Does STEM Have Any Value?

by Alan Beado, Emeritus Professor at Stanley Livingstone College

A recent article in the LA times by a UCSD sociology professor, John D. Skrentny, claims that the "investment" in STEM has not produced useful returns, and has all been a terrible waste.

Opinion: Why pushing STEM majors is turning out to be a terrible investment

𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘋𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘺𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘛𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺, 𝘌𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘔𝘢𝘵𝘩 (𝘚𝘛𝘌𝘔) 𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘛𝘌𝘔 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘧𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘶𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘚𝘛𝘌𝘔 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯-𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 — 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘛𝘌𝘔 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴.

𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴: 𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘚𝘛𝘌𝘔 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘛𝘌𝘔 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘉𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 2021 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘳𝘺 28% 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘛𝘌𝘔 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘚𝘛𝘌𝘔 𝘫𝘰𝘣𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘴, 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘛𝘌𝘔 𝘫𝘰𝘣𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘛𝘌𝘔 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴.

𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘵? 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥: 𝘌𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘳, 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘛𝘌𝘔 𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴.

I hardly know where to start in a response and an analysis of this "comment", since it contains so many falsehoods and misunderstandings. It is more than a bit "rich" for someone in an eminently demonstrably completely worthless field like Sociology to dare publish something like this.[1]

People in the humanities, like Sociology (not even much of a science, at all), have been jealous of STEM for decades, or even more than a couple of centuries. STEM seems to get all the resources, and all the best students and all the attention. What about a "good" liberal arts education,[2] they say?

To anyone who is even mildly observant and in possession of even a remotely functional and rational set of faculties, the contributions of STEM to humanity should be more than obvious. People live longer and heathier, thanks to STEM. People are wealthier, thanks to STEM. All the tools that this professor uses to do his job, to move him from one place to another, to allow him to communicate, that provide him with entertainment, and so on, are the result of STEM.

For example, consider Israel and India and China. All of these nations are appreciably wealthier than they were just a few years ago. Most of their increase in wealth is due to STEM. If STEM is so worthless, what explains the ascensions of these nations in recent years?

The resources that the government pours into STEM are not some sort of "gift", or some attempt to lure unsuspecting students into dead-end careers. This funding is because STEM promotes economic growth, and new products and processes.

STEM is also vital for defense and intelligence which protect Western Civilization. There are many elements that seek to dislodge the West from its prominent position and to destroy liberty. The innovations from STEM barely keep these forces in check.

The billions the government spends on STEM are not for STEM education, at least not for the most part. They are to secure the benefits of STEM. Just compare the spending on pure STEM education at nonresearch institutions with the spending on STEM research at research institutions. There is a difference of orders of magnitude. Perhaps the government should spend more on STEM education, but they don't really spend much at all on just education in STEM or anything else. The only exceptions might be on special DEI and woke programs, which are promoted and championed by people like this Sociology professor. And also, a lot is spent on Education bureaucracy, like one finds at the Department of Education, which is effectively money down the drain. But I would bet quite a bit that this sociology professor is in favor of that kind of spending, even though it not only accomplishes nothing, but is an impediment to progress in many cases. These positions are basically "bullshit jobs", as described in the recent best-seller on the topic.[3]

Another criticism of this opinion piece would be that the humanities, including Sociology, have given birth to a corrosive belief system that threatens to destroy civilization. This is 'Wokeness', a sort of "weaponized compassion". As Elon Musk says, "we either defeat the woke mind virus, or nothing else matters".

Woke beliefs are now corrupting STEM, but they did not originate in STEM. This pernicious cult came from the Humanities. This is incredibly well-documented. So not only is the influence of Sociology and associated disciplines not positive or even neutral; it is decidedly negative, destructive and caustic.

According to this article and the US Census Bureau, only about one third of all STEM graduates continue to work in STEM. One might say this is too small a figure, and there is some merit to this claim. However, 1/3 is a much larger fraction than many other college majors.

