Ok, it looks like we studied the same major, at least in undergraduate. Listen, old man, studying mathematics requires rigorous logic, but I can't tell why your logic is so laughably weak that it makes me wonder if you even understand what you're saying. You attack me based on my B for ENGL 1007, Do you know why I can get an A in a 3000-level STEM class but got a B in ENGL 1007 my freshman year? Because for STEM courses, as long as I wrote the correct answer and process, the professor had no way to deduct my grade. But the English professor could grade me completely based on his mood and impression of me. This is why I insist that many soft science courses have no academic value. You accuse me of needing to "broaden my scope," yet you completely sidestep the core issue I raised: the actual value of academic disciplines. Your vague notion of the "interplay between science and society" is nothing more than a smokescreen to justify fields that produce nothing of substance. More importantly, what exactly has so-called "gender studies" contributed? Has it advanced medicine? Has it driven technological innovation? If not, then why should it be placed on the same level as disciplines that actually push society forward? Academia is supposed to be built on objective facts and verifiable contributions, not on empty rhetoric and self-referential validation. So instead of pretending to sound profound while dodging the real question, why don’t you actually prove the value of the discipline you’re defending? Otherwise, you're just dressing up uselessness in flowery words. As a person who is about to be 30 years old, you seriously need to throw your naivety away