The most-regretted (and lowest-paying) college majors | Hacker News Reader

The most-regretted (and lowest-paying) college majors

washingtonpost.com

45 pointsmikequinlan95 comments

> Humanities specialists argue that these majors open up higher-earning opportunities later in life because they don’t lock students into a narrow programming language, certification or career path. The critical thinking taught in humanities courses allows students to adapt to jobs that may not have existed when they enrolled in college.

I've experienced the exact opposite with that, that often those with humanities specialization are the least able to think critically and most likely to inject personal biases. They often adapt to another job not because they have some edge but more because their unable to pay bills and forcing yourself to learn something is very easy when the alternative is starvation.

Further this points to the ugly truth, a college degree doesn't matter any more than your HS GPA, the important part is you have it. It serves simply as an easy way for employers to filter people out when attempting to determine who to hire. It functionally serves as an easy way to vets large swathes of people.

I've experienced this exactly. I have a philosophy degree. I floundered a bit career-wise post undergrad, self-studied for a practical entry vector into a programming job, and 8 years later have a super rewarding career as a software engineer. I felt my humanities undergrad, especially the critical thinking and writing skills I developed, have helped me advance much more quickly.

If I were to change anything, I would have liked to do a CS minor.

I'm confused by this exchange.

buscoquadnary: "often those with humanities specialization are the least able to think critically"

mmartinson: "I've experienced this exactly... I felt my humanities undergrad, especially the critical thinking and writing skills I developed, have helped me advance much more quickly."

My own opinion is that buscoquadnary's claim is merely anecdotal impression and doesn't hold up to empirical generalization. I'm not even claiming that humanities graduates are better at critical thinking, only that I've seen no evidence that they're worse than others. I've seen a lot of people in tech who are not particularly good at critical thinking.

mmartinson quoted the part of the article agreeing with their statement.

Ah, you're right, thanks. I kind of skipped over the quoted part, because I had just read the comment that it was replying to.

Though I'm still confused why mmartinson's reply didn't more directly address the previous comment, if it was meant as a refutation.

Easier to see if you put them side by side.

buscoquadnary: [quotes article]. I've experienced the exact opposite.

mmartinson: [replies with quote repeated]. I've experienced this exactly.

To be fair I'd say it depends on the major (and on the school)

I'd say there are more "modern" humanities majors (not naming them - but you can say it's "underwater basket weaving") that sound pretty much just a guide for "wokism"

I feel that the more traditional (and wider field) humanities, like Philosophy, Sociology, History (or even literature) etc might give a more useful knowledge base

This would make sense since the X-Studies majors consider lived experience to be an important source of evidence. This makes it easy to disagree with someone based on what you have experienced or felt in your life. It does not require logical thought or a nuanced understanding of what the other person is saying. You can shut down an argument by saying you have felt differently or you feel the conversation is threatening you in some way.

It's no surprise that students whose training validates this way of thinking do not end up having strong reasoning skills.

Any chance your philosophy degree was rooted in the analytic tradition most popular in english-language philosophy departments? It focuses specifically on logical analysis and argumentation and took over anglo departments so thoroughly that many students seemed to forget that other traditions even existed.

It aspired to demonstrate that philosophy can have the idealized rigor of math or at least the empirical legitimacy of a science, and generally rejected the creative and interpretive analytical practices of literature and history. While still often in the "humanities" school in many places, it's usually an outlier in what it teaches.

I've had the same experience. My undergrad philosophy degree was very valuable in transforming me into both a more rigorous and more flexible thinker. But I'm not sure how well our experiences generalize. In order for this to work, I think you need to have been a serious student in a decent program. It could be that humanities programs do a lot for undergrads who take them seriously, but also offer a way to skate through without developing many skills (or, at worst, developing affirmatively bad habits) for those who do not .

Philosophy may also be distinct from other humanities since western analytic philosophy tends to be weirdly technical (if that is what the program was focused on). I'd argue that this is a great fault for the field as a whole, but a boon for undergraduates who want to use these intellectual tools to do other things.

