I think your general thesis is right, though based on unfortunately distorted experiences. The USA and the UK both, for a variety of historical reasons, ended up creating a false dichotomy between “arts” and “sciences.” In reality, as you explain in your article, the two are interconnected in a wide variety of ways. It’s a shame that US, and to a lesser extent, UK educational systems force a separation of the two.
What’s really interesting to me is that a great many scientists are also accomplished in the arts. Dozens of well-known physicists have also been good amateur musicians; Oppenheimer was well versed in the poetry of several different languages and cultures; and I’ve personally known several engineers, chemists, and biologists who are also talented writers of fiction, sculptors, and musicians. Conversely I’ve rarely met an arts graduate with even rudimentary understanding of most physical principles, never mind quantum field theory or eternal inflation. So I think the argument cuts both ways: STEM students can benefit from a little more familiarity with the arts and arts students can benefit from a little more familiarity with basic scientific concepts such as evolution (the implications of which, sadly, hardly anyone understands even today) and physics. Perhaps if pop culture in the USA were not so reliant on cliches and the curriculum was not so silo-oriented, people would be more likely to see the many cross-pollinations that occur when you meld the two.