Schools literally pay people to ask kids what they like to do, what their interests are, and then to pursue that. Well, when I was 17, my interests were naked girls, drawing in class, video games (this was the height of the square soft era), and reading. So I ended up going to an art school, and getting a lib art degree. Useless. My parents went along with it because they had the old school mindset that any degree is better than no degree.
People with degrees in art are indeed among the least likely to get a good paying job. Especially from those private for profit art schools that used to advertise in the "Parade" magazine that used to come in the Sunday paper. However, I assume that you do have a job doing something. And your parents were right for going along with it, because having a degree is definitely better than not having a degree. There are lots of jobs where the employer wants someone with a degree, but doesn't care what the degree is in.
I suspect that part of the issue with art schools is that art schools should really only be for the extremely gifted in art, yet many of them accept just about everyone. I once had a graphic designer who graduated from the Charleston College of Art, he was a great designer and artist, another one of my bests artist graduated from the same college that I went to, they didn't offer an art degree, but she did get a BA in "interdisiplinary studies", which basically meant that she got to design her own degree. In both cases, the degree had little value to me, it was the natural art skills that both of those people had which made them valuable to me. So was their college useless? I think not, they were both very intellegent people that I enjoyed being around.
My son is a music major in college, he will be getting a Bachelors in Music (which is a little higher degree than a BA in music), and will be certified to teach k-12 when he graduates. One thing about music students is that for BM degrees they have to already have proven to be a musician at a fairly high level before being accepted. My son's school only accepted about one out of five students who auditioned, famous conservatories may only accept one out of a hundred applicants or more. The teachers at my son's school have been very straight up with him and have told him that there is no point in being a performance major as there are no jobs that require a degree in music performance. Either you are a good enough performer to make it performing, or your not, and if you are good enough, it doesn't even matter if you were a high school grad, let alone a college grad with a BM in music. Thats the reason he went the music education rought (which is teaching him to be a certified music teacher) instead of the performance degree.
I think our entire method is wrong. How much sense does it make to essentially force kids not even two decades into their life to choose what they are going to do for the next 3 decades or more?
Stupid.
Actually, I think as long as students are going to an accredited school, it doesn't really matter what they major in as an undergrad. Students with music degrees are actually more likely to be accepted to medical school than students with traditional pre-med majors (biology, chemistry, etc), and they are also highly sought after in law school. And to get a MBA and lots of other masters programs, you don't even have to have an undergrad degree in the same subject.
You are right, the typical 18 year old has no clue what he wants to do, or what he is good at. A bachelors degree should be about exploring a wide variety of subjects, and career fields, and figuring out what is most appropriate for each individual. Each class taken should include a week of study or so about the practical application of the subject, and it's job prospects and outlook.
What I wish was that we offered a "Bachelors in Liberal Arts" degree that was very widely diversified, and included a lot of required courses in "thinking" classes like inductive logic, deductive logic, game theory, etc. I would also include a lot of different science classes, at most colleges, students are required to take just two sciences, and often they both have to be in the same field. There are at least a dozen different sciences fields that every student should be exposed to before he can consider himself reasonably and liberally educated. I think for the science part of the curriculum, I would require one "survey of..." type of class in chemistry, geology, biology, physiology, astronomy, phyics and maybe even a few more. In the "human sciences" I would make most of those courses 4 credit hour courses (instead of 3), and make them a little broader, so maybe one course in psychology, sociology, economics (half micro half macro), political science, etc. I would also require a geography class, a class in ancient world history (entire world, not just western civ), a class in world history up to the 1800's or so, and a modern world history class. I would tack on some classes that helped students explore different careers, like teaching, engineering, general management and administration, etc.
Once the student has completed such an undergrad degree, and was a little older and more mature and focused, he could go on to grad school for a specific career objective.