The author seems to think students go to a school, get a degree that says "Bachelor of STEM", "Masters of STEM", or "Ph.D in STEM", then carry on to apply to job postings that say "STEM degree required".
This is so very obviously not the case I have to wonder what the author's motives for not diving even the slightest bit deeper are (for instance, splitting S/T/E/M and showing stats for each).
Indeed, this is a 2013 article, largely based on a favorable/credulous reading of some 2012 & 2013 analyses from the EPI, a left/organized-labor/economic-protectionist/anti-immigration think tank.
Those analyses were being marshalled by the EPI, early in Obama's 2nd term, to support their anti-immigration lobbying goals. One of the analyses declares their goal: "Conclusion: Now is not the time to increase the number of H-1B visas and STEM green cards".
EPI's obliviousness to variety within the STEM category, including with regard to age cohorts & the dynamism of people moving to- and from- "STEM" jobs no matter their formal degree, was obvious when their writeups were new.
EPI somehow manages to spin both the large number of "STEM" grads outside "STEM" industries, and the large number of "non-STEM" grads in "STEM" careers, as simultaneously being bad, instead of a sign of people & businesses dynamically adjusting based on real-world experience, preferences, and changes.
EPI's ideal would seem to be: "Stay in the exact field your Motherland trained you for, comrade - or you might mess up the 5-year-plan."
This is so very obviously not the case I have to wonder what the author's motives for not diving even the slightest bit deeper are (for instance, splitting S/T/E/M and showing stats for each).