I think we should stop funding/granting scholarships to liberal arts majors. Let them become STEM majors.
Sure, it might be less easy for some than others, and less motivating, but if they can learn A, they can learn B and vice versa.
People like my mother who, if she can quantify the data she can effectively do algebra, but as soon as X and Y appear she shuts down. She cannot make the jump to the abstract thinking of math, and it curtailed her ability to go back to college. It didn't help that her math teacher in 9th grade told her that she would never be good at math, much like many women from poor backgrounds. (I have no study, only the experience in tutoring on how many women said that a teacher told them not to bother, and could never make it over that hump.) Now you say that it's merely psychological for them and that they could. I'm telling you that for as much work as some of these people I tutored put in, they had a mental block that they simply could not overcome, fighting their way to a C in college algebra so they could get to where they're going.
I can give as an example my boyfriend, who can speak and teach two languages better than most people here can in their native language, and is a promising Ph.D candidate in his program. He worked for a month straight (with my help) to raise his GRE math to a minimum score. His limit may be calculus, but certainly not higher math, and not upper level sciences. Yet I have seen this man wake up, read, write, sleep, and repeat for weeks straight.
He's a gifted writer and academic, but even if he could muddle through (say...) managed information systems, he'd never be more than mediocre because his brain simply does not work that way. (He still asks for help with his Mac.) Square peg, round hole.
It doesn't benefit those who have a passion for the sciences to put him and dozens of others in the same class, wearing down the professor because they struggle to grasp concepts that future scientists understood in fifth grade.
2. I disagree that it doesn't benefit the stronger students. It was awfully hard for me to learn to teach mathematics, because I had never really had to learn it in a step by step way myself. However, when I did learn to teach an area, my understanding was orders of magnitude higher because I had the understanding of somebody gifted in the area but the method and the attention to detail of somebody who has learned it the hard way. If you mix classes with high and low skilled students, you just have to make sure you rely on the high skilled students as a teaching resource.
2. There have been many studies that have tried what you say. The problem is that the class must go slower to accommodate the slower students. Engineering degrees already have so much packed into them that they often can't take classes of interest -- are we going to make it even longer?
And I say that as someone who quite enjoys STEM. There's a lifetime of wonderful experience to be had outside of STEM.
The humanities are subjects that can be explored at home by anyone who has the luxury of free time. While I admit that a hand-holding professor can help you traverse the field quicker and lead you to insight that would be difficult to divine on your own, there are books and audio lectures that can do the same job. And what's stopping anyone from joining a mailing list on the topic of interest?
Even "big" art projects pale in comparison to the funding requirements of basic science research. We need to make sure every lab is fully-stocked with not only minds, but the latest equipment necessary to keep pace with the advancements being made at the top institutions.
Liberal arts should be clearly defined as a leisure activity, one that everyone has a right to, but not something that we should subsidize at the expense of advances in human health.
You can enjoy the liberal arts if you're dead. It's just a matter of priorities.
On the other hand, I don't see much reason to subsidize medical education or research across the board, given the huge profits in it; income from patent royalties ought to be sufficient to pay for most of the needed research and education. An exception is harder-to-monetize research, like running clinical trials for old generic medications where it's not profitable for the private sector to do so (since they wouldn't be able to patent the result), or studying diseases that primarily affect poor countries.