It hides all the details that falsify the conclusion that people are trying to arrive at.
So we don't (present tense) have enough (pre-existing) jobs for all the (current set of) STEM graduates (at any level of expertise).
That does not mean that we will not have enough jobs, that we need to count on just pre-existing jobs, that the current set of STEM graduates are a match in terms of fields for the openings that do exist, or that they're training to the right level of expertise for the current jobs.
In fact, part of the silence involves the fact that start-ups may have a high fail rate, but have dropped off greatly in the last decade *and* have traditionally accounted for a lot of new jobs. But I guess we can have people engaging in high-tech start ups with no technical expertise.
We don't need low-level STEM graduates because, well, we need more high level ones. Somehow they jump from high school to grad school with nothing in between.
We don't need to worry about distribution of graduates in STEM fields because, well, all that sciency-tech stuff is all created equal. Just some funny symbols and a lot of college loans. Heck, just hire a Hittite scholar or Egyptologist--college loans *and* funny symbols. And that really cutting-edge base-60 arithmetic or African-centric math.
I've talked to too many people connected with tech fields who complain they can't get qualified engineers or specialists. Yeah, they're Americans with degrees, but they're short on being able to teach themselves, to show initiative or flexibility, to work independently, or to focus on their jobs instead of their joys. They often want to advance in their careers instead of making advances in their field.
In short, they're what schools and parents have produced as adults in the last 5-10 years.
And we're proud to say that they overwhelming voted for our guy?
= new reply since forum marked as read