People often realize that they were mistaken about their interests, or their interests shift. Opportunities also arise that lure people to other fields. For example, it is well known that many more than 50% of all engineering graduates work in other fields of engineering or even outside engineering. This has been true for a long time, perhaps even more than a century. It constitutes a natural sort of cross-fertilization process that is vital for the health of STEM and related fields.

Also, STEM is quite demanding and competitive, at least at the bleeding edge. STEM is not a cake-walk, at least if someone approaches it with the appropriate frame of mind and intensity. STEM is not for everyone; not even close. If a person does not have the ability, the passion and the motivation to pursue STEM wherever it leads, they will often fall by the wayside.

As Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis frequently pointed out, after World War II a huge flood of resources flowed into STEM. And there was a lot of hype that was associated with this. Many people who were really unsuitable for STEM were drawn into the field. Some failed out, some had marginal careers at best, and others just drifted away. A lot of them were not really that interested in STEM particularly, but had more of a "careerist" disposition. They just went through the motions but really had no business being in STEM at all, truth be told.

But, should the barriers to entering STEM be raised again? Should standards be increased? People like this Sociology professor have been pushing to lower the barriers and standards for decades. And these minimal standards produce failed careers and disappointment. People need to be equipped with the skills necessary for success, or else STEM education is indeed a waste.

This professor also complains that most of the STEM graduates work in Information Technology and with computers. But that is just what one would expect, even if they are working in Chemical Engineering or energy production or some other technical field. Computers are creating revolutions wherever they are introduced. To not know how to use a computer is like not knowing how to use a pencil and paper, these days.

There is also a lot of confusion in the article, where the professor alternately complains that salaries are too high in STEM, but then not high enough. Which is it? Or is this just another example of sour grapes and a sort of vacuous attempt to cast aspersions on an area that this Sociologist resents and envies, but knows next to nothing about.

There are shortages and surpluses in STEM, in various areas. Some of these are temporary, and some are not. And it has always been thus.

If one has an extensive STEM education, up through a Masters degree or a PhD, one will have made a serious time commitment. If you count high school preparation, the student will have spent at least 9 years in STEM studies. STEM moves so rapidly that the field will be very different after 9 or 15 years or more than it was when the student began. If the student has not been equipped with the tools to keep up with the advances in the STEM field, their preparation will be obsolete before they have even begun their careers. STEM is not static, and this is something else that must be kept in mind.

For example, I am old enough to remember several times when various previous incarnations of Artificial Intelligence crashed and burned. No one with a degree focused on AI could get any job, even an unpaid volunteer job. AI as a field was completely toxic for a large fraction of the last 70 years or longer. But, advances took place, and now AI is "hot" once again.

Also, when I began my Research and Development career decades ago in STEM, I was told repeatedly that computers and software and signal processing and the internet and cellular telephones were just fads, and pointless wastes of time. Everyone, even the "experts" were wrong. It is very difficult to predict where things are headed in STEM.

STEM is subject to market forces, like everything else and all other disciplines. And STEM moves rapidly, so if a practitioner does not keep up with the advances, they will soon become obsolete. But this was always true, in all fields. How many blacksmiths are still employed and in demand? How many typesetters? How many morse code experts work in telegraphy? How many typists? How many rotary dial telephone manufacturers are there?

Things evolve and markets and demands change. That is just reality.

The author also complains that too many STEM graduates move into STEM management, at some steady pace. Is he claiming that management of STEM activities is not important? I can confirm from my experiences that most of the inefficiencies and problems in STEM result from terrible STEM management. We need people managing and planning STEM who have some STEM experience, and also know what they are doing. That is probably the most promising way to improve the "return on STEM investment".

I have far too often observed failed STEM people or non-STEM people who have destroyed STEM enterprises because they thought they were smarter than all of the productive technical people. These stories are legion in STEM, particularly in research and development.

