I don't get this hate-on for the liberal arts or this notion that the (physical?--there's another can of worms...) sciences are extremely useful. Aside from trying to pigeon hole subjects into this dichotomy (how about mathematics, which is in the arts at some places, and science in others?) you're then trying to ascribe value (aesthetic and monetary) to the knowledge of the two.
Is being able to solve a partial differential equation any more or less valuable of a skill than being able to go in-depth into the socioeconomic and political causes, outcome, and contributing factors of World War I? Does the undergrad modern physics course (which briefly skims 50 to 80 year old work) and more or less valid than a modern media course?[*]
Knowledge is knowledge, beauty is beauty, and art is in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, all three of those things overlap. Why cut off your nose to spite your face, especially since you're no longer in high school and don't have to shoehorn yourself and play identity-clique?
Higher education isn't usually about vocational training (with some exceptions, for instance, nursing / medicine, pharmacy, accounting, etc.) Even most engineers use just a tiny fraction of the direct material they learned in school (assuming they're not in sales, management or project planning--then it's probably even less, assuming you don't have an MBA or planning certificates or the likes). It's about being able to think, having some background and breadth of knowledge, and yes, being able to do intellectual and creative work (what I believe to be more intrinsic and less trainable qualities).
We constantly get threads over there in the Employment subforum about what careers physicists should go into. That's for the folks who get their physics undergrads, go to grad school, post-doc, and then can't find an academic / research position! And almost always, someone mentions finance or Wall Street! Okay, so that may be a bit of an over-generalization, but think how many jobs there are that directly use an undergrad physicists' know-how.
There's a joke that goes, "What did the fine arts major say to the engineer? 'Would you like fries with that?'" You're no more relegated to fast food / dead-end jobs than the next person--it's what you make of your life, experiences, and education. And in this down economy, there are probably folks with engineering degrees and responsibilities asking the arts grad whether or not they'd like fries and all the fix-ems. If you look at upper management, I'd be willing to make a small wager that there are more folks there with undergraduate degrees in the arts than in the sciences or engineering (although they all usually have some sort of degree).
So, given all the above, is going to college a waste except for those aforementioned fields? No, because it means that you should be a cut above the average person (who doesn't have a college degree) and that you should be able to take on more complicated tasks. That's not to say that you will, or that you're better / smarter than the guy without the degree (clearly, this isn't going to hold true), but that on the whole, you should be. And, if my (Canadian) university's numbers are correct, lifetime earnings potential will reflect this.
There are easy majors and sleeper courses abound. Smart and bright people go into all fields, not-so smart nor bright people end up in all fields. In the end, your knowledge, experiences, and education are as useless as you want them to be. Or not.
EDIT: [*] While I can still go into the history of World War I (not as well as I probably used to be able to), I haven't touched a PDE in nearly a decade. Maybe that means I should have been a history major, instead...
).
Well there you go, good upbringing, smarts, and education... from there you can do anything.
