[jetru]

Dumping money in STEM probably does do something, we're all just biased over the CS portion of things - which yea, is a mess.

But for subjects like Civil, Electrical, sciences like Physics, Biology, I suspect the story is quite different.

[trentgreene]

Re: the “hard” stems, maybe? They have a clearer function as a certificate pipeline, but in terms of prep I find it difficult to quantify. There’s also limited positions at the end of this pipeline (medicines a killer example, academia, research). Are we creating better candidates or more positions with stem programs? Or just more candidates who 1) don’t find positions or 2) don’t end up with relevant skills for the roles they take.

(Incidentally, I think CS is a very good place to invest, precisely because there’s a lot of demand, start up cost for self employment is low, and applicability is super broad)

[Melting_Harps]

> But for subjects like Civil, Electrical, sciences like Physics, Biology, I suspect the story is quite different.

I can speak to Biology; most undergrads are left with little opportunity as most roles require a graduate degree to do anything meaningful when the economy is actually favorable, and often seek roles outside of their field when it's not. As a undergrad that was lucky enough to enter the field in the wake of the GFC long enough to just pay off my student debt I've met so many biologists/biochemists who either couldn't find anything in their field, or simply gave up trying and sought the highest paid and somewhat stable role they could get 'that required a degree.' It's quite clear that the system has failed, and the system is designed to onboard more STEM grads as it sounds as their are ever-growing holders of degrees chasing so n amount of open roles.

Tech in unique in that it is one of those few Industries where the barrier of entry is rather low, but the attrition and competence level vets for viable candidates almost entirely on it's own--the gatekeeping interview process is still an unnecessary hurdle.

Personally, for all the controversy Eric Weinstein has made directly and indirectly of his own actions, the concept of Embedded Growth Obligations was incredibly well researched and consistent with what we have seen as outlined since 2005 and then solidified itself in the financial collapse of 2008 [0]:

> Embedded Growth Obligations are the way in which institutions plan their future predicated on legacies of growth. And since the period between the end of World War II in 1945 and the early 70s had such an unusually beautiful growth regime, many of our institutions became predicated upon low-variance technology-led, stable, broadly distributed growth. Now, this is a world we have not seen in an organic way since the early 1970s, and yet, because it was embedded in our institutions, what we have is a world in which the expectation is still present in the form of an embedded growth obligation. That is, the pension plans, the corporate ladders, are all still built very much around a world that has long since vanished.

We have effectively become a Growth Cargo Cult. That is, once upon a time, planes used to land in the Pacific, let's say, during World War II, and Indigenous people looked at the air strips and the behavior of the air traffic controllers, and they've been mimicking those behaviors in the years since as ritual, but the planes no longer land. Well, in large measure, our institutions are built for a world in which growth doesn't happen in the same way anymore.

0: https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Embedded_Growth_Obligations