> I've experienced the exact opposite with that, that often those with humanities specialization are the least able to think critically and most likely to inject personal biases.

Agree. It appears that the modern humanities curriculum emphasizes group think over critical thinking.

I have had the EXACT same experience with humanities majors. I actively avoid hiring anyone from those on my teams even with bootcamp experience.

The best employees I've had are from technically focused universities with some kind of STEM background.

I was a philosophy major, and my former coworker who is now on the Swift Runtime team at Apple was an English major. I would recommend reconsidering whether this bias is just based on your anecdotal data. Also, I would recommend not bragging publicly about this bias, for legal reasons. Do your bosses know that you actively discriminate against humanities majors, and are they ok with that? Is it company policy? Do the public job postings say that humanities degrees do not meet the job requirements? Your comment does suggest that humanities majors are applying for jobs at the company.

We have official human resources policies that back up our hiring practices after a series of poor hires.

What's the policy exactly? Do the job postings have specific degree requirements?

I agree that it is unwise to blanket-reject any humanities major. But I'm at a loss for what legal reasons you are referring to (IAAL). Although political party/activity is a protected attribute in some states, I don't think college major is protected anywhere. I can't imagine that it could be protected, since nearly every employer filters applicants based on major for at least some jobs.

The only argument I could imagine is that major is a proxy for political belief, and that using it as a pretense is illegal. This would be pretty tough to prove, especially since many people who major in STEM disciplines are politically aligned with humanities majors.

What am I missing here?

> What am I missing here?

I'm not suggesting that humanities majors are a protected class. I am suggesting that it's legally problematic for job postings to lie about the job requirements. For example, if it says "Bachelor's degree in CS or equivalent experience", but the company flat out rejects all applicants without a CS degree, regardless of experience.

Ah, gotcha. I'm not sure if they post descriptions like the one you hypothesized, but even if they did I don't think that would be actionable.

For example, there are plenty of prestigious law firms that require "a JD and X years of experience", but in reality never hire outside the top 10 schools. I don't think they could be sued for not explicitly saying that no one outside the top 10 ever gets hired.

Also, in your example they aren't lying, since they apparently accept non-CS majors (just not humanities) with the relevant experience.

I could be wrong though — I'm not an employment lawyer.

Just because I majored in Sociology doesn't mean my web coding is Marxist. :)

Q. What is a Marxists favorite programming paradigm?

A. Functional Programming because it has no state.

A: Functional Programming, because it lies about having no state.

The description of "being locked into a narrow programming language" really doesn't help the case of the author. What does it mean for a programming language to be "narrow"? That also implies a conflation of programming methodology with programming languages, which really hurts the author's case since they don't really know their facts when they're arguing for how the humanities supposedly makes one more "versatile", relative to someone coming from STEM. It's also a poor reflection of their rigour when it comes to "critical thought".

The author seems to overlook that people with majors STEM have decent backgrounds in humanities, because they still take the courses and maybe even minor in something in the humanities.

You might be able to get through some vocational school without an exposure to topics not related to the intended job, but the university experience is much better rounded regardless of what people major in.

Likewise, humanities majors earn their science credits.

The humanities contains hard disciplines. Mathematics is categorized in the humanities. So is philosophy, and universities tend to teach logic under the umbrella of philosophy. Philosophy, math, logic: all brutal at the third and fourth year levels.

How is mathematics categorized in the humanities when it's literally the M in STEM?

That's the way it is. Math is one of the Liberal Arts, going back centuries, whereas the STEM acronym is recent.

That said, some schools offer degrees under science---if you major in math, you get a B.S.. Whereas in others you get a B.A.

By one measure of what is a Liberal Art, people with math degrees can be just as unemployable as historians or political scientists.

The question is what's the M doing in STEM, really, besides completing a pronounceable dictionary word.

