I thought this article from 538 was interesting and is pertinent to discussions we've had here about what people major in and why they choose to do so:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/students-at-most-col... /

Key quote for me:

"But while focusing on more practical majors — such as business — may seem like the best route in the short term, majoring in the humanities may be more beneficial in the long term. In the first years after graduation, social sciences and humanities majors earn less than people who have pre-professional degrees, but at peak earning ages, liberal arts majors surpass people in pre-professional degrees, in part because they are more likely to have graduate degrees."

The article talks about certain Liberal Arts majors out earning people with pre-professional degrees in peak earning years.
But it uses people with graduate degrees like an MBA or becoming a lawyer as the basis of that conclusion.

It would be interesting to see how people with just an undergraduate degree or even graduate degree in the humanities fare against someone with a pre-professional degree.

I also found it interesting that the prestige of the university affects how an undergraduate degree in humanities is perceived.

Keep in mind that top tier MBA and Law schools don't look highly on undergrad business majors. Their preferred undergraduate majors are engineering and sciences first and social sciences and humanities second. I don't think the study should be negated because History majors might be getting into more elite law and MBA programs than marketing majors.

I think the data analysis in this article is garbage. It draws conclusions first and then selectively looks at the data to support their argument.

A core principle all students who major in Finance learn: "the time value of money"
-A dollar earned today is more valuable than a dollar earned tomorrow, because you can invest the dollar earned today so it earns money for you tomorrow.

A core principle all students who major in Economics learn: "opportunity cost"
-In addition to the financial cost you pay to do something, there is also a hidden cost you're paying by NOT doing something else. (For example, the financial cost of grad school is tuition, the opportunity cost is the money you could've made if you had held a full-time job instead of going to grad school)


Reading this quote, the author seems to be looking at the maximum-average earnings on a year-to-year basis. For a meaningful analysis on this subject, I'd like to see the author look at lifetime earnings. Year 1+Year 2+Year 3+Year 4... And when you factor in the additional expense incurred to attend graduate school and then factor in 4 years of lost salary?

...

My undergraduate degree was in Finance. If I went back and got a MBA today, I'd make more money on completion. The salary increase would not justify the lost earnings. If my employer offered to pay for it (executive MBA in addition to work) I'd be more likely to consider it but I'd gain more value from a masters in science for something like Computer Programming, Statistics or Data Analytics.

The LSAT/GMAT score is what allows you to get into the top schools along with a solid GPA. Where you did undergrad isn't as much of factor but you wouldn't be at a third tier school if you were an excellent test taker or ambitious about landing in one of the top graduate programs. Socioeconomics plays a role. A 3.5 HS student from an affluent background ends up with a law degree while one from an impoverished background starts first 2 at a community college and finishes up at a local university to become a nurse. The nurse may make as much money as the grad from the lower tier law school working in a cube.

Sorry it was a generalization. Nursing Technichian maybe.