The point the OP was making was: You can't lump together all college students when writing an article like this, because not all college students are going to college to get high-powered jobs. College has never been about merely finding employment. It would therefore be more interesting to look at only business-inclined majors when studying something like this, because art history majors, say, haven't ever had a long tradition of finding employment after college.

I wouldn't call science and engineering "high powered jobs", but the truth is there are only two choices at college: learn to do something people will pay you for, or pursue your hobby full-time for a few years. Some people are able to combine the two successfully and of course that's the ideal. But the hobbyists have no grounds for complaining that they're unemployable. It was never a secret that people without useful skills aren't in great demand.

You're missing what I'm saying, and what the point of the original post you replied to was saying. We know what you're saying right now, but that's why this article wasn't as interesting as it could have been if it only surveyed people who were learning profitable trades.

I also dislike the snarky tone you take when referring to "people without useful skills", but that's secondary to the main argument.