For instance, in the phrase "STEM jobs", only the STE are jobs; nobody works in mathematics, as such, other than academics.

Exactly this. BA in Math and BS is Math are very, very different

> The description of "being locked into a narrow programming language" really doesn't help the case of the author.

I don't think the author is trying to make a "case". The author is just a newspaper columnist writing about degree regret.

The author was merely trying, and failing, to explain why some people promote humanities degrees. Note that there was not a direct quotation in that paragraph. In the next paragraph there was a direct quotation from Quinn Dombrowski, but Dombrowski did not exactly say what was said in the previous paragraph.

College education does matter for a lot of careers. Good luck learning electrical engineering or structural engineering on the job, for example. That might have been possible 100 years ago but many industries are far too complex for that today. This is precisely why STEM degrees are more valuable: they are not just credentials; they are backed by a set of job skills that employers need.

Is the value of a humanities or art degree mainly signaling? Yes, in most cases. But not all degrees are like that.

The words "a lot" and "careers" are doing an awful lot of work here. Has anyone quantified this statement beyond looking at job postings for degree requirements? I'm not convinced that actual requirements for a lot of jobs have actually increased in the past 30-40 years, at least not in a way that would be met by a typical 4 year college education. My hypothesis is that employers just started seeing resumes with degrees becoming increasingly common, and just started tossing out those without, similar to what happens with high school diplomas. I'm also not entirely convinced that the "college grad wage premium" is entirely, or even mostly due to having a college degree.

I suspect that a significant number of those benefitting from said premium would probably find a way to earn more than the median high school graduate anyway. Granted I am not terribly familiar with research in this particular area, so I'd appreciate a correction if I'm on the wrong track.

I would argue that an engineer responsible for designing bridges to not kill people fifty years from now better damn well have a college-level understanding of their craft.

College education isn't just some kind of societal gateway, though it is also that.

I think it's simpler: if you're able to get a degree, you're already intelligent to some extent. That intelligence is then trained by having education in general. The difference is if you chose a major without good career prospects, you basically just have to do additional work to get the idealism out of your system and come around to a practical field. All these philosophy, sociology, literature, etc majors didn't need the major to switch into STEM etc, they were always ready for it. They just had to accept that the humanities weren't going to give them the life they wanted.

It's interesting that humanities training (at least history, political science, languages) seems to be important in the military, at least for leadership and some specialist roles

> Dombrowski’s degree in Slavic linguistics has taken her to a career in academic information technology, high-performance computing and helping researchers use computers to analyze languages.

It appears this person also has a library sciences degree (MLIS), which was probably more important for enabling this career path. From https://dlcl.stanford.edu/people/quinn-dombrowski:

> Quinn has a BA/MA in Slavic Linguistics from the University of Chicago, and an MLIS from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

It seems disingenuous or misleading of this article to make it seem like a degree in Slavic linguistics (she actually has two, BA and MA) is what allowed her to pursue this career.

It's also probably relevant that she went to college at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious/selective school. My main question about the data is: how does this break down by school type? There's not much risk majoring in History at Yale, since your rigor/ability is attested to by your mere admission to the institution. You also have access to an amazing alumni network (including many History and other humanities majors).

But if you're at a second- or third-tier university, majoring in History is a riskier choice because of the less-powerful alumni network and the lack of a signal that you are a highly skilled and capable worker.

EDIT: fixed mis-pasted quote

> It seems disingenuous or misleading of this article to make it seem like a degree in Slavic linguistics (she actually has two, BA and MA) is what allowed her to pursue this career.

You would be incorrect there. Academic librarians typically need a subject matter graduate degree in addition to a master's in library science. Many actually have PhDs. You could argue that those degrees may not necessarily be relevant "on the ground," but they certainly present a barrier to hiring.

