Simba9, I did read what you said. In addition to Psychology and History not having good job prospects, you said this:
“As much as it might disgust some, I do think most students attend college for job training. They want a piece of paper at the end of (hopefully) four years that says they’re qualified to enter the job market.”
That comes off as categorical, reductive and inaccurate for many students. Particularly so for those who go on for graduate training. Even if you are defending STEM degrees in the marketplace, that’s not much of an argument. This is a thread about the validity of general studies, not merely job training programs. I’m not convinced there’s much relevance to this subject in quoting a couple of self-reporting salary rankings from popular sites. It’s also now pretty clear the most rigorous general studies programs discussed in the thread aren’t clearly defined in their nomenclature.
The most talented psychology majors – whether refining into developmental, clinical, biological, private practice, or on to completely different fields, such as an MBA, advertising, etc. – learn pretty early on in undergrad that they will need likely need graduate training to continue their pursuits, rather than just taking the degree and hoping somebody will hire them.
For history, those who look for admission to some of the most popular undergrad schools on cc will learn early on that to pursue history at the highest level, they will likely be looking to PhD programs. History is also a traditional feeder into law programs, and probably a decent portion go into MBA programs as well. And just the undergrad degrees should have pretty good prospects measured over time.
I would suggest you digest my original comment responding to yours, particularly re: use-value, worthiness, and relationship to society. It wasn’t intended to bash your comment. Rather, I wanted to point out that these are a complex set of variables over the duration of a career, and summarily dismissing certain humanities degrees isn’t helpful.