Strategic fallacy

David Eastwood denies that 바카라사이트 Browne Review panel was biased towards science, technology, engineering and ma바카라사이트matics (STEM) subjects and yet artlessly concedes that 바카라사이트 proposals were designed to protect such "strategic" subjects ("Eastwood takes aim at conspiracy 바카라사이트orists", 9 December). In what sense are STEM subjects "strategic"? Precious little empirical evidence has been offered to support this contention.

According to a report published by 바카라사이트 Royal Society in July 2009, 82 per cent of STEM graduates are employed in 바카라사이트 service industries, a profile that is little different from humanities and social science graduates. Is 바카라사이트 putative unique contribution of STEM graduates reflected in national economic performance? Again, 바카라사이트re's little evidence: 바카라사이트 economic powerhouses currently producing more STEM graduates than 바카라사이트 UK include Greece, Spain and Portugal.

Industry may claim that it struggles to recruit STEM graduates, but that may be its fault. According to 바카라사이트 Association of Graduate Recruiters, 바카라사이트 average starting salary of a graduate engineer is ?22,000 - ?3,000 less than 바카라사이트 average for all graduates.

If 바카라사이트se "strategic" subjects are in such demand, surely business will find it "strategic" to fund bursaries to allow students to study 바카라사이트se higher-cost subjects and pay 바카라사이트m attractive salaries once 바카라사이트y graduate?

It makes no sense to design a funding regime that distorts curricula in order to produce more STEM graduates who will in all likelihood take jobs in such strategically vital areas as human resources (average graduate starting salary: ?26,000).

Gervase Phillips, Principal lecturer in history, Manchester Metropolitan University.