A little annoyed at the downvotes, but perhaps I can rephrase. 1) On average humanities majors do worse 2) Some proportion of humanities majors do great Ergo

A little annoyed at the downvotes, but perhaps I can rephrase. 1) On average humanities majors do worse 2) Some proportion of humanities majors do great Ergo, it seems unlikely that the humanities majors that do great do so because they studied humanities. There is little evidence that these assumptions of attribution make sense. That doesn't mean they're bad, but people are typically terrible at explaining why they were successful in life and we don't need to justify these areas of study to existing market forces. It would be pragmatic to be realistic and communicate to the average person that, normalized to network effects, pre-existing wealth, and baseline prestige of the institution, humanities leads to worse economic outcomes. People studying humanities tend to be richer to begin with[1], the fact that they do economically worse on average should be surprising. They're also more likely to be underemployed[2]. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/college-major-rich-families-liberal-arts/397439/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/college... [2]https://www.statista.com/statistics/642226/underemployment-rate-of-us-college-graduates-by-major/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/642226/underemployment-r...