https://spectrum.ieee.org/stem-education-in-the-us-is-more-o...
Also the above commenter mentioned that it needs to be a “real” comp sci degree, not one that calls itself comp sci but never makes you learn classes like Data structures, algorithms, etc. There are “fake” CS degrees out there, and big employers know they are no good.
My university CS department has a 100% placement every. single. year. Including the last 3 years, and it’s like not even a top 100 school in the US.
There are about 65k CS undergraduate degrees issued each year.
I don't think the BLS is double counting jobs. I believe they go to the companies for that info, not random job boards.
No one from there goes to FAANG, it’s not a prestigious enough school for that. But there is an endless demand in large companies like government contractors, banks, the small web dev shops, etc. that need programmers for 60k$ out of school.
The professors I knew openly told me and our classes how the system worked. And that the majority of individuals will not find a job. There are too many new graduates to new positions. Many of them were fellows and board members of the ACM. I was active in the student group and got to know these people and the outcomes. These guys often share results and data they collect privately with other researchers. And people are failing at an alarming scale. But you won't find those people on this site, and you wouldn't because of the main demographic of this forum.
School advertised job placement percentages do not care whether or not you got a job in your studied field. That's how they lie about such high percentages. As long as you entered the workforce, it's a success.
This is a particularly funny quote given the times we live in now: “A third is that there are not a lot of exciting new aerospace or defense initiatives that spur the imagination of young engineers like there once were.”
Space is a fairly small market, but has some stuff going on. Nothing on the scale of the space race era. Even in the 90s they were talking about how space launches would become so routine. Then, if you launched a mission it was likely 70% new tech, procedures, or experiments. Now all the missions build off of previous ones. Hey, look a new space telescope! Been there, done that, barely makes the news.
Defense is a wildcard since the interesting stuff is classified. There are some interesting problems in the DARPA competitions. Not a lot of freedom in those jobs - lots of politics usually.
Space race budgets were only really significantly elevated from 62-69, and fell off pretty precipitously after that, so to attribute all of that spending to 3 decades is wrong as well.
Aviation innovation is not suppressed by market demands, it is because the private market can now participate that innovation is happening again. But you don't seem to get that aviation and rocket innovation is indeed rocket science, and 'low risk designs' aren't just established over night.
No shit, that's the entire point - society doesn't care anymore because it isn't shiny. Take a survey on the street of space telescopes and most won't even be aware of the Jame Webb.
"so to attribute all of that spending to 3 decades is wrong as well."
Much of those subsequent decades built off of the information and ideas generated in that time period. They still had regular manned missions and large innovations like the space shuttle. No more manned launches from NASA. No more prestige.
"But you don't seem to get that aviation and rocket innovation is indeed rocket science, "
I do get that. Now please go compare the rate of innovation and newly adopted designs today versus decades ago. Today it's all about tweaking some existing model for slightly more efficiency and running computer models.
"One area where STEM students are needed is in aerospace and especially the defense industry."
One issue they didn't mention about this is the shitty work environment for many of the jobs. The people I talk to who are leaving the defense industry can't stand the politics and procedures anymore.