I was dirt poor and the athletic scholarship thing did not help. I was glad to get out of college.
Right after school I became a trader (commodities) and the history major was invaluable. Yes, there was math, but it did not approach calculus, mostly statistics (basic) and algebra (for livestock and meat futures, day to day calculations of yields and something called cut-outs). The history major was really the most helpful - I was used to assimilating all sorts of information at high speed, and did so in distilling information into manageable concepts we could trade upon. I could write quickly too, a bonus for communicating with management. Then again, I have to say I went to a rigorous school, and the other 9 people in the history honors program were gobsmackingly smart - I was not, that is for sure - I was the athletic department affirmative action admit - the only one who had tried it at the time. So it was not like majoring in history at directional state university. .I knew what sky high standards were.
I went on to a top 10 law school, paid for by some fortunate trades and a frugal sense of finances. No debt, no pressure (I could go back to my old job at any time). Law school (this was in the 80's) was hardly challenging, nowhere near the history major and not as hard as my soft BA in econ either (I took history of economics, Canadian econ, you name it, it was not that hard). I never, and I mean never, spent more than 20 hours a week total in law school, including class time and exam time. I was second in the class, law review editor, and had a number of awards. I essentially earned these accomplishments in the history honors program, as again, the rigor there was unbelievable and it made law school very manageable. In fact, i was bored with law school, and could not believe that the K-Law School kids took it so seriously. It was a trade school utilizing an odd jargon, and with the exception of criminal law (which did not bore me), it was all about who gets the money, and despite the pretense, it was not about high "falutin" scholarship.
I did practice high tech law for a while at a so-called white shoe institution in NY, and while I still use my law degree, I am in a business role and do decently economically (500k or so a year). I manage quite a few people and again, the history degree has proven useful in terms of information categorization and writing.
My honors history adviser told me that learning was all about sustaining ego damage again and again (and again). He certainly imposed that on me! For a while, i thought I was the dumbest guy in the universe. I laugh when the progressive apparatchiks in the top universities preen on and on today about a safe learning environment free of micro-aggressions. How in the heck can anyone learn in that environment, especially if you are a student starting out behind in preparation (as is the case with many minority students and was the case with me)?. Schools should not be abusive, but let's face it, you only get out of it what you put into it. I can't think of a more insane premise if you care to get better and learn.
It is not about the major you select, it is all about the rigor. The problem is that the value of liberal arts degrees have declined, well, because many of them are not rigorous. And this safe environment stuff is crazy. Unless one is freaking brilliant, you learn by being in very intellectually intimidating environments and coping with them.
And oh, while I paid for the education myself, I never had any debt. This is not a fair comment because there is no way a young person could do what I did today. The price of education has far outpaced inflation (law school cost is a crime as it costs three times as much today for learning the exact same stuff I learned - much higher cost - no difference in content - and a lousy value). So the stakes are much different today. Still, if you can manage a truly rigorous liberal arts course of study, it will pay off in the end.