LOL, for me it was a graduate class in Heat Equations as part of my Nuclear (Mechanical) Engineering degree program. I bailed out to Computer Science. That is the common bail out degree. And as it turned out very lucrative for me - living in Silicon Valley since 1990 has been a good deal.

The STEM cannot be separated from H1-B Visa issue. Industry makes up for the shortage of Engineer and Computer Specialists by importing them from India especially (also Europe, some large numbers also China and Russia, which causes security problems). In India they graduate something like 450,000 Engineers annually, which they export large numbers to the US, UK, and elsewhere. The US graduates a quarter of that. Industry likes that because it also holds down wages and covers up the lack of development of home grown talent. It also means they can be brutal on hiring and firing, with a deeper pool. But it also does mean more talent, which is a huge benefit. As somebody married to an immigrant in the field, I can add that to the benefit list.

I do not think we can quickly wean ourselves from the H1-B, but we should make an attempt to do so. But this is where the harm in funding schemes to give students money via loans and grants has retarded our ability to change. We have removed a lot of market pressure on schools to adjust to demand. By increasing the pool of funded students (both a good thing and a bad) without increasing seats, we have allowed schools, especially public (e.g., the UC system) to not keep the same heavy tilt toward LA major slots against STEM. where the adjustment has been more profound is among the private schools, such as USC, Stanford, and locally even Catholic schools like Santa Clara, in tilting STEM. Stanford is essentially a Polytech now. Market forces push schools toward being vocational. Removing the pressure of the market allows them to be insulated from those forces. The extra money is directly related to the rise in tuition at a much faster rate than inflation.

It always bothers me when more public money is directed toward aid, and not toward the expansion of capacity or toward incentivizing schools to map closer to vocational needs.

BTW, there is a need for a large number of Liberal arts majors, which is the elementary to high school teachers. The lack of STEM majors means that we are short of STEM certified teachers, so the problem of mismatch in major availability is still a problem even in this field. And of course we need people to become Professors in the field, although many fewer than we are producing.

Note: Science majors, especially in Chem and Bio, are often pre-Med. So I must differ with Frank on that definition.

Basically my point is, adding money to the student side of the equation (Demand side) does nothing on the seat capacity in the fields most needed (Supply side). More money chasing the same number of items on the market will equal price rises. See link below. The State of NY scheme is another demand side increase.

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/.../sr733.pdf