Hidden behind an unfair title and a distractingly provocative first line is actually a research paper, which the article also seems to brush off as not really i

Hidden behind an unfair title and a distractingly provocative first line is actually a research paper, which the article also seems to brush off as not really important either. The research paper appears to have interviewed STEM entrepreneur programs asking about their expectation vs reality for students to participate or enter into entrepreneurial activities/careers. After molding the programs to promote entrepreneurship heavily, the response from the students to be entrepreneurs are underwhelming. The article posits that the risk taking spirit of entrepreneurship is not easy to teach and suggests to screen for it when accepting students. It also suggests curriculum improvements - teach the logistics of how to start a company in one class, and identifying entrepreneurial opportunities in another. Finally, it suggests focusing on a few core classes rather than developing many broad classes. The answer to the title is more on the lines of "because your program can be run better" than it is "because STEM majors are less risk averse than normal", as there's no solid evidence presented for the latter other than anecdotal observation. You can make the counter-argument that the entire population is risk averse, not just STEM majors, and it's unknown whether or not STEM majors command a statistically significant difference when compared to the normal population.