A degree in art history is like DHH's car: not quite my taste in conspicuous consumption, but I support rich peoples' right to waste their own money.
But next time I read the 5000th article on the NYT about poor Johnny that can't find a job because he only has a degree in art history, yet has $200k in student loans, I'm going to lose it.
Now, they aren't all doing their first choice or what their degree exactly is about, but that's also true of many technical people. Probably the worst group for that is people with only a B.S. in a basic science--- nobody I know with just a B.S. in physics, bio, or chemistry has been able to get a job they're particularly happy with in science. Some have gone back to grad school, and others have treated it as just an "I'm smart" piece of paper to get them in the door to other, not-very-related careers. So I don't actually see a huge difference between an art-history and a biology degree from the practicality perspective (the average starting salaries are comparable, too).
Studies and articles focus on just-out-of-college salary, but that's not the whole story...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fi-america-...
It's one thing to get an Art History degree if that truly is what you're interested in. It's quite another to assume that it has to be expensive.
Sure, someone spending $200k like the poster below mentions for an Art degree is probably not showing good judgement. OTOH, someone else who lives with parents during college, works part time in a printshop and gets the same degree owing minimal student loans is in an arguably better position both financially and in terms of real-world experience.
I'd much rather hire someone with an Art History degree and a passion for the subject than someone else who cruised through CS coursework while having no interest in it beyond its moneymaking potential.