This person doesn't work as an academic librarian. She is an academic technologist, which does not require any advanced degrees. In fact, even the Associate Director of Academic Technology position at Stanford does not list an advanced degree in the required credentials OR preferred credentials: https://careersearch.stanford.edu/jobs/associate-director-ac...

> Regardless of major, half of those who went to private, for-profit schools regret their decision, perhaps because students at for-profit schools are much more likely to struggle to repay their student debt. Similar regrets plague only 21 percent of those who went to public colleges and universities and 30 percent of those who attended private nonprofits.

I'd like to see more historical data on this. Those kids eventually become adults with kids. Imagine a world where the prevailing public opinion is to skip college instead of attend it...

I am sick of this weird non-logic: You are technical, so you must be bad at domain knowledge, talking, presenting, leading, social skills and now apparently of all the things even critical thinking. You come across it all the time in the non-SV business-world.

If whoever wrote this, would be actually good at critical thinking, they would have noticed, that there is no logical connection. Just because I am good at one thing, does not mean, I have to be bad at another thing.

It is your insecurity talking, not your critical thinking.

Another take: whoever wrote is writing from a position of privilege.

"A humanities major at an Ivy League college opens up higher-earning opportunities later in life, like when you take over the reins of the family corporation."

It's also simply an outdated view. The strategy of going into humanities and finding higher earning later in life probably worked quite a bit better in 1972 than 2022.

Simply going to university was a sign of privilege half a century ago, and so you wouldn't discuss the associated prospects without assuming privilege.

Those not privileged who got into that environment would have been lifted in status by the contacts and the association with privilege.

Today, having a university degree is not an earmark of privilege, and you are less likely to make relationships at university which connect you with privilege. Depending on the school.

They are using a type of logical inference called abduction: based upon one's observations of an unexplained phenomenon, one formulated a hypothesis as to why it is so.

> If whoever wrote this, would be actually good at critical thinking, they would have noticed, that there is no logical connection. Just because I am good at one thing, does not mean, I have to be bad at another thing.

The logical fallacies you are using here are ad hominem and the straw man argument.

The American system is like 50% general studies for an undergrad degree. So, while I believe being well-rounded is highly desirable, the cost of university today is too high to force people to study what they don’t want. If humanities degrees were halved in time and cost, it would not be prohibitive to study a trade or technical academic subject in addition.

Also, law school degrees are fraught, lots of schools have been accused of fudging or hiding graduate salaries. Plenty of people just aren’t cut out for destroying their lives with a biglaw job schedule or are saddled with huge debt in a public sector. There’s also no guarantee you’ll get hired, if you graduate in an off year, you can miss an opportunity you would have had the year previous or after and can never full get back, even climbing a long ladder and hoping for a lateral.

What do you mean by general studies? 20 of my 158 undergrad hours were something besides engineering, statistics, or math. We had no electives, only technical electives. Two of those twenty was my one english class, the engineering ethics of sci-fi. The rest was two philosophy courses (epistemology is fun), two psychology courses (cog-sci is fun) and two history courses required by the state. I did have to take technical writing and engineering ethics, which might be argued to be general studies?

I think they are referring to the fact that US higher education is generally a liberal arts style. In other places, higher education is sometimes purely vocational or professional, and you won't be taking any humanities courses when seeking an engineering degree.

> the cost of university today is too high to force people to study what they don’t want.

The value in a guided education is that it is guided. If you want to study what you want, just go to a library and study what you want for free.

"Sat in a library and did self directed study for 4 years" probably wouldn't be taken seriously on a resume by many employers.

Of course it won't. There are many reasons for this, and one of those reasons is that guided educations have value.

Of course, that's why you show value. When I dropped out of college, I knew I couldn't rely on a piece of paper to say I was smart. I was lucky, it's easy to show value in CS. I don't need anyone's permission to build an amazing web app. That said, there is always something you can do to show value or bring value.

Each college class is guided by the professor, but there is a very broad selection of classes that satisfy liberal arts requirements.

Within a specific major the class requirements are stricter, but there's typically still a fairly significant range of choice there too.

