The Economist wrote a piece showing that master degrees are useless since there is no financial reward.

So let's tackle why the conclusion may be wrong:

1. The Economist admits that it doesn't have any good analysis to show the financial impact. It's simply looking at group averages. So the financial conclusion is iffy. But let's assume it is correct.

2. The degrees where the masters degree appears to not ‘payoff’ are humanities related. I can imagine that many people that finish with BAs in humanities will often work in various corporate roles that pay corporate wages. A person doing an MA in these fields is realistically interested in doing something else - research, teaching or other roles were pay is naturally lower (a professor of economics earn less than a PhD Economist working in economic consulting). This means it is a preference and desire by these individuals to do something else than work in other corporate roles.

As I often say, we need to assume people are broadly rational. Thus, they are aware of the costs of the masters degree and the outcomes. If many are choosing to pursue a master's degree - that tells me the chance of getting another job (or getting another job) that is closer to a person's interests has significant value to them. They are willing to sacrifice pay from the corporate job to have a chance at another job.