Hmm... this thread leads me to a single conclusion: don't move to Indiana!
I make a large part of my living from photography and art - albeit it's applied art: graphic design, illustration, typesetting/design. I actually have an honours degree in chemistry - gave up chemistry a few months after graduating, after spending countless tedious days checking the thickness and colour of loo cleaner...!
(I was accepted at St Martins (for graphic design) after starting my chemistry degree, but as I'd already started my course, I was told my grant would be stopped if I changed colleges - so I kept with chemistry... Anyway, I guess that's not relevant.)
Despite not having an arts degree, I have some thoughts that Sam (the OP) might find useful.
Can't say not having arts degree held me back in making a living from my chosen career. (Perversely, my science degree helps - technical savvy and an analytical mind have both proved extremely useful.)
As to doing a photography degree, I have two observations.
(1) It's certainly possible to make a living from photography (not doing weddings!), but it's hard work, and requires dedication and an entrepreneurial approach. Photography's used by businesses and organisations more than ever before - look around, it's everywhere. And note that most of these photographs aren't snaps - they're obviously taken by people with photographic training/experience.
Sam (the OP) didn't say what type of photographic career he'd like, except to say "not weddings". Certain areas rely far too much on things largely outside of your control: fine art and journalism spring to mind - to be successful, you really need a lucky break to start the ball rolling and/or be exceptionally talented (Simon Roberts, who lives down the road, is the only successful photojournalist I know personally). Other areas are easier, and rely more on hard work and promoting yourself, e.g. event photography, product photography and the like: these are the areas to concentrate on to make photography pay.
(2) A degree in photography is only useful for the training (both photographic and non-photographic) it gives you: there are very few jobs that specifically require a qualification in photography. It also gives you a few years to plan for what you will do once you graduate: a "breathing space".
CASE STUDY. A couple of years ago a close friend gave up a very well paying job in PR to become a photographer. She had a degree in business studies but no photographic qualifications, and only became interested in photography about five years ago. It's been a hard slog, but she's now earning a liveable wage (which increases as the months pass and she gains more clients). She spends a lot of time finding clients and promoting her business, and will photograph pretty much anything she's asked to, including weddings, but her bread and butter is event photography (esp. music festivals) and commercial (products, catalogues, websites). She did the photography for this website recently, and was paid well for it:
http://www.rickardsmedia.com/about-us/ - it was varied and enjoyable work, and involved studio work, portraits at the company's headquarters, and photographs out and about (including lugging a TV to the local park, and photographing the company's billboard poster in London). She's now doing an MA in photography, more for the industry contacts it will provide than for the education.
Although Chris Crawford paints a bleak picture (which from my perspective applies only to Indiana - I don't recognise it, nor does my US friend who lives in New York state), he's right about one thing: business studies is a good fit with a photography degree. All decent degree courses in the UK include aspects of business studies anyway (I had to spend a year going to lectures and pass an exam in "organisational theory and business studies" despite studying pure chemistry), and I'd imagine the same holds true in other countries, including the US.
Lastly, I don't get Chris Crawford's downer on degrees. Even if an employer isn't looking for someone with specialist knowledge, graduates are employed over non-graduates because a degree is an indicator of commitment, intelligence, initiative, the ability to learn, and the like. At worst, a degree is used as a crude screen for job applicants: those with degrees - in any subject - are more likely to have the aforementioned general skills than those without degrees, so many job vacancies require, rightly or wrongly, graduates.
Like the US, the UK is having a pretty crappy time with the recession and unemployment. Despite this, 89.9% of all those graduating in 2008-2009 with a first degree are now employed (NB: in the UK a first degree is a BA or BSc - we don't distinguish further, so a BA is any non-science). The mode is 91.2% - i.e. most universities have an employment rate over this figure. These figures are official, accurate and trustworthy: see
Higher Education Statistics Agency.
I can't imagine that the situation for those with degrees is that different between the US and UK (except in Indiana, apparently...), unless the US education system is completely broken, so a photography degree will be useful even if you don't pursue a photography career.
Lastly, a first degree means it's quite easy to be accepted on a post-graduate degree course such as an MA. A post-graduate degree, if carefully chosen, will most definitely make you more employable. An ex-girlfriend has a BA in sculpture, but decided on a career in computing, so she did an MA in information technology shortly after graduating. I'm starting my MA Photography next year (just because I want to) - it's part time (1 day university attendance plus 1 day self-study per week, over 2 years) and costs about $5000 (which is pretty reasonable).