The author also complains about Musk sacking a large fraction of the workforce at Twitter/X. However, if you look carefully, the vast majority of those people who were let go at Twitter were not STEM people at all, but just censors and assorted leeches and hangers-on, like Yoel Roth. Roth was a problematic individual with zero technical skills who was paid massive amounts of cash. I personally was repeatedly banned from Twitter for simple things like referring to peer-reviewed NIH research. The people that banned me from Twitter were not STEM people, but basically marketing people, and assorted woke activists of various and sundry unsavory flavors, dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization.

Anyone technical who might have been fired from Twitter/X soon picked up another position. Some were inadvertently let go and rehired rapidly. If someone has real technical skills, their firing from Twitter/X does not mean their career is over. They just move on to a better situation.

This professor also claims there is terrible age discrimination in STEM. I have never found this to be the case, and none of my friends in STEM have either. I have no idea what he is talking about, and he probably does not either.

There is some imbalance between males and females in STEM. We do not really understand why this is. Some have argued that this might be mainly because of the interests of women. For example, some claim women are interested in people and relationships mainly, while men are more interested in things. Is this a natural inherent difference, or is it the result of environmental factors? Some countries like Sweden or Mao's China which attempted to stamp out these differences invariably failed. This would be a great topic for sociological studies, instead of just bemoaning this imbalance.

Fossil fuel companies are only temporarily struggling for talent. Most of that is because of government actions designed to put them out of business and destroy them. This was not true just 3 or 4 years ago.

To conclude, the question might be raised, why bother responding to the clearly ridiculous comments of an obscure Sociology professor that were published in the Los Angeles Times? The sentiments Professor Skrentny expressed are actually similar to those held by a large fraction (or even an overwhelming majority) of the population. The most common statement that I hear from members of the public is, "Wow, that sounds complicated. Is it good for anything?" after I have told them what I do in STEM.

This is a serious problem, because we live in an increasingly sophisticated environment which is profoundly influenced by advances in STEM. Do we leave all our decisions up to a small cadre of political actors with assorted agendas, not all of which are necessarily aligned with continued human thriving? Do we allow assorted luddites like this Sociology professor to declare war on STEM?

My belief is that we must drastically change how we perform STEM education.  For example, even someone whose ambition is to be a hairdresser should possess a modicum of information about what STEM is and what it is good for.

In addition, we must experiment with reforms to Research and Development with the goal of making it more productive and effective. We must address the central point that Professor Skrentny raised; that is, we must improve our return on investment in R and D and in STEM. I believe there are opportunities to improve our efficiency of  R and D. [4] And I intend to address those in a series of essays to follow.

Notes

[1] How many students has this sociology professor trained that went on to any career even remotely associated with sociology? Is it over 1% of his students? If so, it would be a miracle.

[2] I am not sure I can see much that is "good" about a "good liberal arts education", to be honest. You do not find other countries in such a frenzy over a "liberal arts education" as people in the US seem to be.

My impression is that the "good liberal arts" education in the US is just an example of the general populace attempting to imitate the upper classes. That is it. It has no redeeming value.

[3] Bullshit Jobs

'𝘉𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘵 𝘑𝘰𝘣𝘴: 𝘈 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘺' 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 2018 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘣𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘋𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘥 𝘎𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘫𝘰𝘣𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘻𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘮. 𝘏𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘱𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧-𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩. 𝘎𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘫𝘰𝘣𝘴, 𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦: 𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘣𝘰𝘹 𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘏𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘎𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 2013, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 12 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘎𝘰𝘷 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘭. 𝘎𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘫𝘰𝘣𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘚𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯 & 𝘚𝘤𝘩𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘔𝘢𝘺 2018.

[4] This professor's time would be better spent on documenting why college costs so much, as well as how to better select candidates who will be successful in fields like STEM. This would reduce the waste in the system considerably.