STEM Talent: Too Much, Not Enough, or Something Else?

The right tools for the right job

For more than a generation, the dominant story about STEM education in the U.S. has been one of urgent need. Business leaders, policymakers, and educators alike have pointed to a shortage of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) workers as a looming threat to national prosperity and global competitiveness. From the halls of Congress to school board meetings, the message has been loud and consistent: We need more students pursuing STEM degrees and more support to get them there.

But that message is facing some pushback. Over the past few years, a growing number of researchers have offered a different take. According to their data, the U.S. is actually producing plenty of STEM graduates, maybe even more than we need. A significant share of STEM graduates, they note, never end up working in STEM fields at all. Others enter, then leave after a few years. From this point of view, the problem is not a shortage; it’s a mismatch.

So which version is true? Are we using the right tools for the right job, when it comes to STEM education? Do we have too few STEM graduates or too many? And how should we move forward when the evidence seems to point in both directions?

The case for too many

Let’s start with the skeptics of the STEM shortage narrative. Recent work by sociologist John Skrentny, published in his book Wasted Education, lays out a powerful argument that challenges the idea of a simple supply gap. Drawing on multiple national data sources, Skrentny finds that between 40 and 70 percent of STEM graduates never work in a job related to their degree. Among those who do, many exit the field within a few years. For a detailed analysis of the STEM workforce in relation to degrees earned, see this NSF study on the topic.

Why do so many people with STEM degrees choose not to pursue STEM careers? Skrentny points to several reasons. For one, many jobs in STEM fields – especially in engineering and tech – can be demanding and unforgiving. Long hours, high stress, and unclear advancement opportunities lead to burnout, especially among early-career workers. Others graduate with STEM degrees but discover more attractive options in fields like finance, consulting, or even law, where their problem-solving and quantitative skills are still in high demand.

Moreover, while employers often say they need more STEM workers, their hiring and retention practices don’t always reflect that urgency. Companies frequently look for narrowly defined experience, rather than training capable generalists. They may also overlook domestic talent in favor of cheaper or more immediately qualified international hires. In that light, what looks like a shortage may actually be more about employer preferences and labor market inefficiencies than actual gaps in supply.

Finally, the “STEM” label covers a huge range of disciplines. Just because there’s a shortage in one area – say, cybersecurity or semiconductor engineering – doesn’t mean the same is true for biology or environmental science. The overgeneralization of STEM as a single, undifferentiated category can obscure the real story.

The case for too few

On the other side of the debate, national policy and education leaders continue to sound alarms about gaps in the STEM workforce, especially in fields tied to innovation, national security, and future economic competitiveness.

A 2024 report from the National Academies, for example, calls for a “whole-of-government” strategy to recruit and retain more STEM talent in the U.S. The report warns that without sustained investment in STEM education, training, and immigration policy, the country risks falling behind in critical areas like artificial intelligence, clean energy, biotechnology, and advanced manufacturing. These fields don’t just drive economic growth; they form the foundation of U.S. global leadership and resilience.

The National Science Board has echoed this message, emphasizing that the U.S. is overly reliant on foreign-born workers in high-tech fields. While international talent has long been a strength of the U.S. innovation system, recent global competition and immigration policy shifts have made that reliance riskier. The solution, many argue, is to build a stronger domestic pipeline, one that both produces more STEM graduates and draws more students from underrepresented backgrounds into these careers.

In this view, the data on STEM graduate employment is real but misleading. Yes, some fields may be oversupplied, but others face well-documented shortages. In high-demand areas like data science, AI engineering, and cybersecurity, employers consistently report difficulty finding qualified candidates. These are also the areas where job growth is projected to be strongest over the next decade.

What’s more, many jobs that aren’t technically “STEM” still require STEM-related skills, like data analysis, systems thinking, or technical communication. Graduates in STEM fields may be using their training in creative ways that don’t show up in traditional job classification data. So while the match between degree and occupation may not be perfect, it doesn’t mean the degree wasn’t worthwhile.

Reconciling the disconnect

At first glance, these two views seem to be at odds. One says we have too many STEM graduates, the other says we don’t have enough. But dig a little deeper, and it becomes clear that both perspectives are identifying real problems. They’re just looking at different parts of the picture.

What the “too many” camp highlights is the importance of aligning education with actual career opportunities. It’s not enough to push more students into STEM fields; we also need to prepare them for the realities of the workforce and give them the tools to find meaningful, sustainable careers. That includes better career advising, more transparent labor market data, and stronger links between classroom learning and workplace practice.

At the same time, the “too few” perspective reminds us that there are real gaps in the talent pipeline, especially in specialized, fast-evolving areas that don’t have enough qualified applicants. These gaps won’t fill themselves, and they won’t be solved without deliberate investment and policy support. Addressing them will require both scaling up education in specific fields and making STEM pathways more inclusive and equitable.

Moving forward: smarter STEM strategy

So how do we move forward? We can start by shifting the conversation away from quantity alone and focusing more on alignment, retention, and outcomes. Here are a few ideas to consider:

  1. Focus on fields with real demand
    Rather than promoting STEM as a monolithic solution, educators and policymakers should identify specific areas where job growth is strong and workforce needs are acute. Cybersecurity, AI, clean energy engineering, and STEM teaching all stand out as priorities. Targeted support for these fields — through scholarships, internships, and program funding — can help align student interest with national need.

  2. Make career pathways visible and navigable
    Students often lack clear information about what different STEM degrees lead to. Schools and colleges should offer better career guidance, use alumni data to show real-world outcomes, and provide more opportunities for hands-on experience through co-ops and internships.

  3. Improve the STEM workplace
    Retention matters just as much as recruitment. Employers need to invest in mentorship, advancement opportunities, and workplace culture to keep STEM talent engaged. Creating inclusive environments is especially important for retaining women and underrepresented minorities in STEM fields.

  4. Expand access through flexible learning options
    Not every STEM job requires a four-year degree. Expanding pathways like technical certificates, apprenticeships, and stackable credentials can open doors to more learners, especially in high-need fields.

  5. Use immigration strategically and responsibly
    Welcoming international talent can help fill gaps, but it should complement, not substitute for, investment in homegrown education and training.

 

Final thought

The STEM workforce debate isn’t just about whether we’re producing too many or too few graduates. It’s about whether we’re preparing the right people, in the right ways, for the right jobs. That requires a more nuanced approach that listens to what both sides of the argument are saying and builds a bridge between them.

With smarter policy, clearer communication, and better alignment between education and opportunity, we can make the STEM pipeline work better for everyone, from students and educators to employers and the nation as a whole.

Interested in more resources about how to explore and prepare for STEM careers? Check out our career guides, student workbooks, and classroom-ready STEM materials at Start Engineering.

Eric Iversen is VP for Learning and Communications at Start Engineering. Comments and feedback are always welcome.

Our goal at Start Engineering is to help make STEM careers imaginable and accessible to kids of all backgrounds and interests. We publish educational and career outreach books in STEM fields like AI, data science, cybersecurity, biotechnology, and engineering. Check out our newest releases here!

Photo credits: