The author is right that the problems facing universities predate Trump. But he’s also omitting and conflating issues throughout. To understand why universities are struggling, you first have to...
Exemplary
The author is right that the problems facing universities predate Trump. But he’s also omitting and conflating issues throughout. To understand why universities are struggling, you first have to step back and ask what universities are even for, because they aren’t all the same.
The Types of Universities
First, you’ve got private universities like Harvard or the University of Chicago. Historically, these were small, selective places that educated the affluent and the talented. They mattered culturally because they produced elites, but they didn’t teach that many students or churn out much research. That changed after WWII, when Vannevar Bush pushed for massive federal funding of science. Before then, they ran on tuition, endowments, and donations.
Then there are the land-grant universities, born out of the Morrill Act of 1862 (expanded later in 1890, 1914, and 1994). These were designed to teach agriculture and the mechanical arts to the “sons and daughters of toil.” They run the Cooperative Extension programs, have extensive agricultural and applied science arms, and traditionally serve a large number of in-state and first-gen students. Their funding comes from a mix of federal support, state appropriations, and tuition.
Finally, you have non-land-grant public universities, like the University of Washington or the University of Texas. These were created by states to serve state priorities. Today, there’s an overlap with land-grants, but many of these public universities try to brand themselves as “flagship” or “premier” institutions to differentiate. There is also frequently an urban/rural divide between public state and land-grant universities, but not always.
What Changed After WWII
The big turning point was the growth of federal research funding after WWII. Without it, public and land-grant universities would likely have left the privates in the dust (or confined them to the humanities). Instead, federal dollars kept private universities at the forefront of research. So when the author waxes nostalgic about the lofty ideals of private universities and education led by active researchers, he skips the part where that whole system was built on federal public policy.
That’s why it rings hollow when he blames the Bayh–Dole Act for the state of UChicago. Bayh–Dole is just another expression of federal policy: it lets universities keep ownership of federally funded inventions and license them out. If UChicago is mishandling that, fine. But don’t pretend that’s a universal crisis. Most universities don't overinvest in commercialization, and many land-grant institutions, in particular, put only a tiny fraction of resources into it. The bigger picture is that Bayh–Dole has been good for partnerships and innovation.
One last point about Bayh–Dole: people tend to lump “research” and “development” together, but they’re not the same thing. Universities are good at research. They’re mostly bad at development activities like prototyping, patents, navigating FDA approvals, or scaling a product. Bayh–Dole encourages universities to license discoveries to companies that can actually commercialize them. UChicago may be engaging in auto-cannibalism, but the broader university ecosystem is not and benefits from those partnerships.
The Real Problems
For public and land-grant universities, the bigger issue is mission drift. Leading up to the 2008–09 recession, schools were competing for students and rankings, building amenities and new programs, while forgetting the legislatures and communities they were supposed to serve. State budgets show this clearly: line items tied to specific university programs or even individual positions. As states hit fiscal crunches, they grew frustrated that universities had lost the plot, and funding eroded. The schools that fared best were the ones that stayed laser-focused on state goals, whether that meant churning out STEM grads or running forestry programs (even when those programs lost money on a tuition-only basis).
That put extra pressure to cut instructional costs, grow out-of-state and international student enrollment, and chase more grants. Take UChicago as an example: of its roughly $3 billion in revenue, about $894 million comes from competitive research awards (over half a billion of that federal). That research funding includes hundreds of millions in indirect costs to keep the lights on.
At the same time, university leaders were too slow to adapt to the new world, continuing to fund prestige projects or fill shortfalls from cash reserves throughout the 2010s. All the while, we approached a student cliff both due to demographic shifts and changes in the perceived value of a four-year degree. When you layer all of that with the increasing politicization of higher ed and the somewhat valid criticism of ideological capture, universities are really hurting. And then you get to the last leg of the stool cracking: the cuts, delays, and withholding of federal research funds.
Universities are hurting for several reasons, including macro events, failures to adapt, and overspending on overhead and prestige projects. But it is hardly even worth mentioning the Bayh–Dole Act.
Anyway, I'm running out of steam, but I was annoyed enough by the article that I felt the need to chime in. I've worked in higher ed for many years, care a lot about the mission, and am frustrated by the self goals. However, this article fails to make its point, focusing instead on a relatively niche issue that likely mostly affects either the privates or just UChi.
Yeah just to chime in with a few tidbits - some land grant schools are the flagship public schools branding wise - UIUC (Illinois) would be an example of that. And also, public schools can have...
