Believe me, you're better equipped than someone burdened by a liberal arts background. It's been said that the liberal arts teach you how to enjoy life without the high-paying job they prevent you from getting. But I don't
think they're even successful at that anymore. Having spent many frustrating years as a ghostwriter trying to give the crass, inchoate effusions of corporate technocrats a veneer of logic and erudition, I am sorry I didn't pay more attention in math class as a youth and become a civil engineer.
[WS:] How true, Carl. I was originally trained in science (they have early tracking system in Europe), but at the very last moment, to the utter dismay of my father (a civil engineer) I eloped into philosophy precisely to avoid "inchoate effusions of corporate technocrats" and treading the 9-5 mill of corporate work, and live and enjoy good life instead. That "good life" turned out to be a delusion. What makes life good is meaningful work that produces tangible results adding to the general well being of the humankind, rather than babbling and spinning bullshit. (I partially mended my ways in the graduate school, but this is a different story.)
I concur that technical skills - math, science, engineering, medicine etc. makes a person far better equipped for meaningful work than liberal arts (not to be confused with the actual acting, painting, sculpting or musical skills). It does not mean that everyone with such skills will automatically do meaningful work - but the chances are there.
Putting it differently, there are many famous scientists, inventors, physicians, actors, painters, musicians, even lawyers - but the list of famous critics and social commentators is painfully short.
Wojtek