I don’t mean design curriculum, I mean choose the subject at large. In other systems, you study your major, not a handful of other unrelated things for the first two years.

Going to a top-tier (top 10-15) law school is not terribly high risk. I graduated from a school ranked around 15 and anyone who wanted a big firm job got one. Things were worse during recession years, but even then it doesn't take long to pay off your loans with a job that you can get pretty easily with a degree from a good law school. Maybe you end up quitting biglaw after you put in 2-3 years and pay off your loans, but during that time you've built a good network, learned from working in the business world, and have relatively cushy options like going in-house to a Fortune 500 company where you can make $200k without working crazy hours.

Law schools ranked below 30 or so are a dicier proposition. My standard advice to potential law students is: go to law school if you get into HYS, if you get into a T13 school and have good scholarships, or if you really want to be a lawyer and get into a T20 school. I followed the advice of an older friend, which was to go to the second-best school you get into, on a scholarship. You'll end up with a higher GPA/class rank, and you'll have fewer loans to pay off. This only applies if your chosen school is in the top 20 or so — after that schools get more competitive and the stricter curve can actually hurt you.

There are all kinds of anomalies. For example: one of the top Environmental Law schools ranks at 89th overall. I've seen someone at a similarly ranked school get a solid biglaw job, then be the one to choose which Ivy/Chicago applicants make the cut for a quarter-size associate class in a downturn.

I saw a 'success' story, a young NYC couple where one worked at Wachtell, the other at Latham. They were often at work outside of sleeping hours. They had two nannies that worked on two different shifts to take care of their two toddlers. I don't think they liked the situation, but they knew that if they just hung in there long enough, they'd have a huge opportunity. Plenty of people break before that comes, though.

Much of the discussion here reminds me of Bryan Caplan's work on the relative value of what students learn versus the value of education as signaling.

His piece in the NYT was posted here [1] a few hours ago. It's a super-condensed version of his book, which goes into great detail on his research hypothesis versus others, and policy recommendations (which he admits are too extreme to be enacted).

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32736028

2: https://www.amazon.com/Case-against-Education-System-Waste/d...

We tell college kids, “follow your dreams,” but do not give them hard facts about job salaries, opportunities, risks, number of job positions open, or the nature and day to day work they will do while on the job, or how much extra education they will need before being qualified to start a career.

Even worse, in college you get hit with a survivorship bias, as you're mostly exposed to the professors who "made it" in these fields and managed to find a career.

This.

Plus you don't see the countless other faculty who are trying to "make it" by hoping to adjunct their way into a fulltime position. Living hand to mouth in hopes of just earning a stable paycheck - nevermind at a particularly prestigious institution (those roles are reserved for those who "made it" and attended an equally prestigious intitution).

We definitely didn't tell our kids that, more like "make sure you get a business minor if you pursue something with low earning potential". I think kids do still hear that but not from any of the parents I know.

All that information will be out of date by the time they graduate. 8 years is a long time —- colleague talk starts as a freshman in high school.

In junior year of HS (US) my teachers forced us to sit down and actually write out a budget for our expected wages and then run some years of expenses month by month. That was very eye opening and I think would still be relevant in 8 years.

I was told in highschool that the major with the most job opportunities was petroleum engineer. I'd be hesitant to have kids make career defining choices based on data that can change on a whim.

A lot of people are thinking like you, and far fewer people are studying petroleum engineering (there is also a negative social stigma), which is leading to a shortage. It will probably lead to even better job prospects for at least another generation.

https://energyfuse.org/petroleum-engineering-enrollment-is-i...

I am about the biggest advocate for moving away from fossil fuels as there is, but it certainly isn't going away in our lifetimes. And even in a world where 0% of fuel comes from fossil fuels, we'll still need petroleum for other uses.

My freshman year I was aiming to enter the engineering program, so I could be a petroleum engineer, for the reasons above.

