It may in fact not be a valid comparison. But if we're going to speak of a "shortage" of people going into graduate STEM programs, we can't discuss that in a v

It may in fact not be a valid comparison. But if we're going to speak of a "shortage" of people going into graduate STEM programs, we can't discuss that in a vacuum - we need to consider the other options available. Here's a link to the RAND study (should have included this in the original post) http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html Which does contain a discussion of whether the comparison is appropriate, as well as a (short) justification of focusing on the doctoral level programs. Ultimately, though, their justification is largely market based. A couple of relevant passages: "Alternatively, if the rewards of other careers—perhaps clinical medicine, law, or business—are higher and are growing relative to S&E, and if it is instead the costs of training for a job that are growing for S&E, then there is no shortage of scientists and engineers in this important fifth sense. Indeed, in this latter case, the “shortages” thatothers discern may well look more like discouraging surplusesto young people considering career choice." "More young people today may arguably enjoy doing science or engineering than actually plan to prepare for such careers. Instead they may choose a professional degree, but only reluctantly. In a market economy, even one characterized by rigidities, regulations and unequal opportunity, qualified people tend toward career paths whose rewards and satisfactions are becoming more attractive and/or whose preparatory costs are becoming less onerous."