Yeah just to chime in with a few tidbits - some land grant schools are the flagship public schools branding wise - UIUC (Illinois) would be an example of that.
And also, public schools can have their own financial issues even without being R1 institutions (very high research activity). Smaller ones may face more strain from the enrollment cliff and not being able to fund campus updates, leading to more majors being cut and even smaller classes; while larger ones can also mismanage money due to a sense of long term "safety" or face other strain from past decisions - old residence halls and now construction costs have jumped, or the university has too many loans, etc.
Just for some additional context. This was a great write up.
Sounds like they used to have a much better business model.
First, you’ve got private universities like Harvard or the University of Chicago. Historically, these were small, selective places that educated the affluent and the talented. They mattered culturally because they produced elites, but they didn’t teach that many students or churn out much research. That changed after WWII, when Vannevar Bush pushed for massive federal funding of science. Before then, they ran on tuition, endowments, and donations.
Sounds like they used to have a much better business model.
Great breakdown. Working in Canadian higher Ed, I've always been interested how the US system works, what it's challenges are and the interplay between the two
Great breakdown. Working in Canadian higher Ed, I've always been interested how the US system works, what it's challenges are and the interplay between the two
TBH, I think the only reason that's true is because all incentives for having financial stability bank on expropriating the results of research into private sector patents. I'm fairly certain we...
They’re mostly bad at development activities like prototyping, patents, navigating FDA approvals, or scaling a product.
TBH, I think the only reason that's true is because all incentives for having financial stability bank on expropriating the results of research into private sector patents.
I'm fairly certain we could have universities pumping out brand-new drugs beginning to end for the cost of generics if we funded them appropriately.
Unfortunately, that has not been my experience and I've overseen the FDA compliance activities at a university that elected to be the manufacturer of record for a new medical device during the...
Unfortunately, that has not been my experience and I've overseen the FDA compliance activities at a university that elected to be the manufacturer of record for a new medical device during the investigative period.
I would suggest the book Loonshots, which looks at balancing research culture with stable/franchise culture. It's not that universities can't do the rigorous work, but that it is significantly different in culture and leadership temperament than most have today. And you can't fix that with just more money. It takes an intentional and laying cultural shift in leadership to be really good at commercialization activities.
Eh, having collaborated with a pretty well-funded national lab on some things, there’s a fundamental cultural difference. Labs and universities have a research/lab culture: their goal is to...
Eh, having collaborated with a pretty well-funded national lab on some things, there’s a fundamental cultural difference. Labs and universities have a research/lab culture: their goal is to understand, to try new things, and it’s okay if stuff breaks or unexpected outcomes happen during the research. In contrast, the company I work for (and analogously, pharmaceutical firms) have a production mission: we need to accomplish x number of operations by the end of the year, and need to maintain availability y percent of the time. Your widget needs to be in this spec +/- 1%, and you don’t want anything unexpected.
This seems like an article from a UChicago prof about UChicago that is using a generic title and Trump to get attention (I don’t want to say clickbait since the article is stellar, just much...
This seems like an article from a UChicago prof about UChicago that is using a generic title and Trump to get attention (I don’t want to say clickbait since the article is stellar, just much narrower in scope than the title would make you think).
There’s something weird going on with university education in the States. I don’t really have my thoughts gathered right now, but I feel like something in the structure of many of these places is unsustainable. Perhaps I’m just (relatively) young, and institutions have always been the way they are today, just less obviously.
Still, I get the sense that it’s not. I feel like the (somewhat) bygone function of universities as places to gather privileged connection was well understood (albeit unfair), and now they’ve morphed into places trying to maximize metrics at the cost of… something. I think the cost depends on what place you choose to focus on.
Perhaps this is a political question, since universities have become political targets, and perhaps the failure of resistance in some of these places demystifies the reality of the role they actually play. I’m not smart enough to figure that one out, though.
The story of the University of Chicago is in one sense unique. No peer institution has borrowed so much in relation to its assets; none spends remotely as large a percentage of tuition on servicing debt. Despite gifts and the surge in the stock market, the University’s endowment has actually shrunk under its current president from 2021 to 2024 because it has been liquidating assets to mask the size of its deficits.
But its story also distills forces and trends in American higher education that are corroding ideals, and wasting money, throughout the land.
...