I took an intro CS, and that changed everything.

The information is out there. I certainly had no trouble finding it when I was 18. And nobody told me that blindly following my dreams was a good idea either. In high school and college we used to joke about majoring in English being good practice for asking “do you want fries with that?” after graduation. We all knew that STEM degrees were where the money was after college.

I was talking with someone who went STEM.

He said:

I really liked philosophy and history and would have done that but they showed that I needed a degree I could make a living with.

it all starts at middle/high school. if young person does not get good high school education and rigor with AP classes in stem - they wont be able to get into STEM program, even if they do they would struggle.

Another thing is software/automation is eating many jobs, and jobs occupied by humanities are first to get automated/outsourced. Jobs like marketing, communication, HR, Sales - everything is becoming data-first, data analysis driven - and for that you need STEM skills

I don't think I ever heard the expression 'follow your dreams' in high school in the '90s.

Even as a teen it sounded too pie-in-the-sky.

But I will say that in the last 10 years the idea of the young billionaire dropout has certainly been glorified. An idea which can be every bit as harmful as to just 'follow your dream'.

It is worse than that. We tell kids that at age 18 they are supposed to have some lofty dreams to follow.. which results in them picking whatever THING that is popular around them, but mostly just getting drunk daily in college.

The most worthless garbage degrees are studies that people go to "help" people. Critical thinking: regurgitate The Message, paint hair purple, get a Communist party pin and spew some trash about boycot/divesting from Israel? Of course any mention of opposing ideas is a trigger and actual violence.

I always tell people who are looking for a career path to look at the BLS website. They have great data about the demand, job numbers, earnings potential, for just about every job.

Actually during high school they did tell us salaries and perspectives. That was al part of a course called "choice study". This just reaffirmed my choice for CS. This was around 2000 and in the Netherlands.

I was fine with being called nerd by people going into commerce. Now it's us they need for their next SaaS.

https://archive.ph/tOtFg

> “When we work with undergraduates on digital humanities projects,” Quinn said, “it's often easier to take a humanities undergrad and teach them just enough coding to do what they need to do rather than taking some of the CS majors who can do the coding in their sleep but don't really think about the questions in the nuanced ways that we need them to.”

This is a false dichotomy. I had the good fortune to study Math and Computer Science at a liberal arts school. During the course of my undergraduate degree, I had to spend a fair amount of time writing about STEM, in addition to actually doing STEM things. I've found, for example, reading and critiquing a paper on some ML research and asking "Is this true?" uses many of the same skills as asking "Is this true?" in other areas. And I was able to take plenty of Humanities classes as an undergrad as well. It is possible to get both a liberal arts education and a STEM education at the same time.

While I actually am a fan of liberal arts generally, this is an uninformed argument. Most CS programs I know of do not teach anything all that specific to the moment. At least when I was in school, and soon after, many programs included at least some course work in Lisp, ML (the programming language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_(programming_language)), or Haskell, with the idea that they would teach a lot of programming language precisely so that you can learn how to pick up things later. No programs I'm aware of prepare students for a particular certificate. And, if they did, outside of consulting these certificates seem to not be particularly popular in computer science or software engineering fields. I suppose if an education in Humanities had prepared these particular people to make such a crummy argument, that would be a reason not to pursue a degree in the Humanities.

Education has value beyond improving income potential. It would be really interesting to see correlation between those those who entered college only (or primarily) to improve income, and those who sought a humanities degree for other reasons, to see if they got out of the degree what they wanted.

This analysis also doesn't include minors or elective courses - I'm wondering how many folks (like myself) chose to pursue a humanities minor to get a lot of the value-add of studying something like philosophy without being pigeon-holed in a humanities pathway?

> the top quarter of history majors earn $4.2 million over their career. That puts them above the bottom quarter of earners from even the highest-paying majors, such chemical and aerospace engineering.

