Although Richard Atkinson makes an eloquent appeal for increasing the flow of individuals into science and engineering, his basic argument is flawed. He states that "a fortuitous coincidence between an available college-age population and an expanding financial base for science and technology" combined to fuel the three major surges in college enrollments, and in turn, the production of scientists and engineers during this century. Isn't it interesting that this growth and interest in science is "fortuitous," yet later on in his analysis, statistics are used to "predict" supply and demand to the year 2010!
Was it a coincidence that over the last five years - a period in which the stock market reached new highs - there was a huge surge in the number of graduate students in business administration and finance programs? I would argue that chance played no role in this increase. Rather, there was a clear recognition ...
