A little context is important here, though. He isn't in the UK, he's in the US, where a liberal arts education implies just that, a comprehensive cross-section of the sciences and humanities.
It isn't as if he didn't have a choice (we have trade schools and polytechs that function as you describe), and it isn't as if he didn't know this going in (unless he refused to read the degree outline, in which case, it's on him).
If it is possible to go to a University that specialises in one area, and get a comparable degree (i.e., one that's accepted on the same level - in the UK, "polytechnic" meant something different to a University), that's fair enough. I'd always got the impression that having to study a range of courses was standard in the US, but maybe it's just that it's more common, and not the only way.
I guess the question to the OP is what made him choose his University.
But still, many people weren't criticising him not on the grounds of "You chose the wrong University", but suggesting that the idea of specialising was wrong, and people were better off studying a range of different subjects at University level, which I don't agree is necessarily true.
Indeed, just look at the very next comment from someone else:
OP, since you seem to be under the impression that college is just job training and just want to be a computer science robot then you should probably just drop out of whatever college you are in now and go to ITT/DeVry.
Here's a protip though: Employers don't want robots.
How does studying History stop one being a "robot"?
Plus, since you and others are arguing based on what employers want, it sounds like you are arguing that college is just job training. It's me who argues the opposite - that University is to get an education in a specific area, and isn't the place to pick up what random extra bits you may need for a job, or indeed improve your dating skills or whatever else. You should have already done that, and be continuing to do that - a History lesson isn't going to magically make you pick up general job skills.
@Selenaut: You can argue "Why wouldn't X be useful" for every subject. At that point, we no longer have an advanced specialisation in one area, but a place where people learn bits of every subject - i.e., school. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with it, but I don't think it's necessarily right either. Whether you have a general education age until 16, 18, 21 or whatever, at some point you have to draw the line, and then let people specialise if they want. Yes, art history can be useful, but that's already been taught in school. At any time in someone's life, you could argue that they could be doing more to learn more art history, along with everything else.
I guess one question is whether the extra subjects come at the expense of advanced specialisation. In the UK, degrees are typically 3-5 years, but my understanding is that University degrees can be longer, which would explain how the extra subjects can be fitted in. In an ideal world, doing more education is a good thing. But you have to balance that with the costs - a later age entering the job market and so on, as well as even higher education costs, which with tuition fees leaves people with even higher debt.
As for a game, my understanding is that most games are developed with people specialised in different areas, rather than one guy doing everything.