No foolin'. That's what this study concludes [h/t Wendy]. I realize that university education is not just for increasing one's future income, but these results indicate the net returns are sufficiently negative that some students should reconsider their decisions about attending university or about majoring in "soft" subjects.
Once the degree's expenses are factored in, graduates from fine and applied arts programs can expect to make 12 per cent less than — wait for it — high school graduates, according to the report. ...
“If you have a B.A. in history and I graduate from high school, I can go work on an assembly line but you will not work on that assembly line. There is a negative premium,” Tal told the Financial Post.
The degrees with the highest earning potential, or earnings premium, are specialized fields like medicine, engineering and law.
But the study says students continue to major in fields that have a higher risk of falling into the low-income category.
"Those underperforming sectors comprise just under half of all recent graduates," the authors write.
"In other words, Canadian students are continuing to pursue fields where upon graduation, they aren't getting a relative edge in terms of income prospects."
As I said at the outset, there is much more to university education than "income prospects"; I understand that. But if students must cover the increased costs of obtaining degrees in the softer fields, look for fewer of them to attend or stay enrolled in universities in these fields, especially at lower-ranked universities and colleges.
As an aside, a major in a soft field might even be construed as a negative signal by potential employers.