Why does that make comparative literature, for example, a "real" education and, say, math not?

BTW, there's no need to go to university to learn history. All that's necessary is to read a history book. I read lots of them. Paying someone to lecture you about history seems a waste of time and money. Just read it. Much more time efficient.

I'd consider math a real education as well.

Going back to the initial comment you were responding to, I'd add that most degrees will cover things that aren't skills and credentials that will help someone get a job. That may explain why people with CS degrees still have to answer fizzbuzz questions in job interviews.

Whether reading history is more time efficient than taking a class depends a lot on the topic, the writing about it, and the knowledge and abilities of the professor. It's been my experience that a knowledgeable professor can add important context to a topic that will save the student a lot of time and energy.

A lot of people (present company excluded I’m sure) don’t know how to read critically. They may read history but not understand historiography. They may not be able to tell the difference between Livy and Tacitus. Being educated by a professional can save you a lot of time, for instance if you mistake Victor Davis Hanson for a historian.

I can vouch for reading a few history books makes it easy to distinguish them from a pseudo-history book written by an activist pushing an agenda.

Reading reviews of the books helps a lot in finding one worth the time reading, as well as looking at lists and reviews of what other books they've written.

Reading multiple books of the same event gives one a lot of perspective, too. I'm currently reading my 4th history book on the D-Day invasion - all quite different.

You could do the same for math. Or any subject, really. There's a reason people go to college for that, and it's not because they want to sit with a book to learn the subject.

> Or any subject, really

It isn't equivalent. Very, very few people manage to self-educate advanced math. But it's a lot easier with liberal arts.

Allow me to pose this question - does a literature degree enable one to write best selling books? Does JK Rowling have a degree in literature? In contrast, learning math and engineering enables one to use that knowledge to create great things. One has zero chance of building a successful liquid fuel rocket engine without that training.

I recall reading a lament by a literature professor who said he knew everything there was to know about Romeo and Juliet. He said he'd throw all that knowledge away for the joy of reading it for the first time.

You're not being consistent. People don't typically self-educate themselves for advanced math, but they don't do that for liberal arts either. J. K. Rowling doesn't have a degree in literature, but she doesn't do "advanced" literature: she writes books people like. She's good at what she does, but the "skill" needed is, like, grade school level. That's not comparative literature.

To put it another way: a lot of people actually do recreational math, which is largely self-taught. Maybe less than those who fancy themselves authors but it's still a lot of people. The aren't many people who study to make rockets, but there also aren't many people who end up as journalists or literary critics or copywriters but those people do actually get a degree in liberal arts to do that. Writing best-selling books is akin to being Martin Gardner.

end up as journalists or literary critics or copywriters but those people do actually get a degree in liberal arts to do that.

Given what the major newspapers write and the major news networks broadcast, it's quite an indictment of their liberal arts educations.

Wait until you see what software engineers make.