring to. Did you read the bill on so-called "book banning"? Because if you have, please quote me on the parts of the bill - using the bill's language - that you have issue with.
Dude, hate the guy if you want, but you're far more intelligent than using names like that. Can't say that for others on this forum.