There is a claim made here that seems to back up the point that has been raised. Unfortunately the author has failed to cite the study from which he is drawing these results so it's authenticity cannot be checked.
No detail is given, for example, on how other subjects faired. Philosophy excelled in four categories, but Mathematics, Physics etc might have been first on four (different) categories also, making philosophy different from, but not better than, any other major.
No detail is provided on the degree by which philosophy came first in the categories chosen, it may be that the difference between its score and that of the major coming second is so small as to be statistically insignificant.
Finally, there is no work (to my knowledge) on what the linking mechanism might be. The study has proven (if anything) correlation, not causation. The claim that it provides "Transferable skills that employers value." in the first part of the article contains no supporting evidence at all. Given the lengths the author has gone to to support his second assertion, I would hazard a guess that there is no such supporting evidence. Of the many possible explanations for the results of the study cited in part two of the article, the actual skills philosophy provides is just one.
Notwithstanding the caveats above, if you follow the study further you may get the answers you're looking for