I think they'll be OK with me saying this much: the data do not agree with your conclusion, for any sensible value of "liberal arts."

Now photography, that is another story. My research methodology totally missed it as a major choice, because the obvious occupation (photographer) doesn't require a degree. Looking at the BLS source data though, egads, $170k to become a photographer is a bad call economically. The median annual salary (note: for photographers at all stages of their career) is $19k. The overwhelming majority are part time only. If you give generous assumptions as to future income growth, the NPV of being a photographer is $410k.

That compares disfavorably with every degree I actually have in the data set. (Including, most relevantly to her situation, the associate's degree you need to become an X-ray technician, which you can get for less than $5,000. Spend another $10,000 on camera lenses, bam, you're an X-ray technician doing something she loves as a hobby.)

The deliverables are drastically different between different photographers as well. The wholesale cost difference between our upper-end album and the lower-end one is about 600%.

I don't remember the article to reference it here, but the current cost of weddings was started largely by the introduction of gift registries. It snowballed from there.

The wedding photographers have some clever ways to sell you more stuff too. Most of them want to retain the rights to the photos that you pay them to take, so they can sell prints to your guests or license them as stock art and stuff. I actually got into a shouting match with one photographer over that -- I insisted on treating the photos as works for hire under US copyright law. One guy had "his and her iPods" that he would load up with wedding pics at the end of the reception. The cost? $1000. Yeah, no thanks.

I won't go into your second paragraph, though, because that mostly boils down to a difference of opinion.

Obviously there are expenses that come out of the basic fees, but when I was doing this, the people I talked to at the lower end of the cost spectrum seemed to operate without some of the expenses that came up (ie, home studio, little/no advertising).

The point I was trying to make was, wedding photography is competitive but potentially lucrative if you can establish yourself, particularly in markets like SF.

I think there'd be a few people who get into wedding services expecting it to be lucrative and then find it a lot more difficult than they expect. I've mentioned on here before (check comments history) a client of mine who got married, noticed the huge prices, bought a wedding services business and then sold it within six months - more hassle than it was worth!

I'm saying that but my wedding photographer had just come out of college. We paid $750 for the photos and it was a pretty good deal, she had some shots taken during school, they were pretty good and that was all we needed to decide. I think we were her first customers of her new company. It was a risk but now days, every aunt and uncle comes with a digital camera.

I went to college and it sure wasn't for photography. Photography just happened. I have a BS in Computer Science, and I also have no debt resulting from it. Rather than pursuing a software developer job, which I expected I would be doing, I opened a photography business and have been quite comfortable. Software is now just my hobby, but it's a very useful one.

Knowledge of business and accounting will get you far further in almost any industry than a specialty degree will.

http://www.allisonbrookephotography.com/#/client/content_pag...

I think his point about business knowledge is a good one. If you want to be a successful photographer, you're probably better off getting a degree in marketing, communications, or business management, and minor in photography.

This is a problem with most practical, art-based practices (except at the high end). The customers don't have a good critical eye and will frequently choose a photographer or artist by price, prestige, recommendation, or by merely liking one of their earlier pieces - rather than on any technical merits.

I suspect someone with no photographical experience but strong business savvy could make a good go of being a professional photographer with the right equipment and just a little training in basic technique. I'd love to watch a TV show about such an experiment - it'd be like Faking It.

(And before I'm accused of cheapening a whole industry with the last paragraph, I believe the same about my two industries - publishing and programming. There are more than a few "copy and paste" developers making good money out there. It ain't noble, but it can work.)

Seriously, though, in most schools tuition is the same regardless of the major. I hear it's $40K+/year for tuition alone at many private schools.

I don't think GP's surprise was based on the idea that a bachelor's degree in such a major would typically be cheaper than others. I think GP was surprised that someone would be willing to take on so much debt for a degree in that major.

It's 25K-26K per year, so even if she paid nothing out of pocket and had no financial aid, she'd owe slightly over $100K when she was done. And the rest of it has compounded.

But yeah, most people don't do the math and don't have a realistic view of their career path when they enroll in their programs. I think depression would be a lot more common, if they did...

The best advice is to pay the minimum you can unless you get a shot at going to harvard. And if you do, some of these school now are offering free tuition for people making less than X amount of money.

I might be biased because I have a degree from a state university but that never prevented me from getting work.

I read the article one or two hours ago and the NYT has switched both the main article picture (it used to be the small one that can be seen once scrolling down) as well as the caption below the image.

I wonder why/how often they do that.