Two things likely influence this. First, these history majors probably come from elite universities. Second, the bottom 25% of highest paying majors probably include lots of people who don't work for their entire career. For example, women who decide to stay home with kids.

I'm a history/philosophy major who ended up as a programmer. Pure speculation but I wonder if another part is that history helps you think hard about groups of people and how to lead them / how they work together. I think it also conveys things that traditional management theory might not (I haven't studied it so I can't say for sure), but things like uncertainty and the contingency of events come through in a big way.

My advice for any younger people reading this is to do something practical and something for passion. I regret not getting a technical education that would have had much better employment prospects and having to claw my way through the back door, but I also wouldn't trade away my humanities education for anything.

EDIT: FWIW I did not go to an elite university and make a good living as an engineering manager. I also talked on a plane once to a guy who said the best people he met in IT were NSA cryptographers, but the second best were people like me. His theory was that people who studied humanities and then went on to do technical work must have had a passion for it since they had to work extra hard to get into the field. Maybe that's a big part of it, maybe studying history has nothing to do with it and they just went into other high paying fields.

I suspect most people who go into a history major out of high school come from a background which informed them that it's something they can do, and still be okay.

Many kids couldn't go into history simply because their parents would be vehemently against it.

Among history majors, we can probably find a good many individuals whose parents supported them in their choice, and a good bulk of that support likely has economic roots.

I would imagine a good chunk of history majors go on to get their law degree or MBA, which would also make this analysis not conclusive.

The value of a specific major could go up tremendously based on which school you went to. For example, for earning potential alone, I'll take an English degree from University of Pennsylvania over a business degree from 2nd-tier State School X. If my child were going to U of Penn, I'd even tell them to avoid Wharton undergrad, where the grading curve is harder than in liberal arts there, which could make your job prospects worse. At top schools, the degree itself (especially with a high GPA) is worth a ton, regardless of what you major in. The lower down on the prestige rankings that you go, the more likely you'll need a "practical" major to get a high paying job.

https://archive.ph/tOtFg

I studied semiotics at Brown... but almost everyone working next to me studied CS/IT/DS for undergrad.

I often wonder if I would regret studying semiotics if I never learned to code (granted, I was writing code before college).

I do think studying semiotics is part of what got me interested in doing something meaningful with my life.

Anyone else here have an unconventional degree while also being a relative success story?

I have two guys I work with that got their degree in Economics or Poli Sci, then they went back to school to get a degree in Info Sec. So that's kind of a success story I guess.

A friend of mine was a percussion major who ended up being a developer for a now public company, then became a sales rep for another now public company, and is now a founder at a new startup.

I have a degree in history, though my college experience was spread across six years, two continents, and four different majors (one of which was CS).

Though my career is not even remotely dependent on my skills and knowledge gained from my history education, I daresay it gives me a whole lot better context on humanity and life in general.

Studying the Humanities is the ultimate Veblen good. A way to signal your family is so rich (or so well connected) you don't need to worry about your major's job prospects.

> The most-regretted (and lowest-paying) college majors

The article does not actually include a list or a link to the source material. Unless there's images the archive links aren't loading?

The sources mentioned in the article:

- Federal Reserve Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking

- Ben Schmidt's analysis of data from the National Center for Education Statistics

- Douglas Webber

The article has a few links to source material

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2020-repor...

https://observablehq.com/@bmschmidt/duckdb-degrees

https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/DataFiles.aspx?year=202...

http://www.doug-webber.com/data.html

A link to an older article in The Atlantic: https://archive.ph/ZTnXJ

How does this compare with having a technical degree and not being hired?[0]

"I’m here questioning my life, and reduced to worthlessness." -treyfitty

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32697528

humanities major here. My complaint with the way many humanities topics are taught is there is almost no attempt to consider how students will practically apply the knowledge in the "real world". I don't think you need to abandon theory or critical thinking skills to pay attention to this.

Non-paywalled link: https://web.archive.org/web/20220905021117/https://www.washi...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com