> "But what doesn't make sense to me is that parts of our country are in serious economic decline and I am not aware of an uptick in engineering and science stu

> "But what doesn't make sense to me is that parts of our country are in serious economic decline and I am not aware of an uptick in engineering and science students in those regions." There's a logical flaw in that line of reasoning. The authors claim the following: "If a student has tackled a difficult subject, it is because s/he was motivated by economic hardship [or a passion for the subject]." However, Fred seems to interpret this as the converse: "If a student is motivated by economic hardship , s/he will tackle a difficult subject" (This is NOT implied by the original statement), and base his argument on that. There are probably millions of people who are living proof that economic hardship & an opportunity to study doesn't automatically make you prefer difficult subjects. His argument about passion, though, is spot-on. We do need to do more to encourage kids to develop healthy passions. I don't think you can make a kid love math overnight, but you certainly can kill a kid's passion for math by not supporting it. Supporting this passion for learning though, is easier said than done. It is much more of a family responsibility, than something that can be legislated by the government in a top-down fashion.