This position strikes me as unjustifiably elitist, reminiscent perhaps of Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind. > lots of university departments tha

This position strikes me as unjustifiably elitist, reminiscent perhaps of Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind. > lots of university departments that were superfluous, producing nothing that was actually benefitting society Who's to decide precisely what does and doesn't benefit society? More so, how can you decide in advance which line of inquiry will prove fruitful and which won't? Shouldn't you cast a broad net, especially when it comes to academia? > government subsidies targeting those who could not complete STEM degrees This, I'm sure, varies greatly between countries. But why do you think there's such a clear hierarchy of academic topics? It's quite dismissive of entire fields to assume that the people who are involved with them are simply STEM drop-outs. As a side note I would also have to say that lumping together science, engineering and mathematics doesn't make much sense to me - this observation is not targeted at the parent, it's just a general peeve I have. > Have we reached a state of elite-overproduction? What would the alternative be? Back to the aristocracy, or to something like the Gilded Age or Belle Epoque?