A Science qualification is more useful to society than an Arts qualification

I'd like to begin by welcoming my opponent to this site! I'm actually very busy but will try my best to come up with something - this is actually a very hot topic at my university right now, so I'm trying to put my view out there despite the fact I have exams.My contention is that although science is awesome, which my opponent so eloquently proved last round, that doesn't prevent people with Arts degrees from being "useful to society" because what is of use to society is an inherently subjective judgment.I consider reggae music to be non-useful, many of my friends would differ. It is wrong for me to cast an objective judgment like "rock music is more useful than reggae music because it's more inspirational to me." That's because musical preference isn't an objective judgment, but a subjective one. It's the same with degrees. My opponent obviously considers Arts degrees non-useful, and I beg to differ, but that doesn't mean that Arts is actually non-useful. I value well-designed cities, good journalism and intelligent political discussion. On a broader level, I value critical thinking, an understanding of how we got here, and knowledge of how people are connected with each other today. If you don't think these things are so important, and instead want a degree where people, for the most part, rote learn facts, then that's cool too. I might not consider it useful, but each person has their own individual judgment. It's wrong to say your opinion is the "right" answer or the truth of which degree is better. My view is - it all depends on the person doing the degree.I once met a guy with a PhD in chemistry working at a supermarket carpark. Tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars were spent subsidising his university years. Was the result useful? I don't think so. But he tells me that doing his chemistry degree was the most useful thing he ever did. I also so happen to have a friend who is an arts grad, who works at McDonalds. Was his degree useful? Again, I don't see any evidence of that. He, however, disagrees, and rightly so. My values on what makes a good degree are no more useful or correct than his. Ultimately, the person doing the degree should know what value the degree has for them as an individual, because nobody but that chemistry trolley-running, or history burger-flipper, will know what the rewards of their degree actually were.Having said that, there are lots of Arts students who have done useful things too. Love him or hate him, Barack Obama has been useful for the Democrats. Guess what his degree is. Michael Jordan was useful to the sport of basketball. Jerry Bruckheimer has been useful to the movie industry. Ellen Bravo has done great things for women's rights. Carol Browner has done great things for the environment. And of course Harold Varmus, the guy who got a noble prize in medicine despite his undergraduate degree being in arts. The scientific method would never have been invented without Aristotle, a great teacher of the Arts, and would not be around today were it not preserved by scholars interested in the arts (and established by he same group of scholars during the renaissance). None of that would be known today were it not for the arts (history specifically). Both degrees can clearly be useful - the question of which is more useful should be left up to you, not dictated by pro.For all these reasons I am proud to oppose the motion.