In 2016 and 2017, the university was running deficits so large it held a fire sale of university buildings and expanded its undergraduate population (again), in order to draw in more tuition. But the university did not intend to give students after 2017 the same education that students had received in the past. Instead, the then-provost of the University of Chicago, Daniel Diermeier—now Chancellor of Vanderbilt University—told the university's trustees that if one held the numbers of tenure-stream faculty constant, “the marginal cost of adding these students would be fairly minimal.” He estimated that increased cost at 10 to 20 percent.
In other words, if we deliberately changed the way we teach—but did not tell the students we were doing this—we could skim off at worst 80 percent of their tuition for purposes other than their education, and ideally as much as 90 percent.
...
Future applicants should know that the University plans a further expansion from around 7,400 students to 9,000 ... and has simultaneously announced an intent to hold the number of research faculty constant. Perhaps we can drive the cost of educating students below 10 percent? Perhaps that is what the president and provost and dean of humanities mean when they say that we need to position ourselves as leaders in the field.
...
The Bayh-Dole act provided for the private licensing of discoveries made during federally funded research. It was motivated by a concern that discoveries made in the preceding decades had not been fully exploited because the lack of opportunity for private gain deprived the system of incentive for development. In short, it granted intellectual property in discoveries made during federally funded research to the universities that hosted the projects and the people who did the research—not, as before, to the people of the United States, who funded that research.
...
But the Bayh-Dole act has also fundamentally corroded policymaking at universities. Within perhaps a decade of the act, universities had begun all to pursue each latest fashion in applied science, hoping to score a windfall via licensing that would pay for all: from biomedicine, to imaging, to molecular engineering, to quantum computing, to AI. What could go wrong?
For one thing, building facilities and competing to hire the same experts in order to do the same projects at the same time as one’s peers is incredibly expensive. The University of Chicago has now borrowed $6.3 billion, more than 70 percent of the value of its endowment. The cost of servicing its debt is now 85 percent of the value of all undergraduate tuition. (This is not normal. No peer institution has a debt-to-asset ratio greater than 26 percent. Perhaps that is one reason why Chicago’s tuition is so high and yet it wants to spend so little on education?)
But universities as non-profits are fundamentally not suited to competition of this kind. If one plots the trajectory of spending on computer science at the University of Chicago in the decade leading up to 2011, and then counts up the additional spending on buildings, materiel, and operational costs through 2024, the total comes to hundreds of millions of dollars. During that time, despite that additional investment, the ranking of the university in computer science has declined from 40th to 56th.
...
Spending as little tuition as possible on educating students, and (instead) investing in start-ups ... This is why I say the University of Chicago’s leadership and trustees run it as a tax-free technology incubator. All of which raises the question, whether an operation of this kind deserves the status of 501(c)(3) charitable organization.
This is really fascinating stuff. Thanks. Edit: looks like the author is a "Robert O. Anderson Distinguished Service Professor of Classics and History at the University of Chicago and a fellow of...
This is really fascinating stuff. Thanks.
Edit: looks like the author is a "Robert O. Anderson Distinguished Service Professor of Classics and History at the University of Chicago and a fellow of the American Academy of Sciences and Letters." Not sure what to make of that, just noting it. Doesn't diminish my interest in the subject matter!
One thing I've seen humanities profs gripe about is that they're more profitable (humanities classes are cheap) and yet they're the ones that get cut, not expensive science departments.
One thing I've seen humanities profs gripe about is that they're more profitable (humanities classes are cheap) and yet they're the ones that get cut, not expensive science departments.
Yet I have to imagine more funding and donations come from economists than art history majors. The humanities professors are usually cheaper. Most STEM PhDs can get better paying jobs in industry.
Yet I have to imagine more funding and donations come from economists than art history majors. The humanities professors are usually cheaper. Most STEM PhDs can get better paying jobs in industry.
That’s surprising and I imagine there is more nuance behind these averages. Perhaps people who take art history are more privileged in some ways? Or maybe computer science students who are more...
That’s surprising and I imagine there is more nuance behind these averages. Perhaps people who take art history are more privileged in some ways? Or maybe computer science students who are more career-oriented leave before getting a PhD? There could be many differences. It would be great to find an in-depth review.
Or maybe employers consider STEM graduates are in it for the money, which disadvantages them in every job outside their specialty compared to the equivalent art major. Or perhaps humanities are...
Or maybe employers consider STEM graduates are in it for the money, which disadvantages them in every job outside their specialty compared to the equivalent art major. Or perhaps humanities are seen as more likely to make an individual well-rounded (and capable of handling people stuff) than Dr Applied Math.
