But we live (at least US/Western countries) in a capitalist society, like it or not.
This means that the monetary value of your skills is directly linked only to the monetary value they can generate, not other types of value that undoubtedly they have.
People choosing to study humanities must be prepared to face a job market where their skills are not in great demand.
Then again, money is not everything.
A degree in history or sociology is seen as useless because it mostly is outside academia. The people who are good in the field will most likely end up on the academic track, and those who aren't will most likely end up in low paying jobs having wasted several years and tens of thousands of dollars.
The problem isn't history or sociology degrees, it is people thinking that a degree is a ticket to a good job.
Is it wrong for him to think that he needs a college degree in order to teach high school? What are his chances of teaching high school WITHOUT a degree?
I already mentioned low-paid jobs.
Also, at least here in Australia the only pure degrees that the high-school education system cares about are maths and science, everything else is "generalist" and can be filled by any teacher. In addition, at least here a general degree isn't good enough any more, you either need a teaching degree or a graduate diploma in teaching.
In the US at least, it sounds very reasonable to go to college to get a history degree if your goal is to become a high school history teacher.
To me, it sounds perfectly an achievable goal to decide to go to college, get a major in history, know that you're not even close to the best historians out there, and expect a job teaching high school. just like the guy in the article assumed.
Unfortunately, it didn't work out, and might have been a waste of money. But there was nothing unreasonable in his thought process, from my perspective at least. I would even bet it won't be too tough for him to get a teaching job in the future.
Yeah see the expectation is the problem. Here in Australia most of the people with teaching degrees are waiting for the boomers to retire, because there are very few full time positions (unless you are willing to move to the most remote and poor communities).
>But there was nothing unreasonable in his thought process, from my perspective at least.
The unreasonable thing is believing that just getting a degree will get you into a middle-class profession. That hasn't been true for at least twenty years. You need good grades, co-ops, and connections.
As the article points out the market for tertiary educated workers is smaller than the pool of tertiary educated workers.
Some teachers take the initiative to double-major of their own free will (respect!), but it is certainly not required. When I was in school I casually assumed that my teachers knew a great deal more about the subjects than what they were teaching; when I got to University and had the opportunity to look at their curricula requirements I learned that was not true, at least not in general.
You see... It would be great if people had better history/sociology knowledge, I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a technocratic dystopia. The fact that these fields are seem as "useless" is a terrible thing.