I'm not really sure what you're talking about... a friend of mine studied archaeology in college and wound up starting her career in the curation department of a major museum. Another studied history and wound up becoming a tenure-track history professor.

Now granted they both worked crazy hard in school, but the idea that it's "obvious bullshit" isn't true at all. Archaeologists and historians are real jobs that exist. I say that with a straight face.

I'm not saying that it's easy to become either, and you're definitely not going to become rich doing either of them, but they're certainly attainable if you're truly driven and love that kind of work. They're not get-lucky fantasies like NBA star or celebrity influencer.

There are 500 NBA players, and another 500 minor league players and 5000 practicing archaeologists. So it's not too far off.

I have 1 friends who is tenure track (stem which is significantly easier) but 14-15 who got PhDs weren't able to find tenure track position. But two friend started an internationally acclaimed bands. And another who is an internationally published author.

So sure these jobs exist but archaeologist and historian are probably closer to rock star or NBA player than they are accountant or developer.

Except there's orders of magnitude more competition for those NBA players though, than there is for archaeology (or historian). Especially when you realize how mind-numberingly tedious it mostly is, so much cataloguing seemingly endless shards... (Or endless 16th-century documents, if you're a historian.)

But if you've really got your heart set on archaeology/history, they're not fantasies. They're just extremely niche. You're right that the parallel isn't "developer", it's more like "database engine developer". Albeit much much lower pay, in most cases. ;)

Conditional on playing college ball, there is maybe 1 order of magnitude difference in terms of competition. If you play in college there's a 1.2% chance you play in the NBA. And probably a 10-15% chance of working as an archaeologist condition on getting a degree same as getting a tenure track professorship conditioned on getting a PhD in History.

One of the biggest differences though, is you figure out whether or not you're getting into the NBA at aged 20, after going to school on an athletic scholarship.

You figure out you're not going to get tenure at 32 after finishing up your 3rd post doc, with 250k in student loans.

Strong second on this point. It was especially rough on couples since you need to find two jobs and deal with things like what happens if your tenure track job is in a field/area which assumes everyone has family wealth (you’ll see - in 2022 - faculty jobs listed in NYC paying $40k!). Don’t forget there’s often a narrow window: too many years out of your Ph.D program and it gets harder since you’re assumed to be stale/flawed even if the true constraint on the job market was budget cuts.

I’m reminded of a friend who moved - with no prior experience living outside of the U.S. - to Tasmania because that’s the one place in the world where their partner could get a permanent job when they were on the market. That’s worked out well for their family but it’s nothing like the way a software developer can be flexible.

I think a lot of people who major in those subjects with very competitive jobs just don't have it in them either skillwise or motivationwise to work that hard. They have a semi interest in them, and the grading is not as harsh as many STEM fields, and they might like the idea of a not too hard job to get in those fields, but they don't have the mettle for graduate work and several underling stints to really make that a career. And college advisors are doing them a shameful disservice not to mention the actual time and intensity commitment needed to do those things.

Not to mention that almost all the jobs go to a handful of elite universities, and if you're not getting your PhD there you're wasting your time.