Or maybe when everyone keeps saying "go study computer science" for 10 years straight, then lots of people do that, resulting in a glut of coders but not enough jobs to match.
I think the best answers here are less about the graduate themselves and more about the world around them and the perception of them.
I'm not sure your point about STEM PhDs not having expertise transferrable to different fields is representative of the average STEM PhD. There's certainly a lot of PhDs out there like that, but...
I'm not sure your point about STEM PhDs not having expertise transferrable to different fields is representative of the average STEM PhD. There's certainly a lot of PhDs out there like that, but I'm not sure they make up the majority of STEM PhDs. My perception is obviously biased by the sample of people I know, but the STEM PhDs I know have skills that make them broadly employable in other STEM areas other than their specialty. Many of them seem to do very well in small businesses in roles that have them wearing many hats beyond their specific technical specialty. Or take roles in other areas STEM areas than their specific technical training.
I agree that STEM PhDs have highly specialized knowledge and skills, but that doesn't mean they don't have a broader skill set developed that's desirable in fields other than their specialty. By nature of the degree they have to develop and refine skills for public speaking, statistical and data analysis, written and verbal science communication, and presentation design. Probably the thing that would make them more difficult to employee is they tend to be very independent because they've spent 5ish years having to do everything on their own.
I'm not necessarily trying to nit-pick, but the link you shared is about STEM employment broadly which doesn't really support evidence of STEM PhDs being unemployable compared to other disciplines. There are a lot of more STEM undergrads than PhDs so that statistic isn't representative of them as a subgroup.
Hard to draw any conclusions without a lot more info. The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines an individual as unemployed if they are not currently working, are available for work, and have...
Hard to draw any conclusions without a lot more info. The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines an individual as unemployed if they are not currently working, are available for work, and have actively looked for work in the past four weeks - anyone. What are the active job search trends in each of these cohorts? Do any give up or take a break longer than a few weeks more frequently than the others? How long are they willing to search for their target job before broadening their search (and eventually settling for anything if need be)?
What kind of jobs are those employed actually taking up? Directly related to field of study, broadly related, unrelated with meaningful skill transfer, a job that just required a (any) degree, or job that didn't actually require a degree?
Employment rates aren't directly related to my point. Hypothetically, if only 10% of nuclear engineering majors got jobs but the employed made millions, colleges would hound them for donations.
Employment rates aren't directly related to my point. Hypothetically, if only 10% of nuclear engineering majors got jobs but the employed made millions, colleges would hound them for donations.
If only 10% of nuclear engineering majors got jobs, then they wouldn't have much bargaining power and nobody would want to offer them millions when they could offer the unemployed 90% pennies instead.
If only 10% of nuclear engineering majors got jobs, then they wouldn't have much bargaining power and nobody would want to offer them millions when they could offer the unemployed 90% pennies instead.
The author is right that the problems facing universities predate Trump. But he’s also omitting and conflating issues throughout. To understand why universities are struggling, you first have to step back and ask what universities are even for, because they aren’t all the same.
The Types of Universities
First, you’ve got private universities like Harvard or the University of Chicago. Historically, these were small, selective places that educated the affluent and the talented. They mattered culturally because they produced elites, but they didn’t teach that many students or churn out much research. That changed after WWII, when Vannevar Bush pushed for massive federal funding of science. Before then, they ran on tuition, endowments, and donations.
Then there are the land-grant universities, born out of the Morrill Act of 1862 (expanded later in 1890, 1914, and 1994). These were designed to teach agriculture and the mechanical arts to the “sons and daughters of toil.” They run the Cooperative Extension programs, have extensive agricultural and applied science arms, and traditionally serve a large number of in-state and first-gen students. Their funding comes from a mix of federal support, state appropriations, and tuition.
Finally, you have non-land-grant public universities, like the University of Washington or the University of Texas. These were created by states to serve state priorities. Today, there’s an overlap with land-grants, but many of these public universities try to brand themselves as “flagship” or “premier” institutions to differentiate. There is also frequently an urban/rural divide between public state and land-grant universities, but not always.
What Changed After WWII
The big turning point was the growth of federal research funding after WWII. Without it, public and land-grant universities would likely have left the privates in the dust (or confined them to the humanities). Instead, federal dollars kept private universities at the forefront of research. So when the author waxes nostalgic about the lofty ideals of private universities and education led by active researchers, he skips the part where that whole system was built on federal public policy.
