Which degree has a higher value on the labour market/is more

>>1964587

>journalism

As third option

>>1964587
>>1964588
Journalism looks like the most straight path to a fucking job. But then again, do you need a journalism degree in order to become one?

None of the above.

>>1965063
Well there has to be one that is better, right?

>>1965006
>>1964588


fuck are you guys talking about. this isnt the 1970s everyone nowadays is a journalist and history buff in their spare time. The world works on a corporate level.

>>1964587
history

>>1965434
Why?

>>1965437
i did, went corporate sales.

don't fall for the law or teacher meme. though if I had to do it again I'd probably go back to high school for one more year to get math credits and go to a lesser school for business

It depends on how you use it.

History can be used to argue your way into anything. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan, is a history major. But then again, my friend who leads tour groups in Washington DC and freaking hates his life half the time is also a History major.

Political Science/IR/Journalism work similarly, though with a narrower focus. Some use it to leverage a way into Management Consulting, while others go straight for think tanks, politics, etc. You might not think the latter is particularly profitable, but it really really can be:
https://www.thenation.com/article/dick-gephardts-spectacular-sellout/

More important than degrees are what you do while in college. A guy with a history major who worked 2 impressive internships over the summer at two separate banks is preferable over a finance major who didn't.

Also, it need not said that a good deal also depends on the particularly institution you get your degree from. An IR degree, for instance, is worth twice as much as usual if you're getting it from Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, often called a West Point for diplomats and the university of choice of future foreign monarchs (including the current kings of Spain, Jordan, etc).

>>1965440
>>1965505
So you're both saying that history has a bigger reach?

The reason why I ask is because I'm looking into think tanks, research institutes, global intelligence agencies. The tasks those institutes preform usually equate with investigative journalism

I realize that those are dream jobs of course. But a man can dreaM

As far as my current university goes: it is rated between place 65 and 120 in several rankings

>political science
This means nothing. There are as many way to do political science as there is Universities.
Some will teach you how to work for politicians, the administration, the State... You will learn how to redact reports, how to evaluate public policies and things like that. It's a good degree with meme skills to be employed fast, but be sure to have resistant kneepads and no morality.

Some other degrees are focused on critical thinking, political sociology, history, power relations, electoral sociology, social psychology... There you're doing actual science but you're pretty much fucked if you want a job. (unless you go the full autism PhD => professor way)

You have to choose wisely because the two kinds of pol sci degrees have not much in common in term of content, employability and salary.
t. political science student

>>1965629
Not exactly.

History majors are more conservative and go out into the world to start real careers.

Polisci majors go into stupid careers like think tanks because they think its sexy.

Either way, Reality #1:
- you'll be going to an incredibly mediocre school
- studying a meme subject alongside millions of others
- for a field that pays very poorly and is very competitive to get into

So, you need to:
- be attending for very cheap tuition
- get Straight A's

>>1965629
The work those places (think tanks, intel agencies, etc) require is less investigative journalism and more analysis. The difference is that the former just has you reporting events/details while the latter requires you to discern key takeaways. You best learn to love writing and editing.

Overall though, I'm inclined to agree with >>1965672, even though I chafe at the notion this being a "stupid career."

This is a very competitive field, with every other fucker fighting for a chance to intern for the Congressmen, one of the DC think tanks, etc. Also, it DOES pay poorly relative to others; you're making an explicit trade-off. Money and success (financial and non-financial) in this field comes from writing/publishing books (that hopefully sell well), selling yourself out as someone who can produces analyses for companies/governments/etc in a way that furthers their goals, or go to work for private contractors/advisory firms.

And more often than not, landing a job depends *heavily* on networking. Particularly in this field, which is by definition all about human connections and institutional interactions. Hell, I scored my first think tank internship because the president of the place was an adjunct professor at my university. I took two of his courses, committed to talking to him outside of class, and so forth, until he offered me a spot over the summer.


Overall: don't come into this field unless you're sure you want to commit to it, and know what you're getting yourself into.

>>1964587
Neither. There is no "bank" to be made in those jobs, because you are not providing anything useful.

>b-b-but muh battlefield tactics n rhetoric is infinitely valuable
Actually no, they aren't. If you want money, you need to be indispensably valuable in a field where you are irreplacable (think surgeon, hedge fund manager, etc).

In real life, being a "history and political science/intl relations" major translates to "working at a gas station for $7.50 an hour."

>>1965118
When all of your options are shit then you might as well choose the one you are most interested in.
Imagine if your choices were women studies, art, and basket weaving.
None of them are going to make you money so you might as well choose one you are happy working at mcdonalds with