Studying history isn't just learning arbitrary facts about the past. Sure, I'm biased as a history applicant, but I see it as way more useful than most sciences.
"A scientist will tell you how to clone a dinosaur; an historian will explain why that might not be such a grand idea".
I'll substantiate my assertions:
History, as an advanced academic pursuit, is not reading a book and learning "Oh, so the Normans invaded in 1066 and beat the Anglo Saxons, who had previously and quite narrowly beaten the Viking invaders at Stamford Bridge up near York". Any schmuck could do that. An historian is someone who considers multiple interpretations and records of the past and sifts through the available evidence to uncover the truth.
In terms of history being useful; history fundamentally teaches us how the machinery of today's society, government, religious organisations, economies, etc. were forged: how they developed, and how they arrived at their current state. Through that, we gain an invaluable understanding of the world in which we live, and how to act in accordance with that knowledge. It's essentially about avoiding the mistakes of the past.
Scientists could uncover the most groundbreaking and life-changing knowledge and ideas ever conceived, but its historians that make sense of that knowledge and those ideas in the context of society, giving that knowledge the worth that it holds today.