@ARE_you_kidding_me “This is going to be an unpopular opinion but those who focused on humanities and did not include much STEM are missing a massive component in their education and should not be trusted with leadership positions.”
I don't think it's that unpopular of an opinion, but it does seem to miss the fact that humanities majors aren't allowed to skip STEM classes. That's what distribution requirements are for. It's the so-called "professional colleges" within a university (engineering schools, nursing schools, business schools, schools of performing arts, and so forth) that let students off the hook when it comes to skipping other perspectives. This is in part because the humanities tend to be holistic (meaning it is part of their creed that learning these other perspectives are part of learning the humanities), and in part because humanities programs are almost always part of a university's school of arts and sciences (meaning they focus on the liberal arts, of which science and math are two prominent constituents).
"I’m also of the opinion that the people who teach humanities need to challenge students more because the material is way too watered down"
I think how challenging a class is depends on many factors—such as the level of the course, the disposition of the professor, and the strength of the program—and that it is difficult to accurately judge all classes of a sort by those that one personally experienced as an undergraduate. Furthermore, I would say that this is true of both humanities and non-humanities classes alike.
My wife and I both attended a community college before transferring to four-year universities. The meteorology class at the community college was very popular because it was taught by one of the local TV meteorologists and wasn't very difficult. But every once in a while, it was taught by an MIT graduate who specialized in atmospheric physics. I took it with him, and it was amazing. I was very happy with what I leaned (which went way beyond ordinary meteorology). Other people took it with the local guy, and they seemed pretty happy with their easy A. C'est la vie, I guess.
Philosophy is also taught differently at different universities. I went to schools with strong philosophy programs, and I think the challenge presented to the students was generally appropriate to the level of the course. But when my wife took a philosophy class at a different university, I thought that it was almost laughably simple (and regrettably one-sided due to the professor's absolute devotion to Aristotle). But the department where she took her philosophy class was embattled. A department always on the verge of being disbanded doesn't attract the best teachers and has to spend too much time on keeping student reviews positive. So the problem may be, at least in part, external.
@MrGrimm888 Thank you for your explanation. I was originally a music major, so I understand where you are coming from. Visual and performing arts degrees are certainly a big gamble these days, and a PhD in a visual or performing art even more so. I also think that universities should be more upfront about what certain degrees are good for. A doctorate is credential for getting a job teaching or doing research at a university, and anyone who isn't interested in one of those two pursuits should not be encouraged to pursue that level of education. Similarly, we too often recommend more education than a particular field warrants. Actors rarely need a theater degree, even if they might need more training and/or experience than they leave high school with. Yet other professions (music composition and film directing) tend to have significant barriers to those without at least an undergraduate degree (though as in any art, skill will usually beat education so long as you can get your foot in the door).