This study investigates and compares the learning trajectories of nine Taiwanese university graduates from a Power Mechanical Engineering (PME) program and nine from a cross-disciplinary Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) program. Participants had received their degrees 4-7 years prior to the study. The findings suggest the relative advantages and disadvantages of different models of educational design. Even though PME graduates complained about the abstract nature of what they had learned during the first part of their undergraduate study, most had successfully entered labor markets related to the PME industry, having obtained appropriate knowledge/skills for application in industry from the latter part of the program. While some prioritized their identity as a PME professional, others admitted that they liked the extrinsic reward of a comfortable living best. In contrast, even though most of the HSS graduates admired the generic curriculum of the program, with its transferability from one context to another and its close connection to the real world, and some deeply identified with the core value of being an agent of societal change once they had entered the labor market, many also admitted that it was difficult to find a suitable industry to enter unless they first acquired a Master's degree with higher specificity.