I tend to agree that low interest in science and engineering is driven by a rational response to market conditions - that talented people can do better in other

I tend to agree that low interest in science and engineering is driven by a rational response to market conditions - that talented people can do better in other fields. However, I am confused about one thing... "Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable criticizes the new study, saying that it gives an illusion of a robust supply because it bundles all STEM fields together. There may be an oversupply in the life sciences and social sciences, she argues, but there is no question that there are shortages in engineering and the physical sciences" I'd need to read more about this study. Are social science majors included in the STEM numbers? Are botany majors included? If so, this would weaken the claim that we are overproducing "STEM" workers.