That’s why it rings hollow when he blames the Bayh–Dole Act for the state of UChicago. Bayh–Dole is just another expression of federal policy: it lets universities keep ownership of federally funded inventions and license them out. If UChicago is mishandling that, fine. But don’t pretend that’s a universal crisis. Most universities don't overinvest in commercialization, and many land-grant institutions, in particular, put only a tiny fraction of resources into it. The bigger picture is that Bayh–Dole has been good for partnerships and innovation.
One last point about Bayh–Dole: people tend to lump “research” and “development” together, but they’re not the same thing. Universities are good at research. They’re mostly bad at development activities like prototyping, patents, navigating FDA approvals, or scaling a product. Bayh–Dole encourages universities to license discoveries to companies that can actually commercialize them. UChicago may be engaging in auto-cannibalism, but the broader university ecosystem is not and benefits from those partnerships.
The Real Problems
For public and land-grant universities, the bigger issue is mission drift. Leading up to the 2008–09 recession, schools were competing for students and rankings, building amenities and new programs, while forgetting the legislatures and communities they were supposed to serve. State budgets show this clearly: line items tied to specific university programs or even individual positions. As states hit fiscal crunches, they grew frustrated that universities had lost the plot, and funding eroded. The schools that fared best were the ones that stayed laser-focused on state goals, whether that meant churning out STEM grads or running forestry programs (even when those programs lost money on a tuition-only basis).
That put extra pressure to cut instructional costs, grow out-of-state and international student enrollment, and chase more grants. Take UChicago as an example: of its roughly $3 billion in revenue, about $894 million comes from competitive research awards (over half a billion of that federal). That research funding includes hundreds of millions in indirect costs to keep the lights on.
At the same time, university leaders were too slow to adapt to the new world, continuing to fund prestige projects or fill shortfalls from cash reserves throughout the 2010s. All the while, we approached a student cliff both due to demographic shifts and changes in the perceived value of a four-year degree. When you layer all of that with the increasing politicization of higher ed and the somewhat valid criticism of ideological capture, universities are really hurting. And then you get to the last leg of the stool cracking: the cuts, delays, and withholding of federal research funds.
Universities are hurting for several reasons, including macro events, failures to adapt, and overspending on overhead and prestige projects. But it is hardly even worth mentioning the Bayh–Dole Act.
Anyway, I'm running out of steam, but I was annoyed enough by the article that I felt the need to chime in. I've worked in higher ed for many years, care a lot about the mission, and am frustrated by the self goals. However, this article fails to make its point, focusing instead on a relatively niche issue that likely mostly affects either the privates or just UChi.
Yeah just to chime in with a few tidbits - some land grant schools are the flagship public schools branding wise - UIUC (Illinois) would be an example of that.
And also, public schools can have their own financial issues even without being R1 institutions (very high research activity). Smaller ones may face more strain from the enrollment cliff and not being able to fund campus updates, leading to more majors being cut and even smaller classes; while larger ones can also mismanage money due to a sense of long term "safety" or face other strain from past decisions - old residence halls and now construction costs have jumped, or the university has too many loans, etc.
Just for some additional context. This was a great write up.
Sounds like they used to have a much better business model.
It also sounds like they used to contribute much less to society.
Great breakdown. Working in Canadian higher Ed, I've always been interested how the US system works, what it's challenges are and the interplay between the two
TBH, I think the only reason that's true is because all incentives for having financial stability bank on expropriating the results of research into private sector patents.
I'm fairly certain we could have universities pumping out brand-new drugs beginning to end for the cost of generics if we funded them appropriately.
Unfortunately, that has not been my experience and I've overseen the FDA compliance activities at a university that elected to be the manufacturer of record for a new medical device during the investigative period.
I would suggest the book Loonshots, which looks at balancing research culture with stable/franchise culture. It's not that universities can't do the rigorous work, but that it is significantly different in culture and leadership temperament than most have today. And you can't fix that with just more money. It takes an intentional and laying cultural shift in leadership to be really good at commercialization activities.
Good rec, thanks.
Eh, having collaborated with a pretty well-funded national lab on some things, there’s a fundamental cultural difference. Labs and universities have a research/lab culture: their goal is to understand, to try new things, and it’s okay if stuff breaks or unexpected outcomes happen during the research. In contrast, the company I work for (and analogously, pharmaceutical firms) have a production mission: we need to accomplish x number of operations by the end of the year, and need to maintain availability y percent of the time. Your widget needs to be in this spec +/- 1%, and you don’t want anything unexpected.
This seems like an article from a UChicago prof about UChicago that is using a generic title and Trump to get attention (I don’t want to say clickbait since the article is stellar, just much narrower in scope than the title would make you think).
There’s something weird going on with university education in the States. I don’t really have my thoughts gathered right now, but I feel like something in the structure of many of these places is unsustainable. Perhaps I’m just (relatively) young, and institutions have always been the way they are today, just less obviously.
Still, I get the sense that it’s not. I feel like the (somewhat) bygone function of universities as places to gather privileged connection was well understood (albeit unfair), and now they’ve morphed into places trying to maximize metrics at the cost of… something. I think the cost depends on what place you choose to focus on.
Perhaps this is a political question, since universities have become political targets, and perhaps the failure of resistance in some of these places demystifies the reality of the role they actually play. I’m not smart enough to figure that one out, though.
From the article:
...
...
...
...
...
This is really fascinating stuff. Thanks.
Edit: looks like the author is a "Robert O. Anderson Distinguished Service Professor of Classics and History at the University of Chicago and a fellow of the American Academy of Sciences and Letters." Not sure what to make of that, just noting it. Doesn't diminish my interest in the subject matter!
One thing I've seen humanities profs gripe about is that they're more profitable (humanities classes are cheap) and yet they're the ones that get cut, not expensive science departments.
Yet I have to imagine more funding and donations come from economists than art history majors. The humanities professors are usually cheaper. Most STEM PhDs can get better paying jobs in industry.
Okay, counterpoint: STEM PhDs tend to be highly specialised, with their expertise often not that transferable to different fields.
Also, https://bsky.app/profile/sarahebond.bsky.social/post/3lvvznsrdvs2d
That’s surprising and I imagine there is more nuance behind these averages. Perhaps people who take art history are more privileged in some ways? Or maybe computer science students who are more career-oriented leave before getting a PhD? There could be many differences. It would be great to find an in-depth review.
Or maybe employers consider STEM graduates are in it for the money, which disadvantages them in every job outside their specialty compared to the equivalent art major. Or perhaps humanities are seen as more likely to make an individual well-rounded (and capable of handling people stuff) than Dr Applied Math.
Or maybe when everyone keeps saying "go study computer science" for 10 years straight, then lots of people do that, resulting in a glut of coders but not enough jobs to match.
I think the best answers here are less about the graduate themselves and more about the world around them and the perception of them.
I'm not sure your point about STEM PhDs not having expertise transferrable to different fields is representative of the average STEM PhD. There's certainly a lot of PhDs out there like that, but I'm not sure they make up the majority of STEM PhDs. My perception is obviously biased by the sample of people I know, but the STEM PhDs I know have skills that make them broadly employable in other STEM areas other than their specialty. Many of them seem to do very well in small businesses in roles that have them wearing many hats beyond their specific technical specialty. Or take roles in other areas STEM areas than their specific technical training.
I agree that STEM PhDs have highly specialized knowledge and skills, but that doesn't mean they don't have a broader skill set developed that's desirable in fields other than their specialty. By nature of the degree they have to develop and refine skills for public speaking, statistical and data analysis, written and verbal science communication, and presentation design. Probably the thing that would make them more difficult to employee is they tend to be very independent because they've spent 5ish years having to do everything on their own.
I'm not necessarily trying to nit-pick, but the link you shared is about STEM employment broadly which doesn't really support evidence of STEM PhDs being unemployable compared to other disciplines. There are a lot of more STEM undergrads than PhDs so that statistic isn't representative of them as a subgroup.
That makes sense with how complicated it is to fund and run a successful lab.
Hard to draw any conclusions without a lot more info. The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines an individual as unemployed if they are not currently working, are available for work, and have actively looked for work in the past four weeks - anyone. What are the active job search trends in each of these cohorts? Do any give up or take a break longer than a few weeks more frequently than the others? How long are they willing to search for their target job before broadening their search (and eventually settling for anything if need be)?
What kind of jobs are those employed actually taking up? Directly related to field of study, broadly related, unrelated with meaningful skill transfer, a job that just required a (any) degree, or job that didn't actually require a degree?
Employment rates aren't directly related to my point. Hypothetically, if only 10% of nuclear engineering majors got jobs but the employed made millions, colleges would hound them for donations.
If only 10% of nuclear engineering majors got jobs, then they wouldn't have much bargaining power and nobody would want to offer them millions when they could offer the unemployed 90% pennies instead.
I did use the word "hypothetically" because it was an unrealistic example :P