Is the STEM push resulting in more failsons?

[DumbDude42]

Your views are not in agreement with reality. If you would be correct, no woman ever would go to mathematics or CS or engineering, or military, but surprise surprise, some of them do. Not as many as men, but still a significant amount.

exceptions don't disprove a rule

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

If we had more STEM in elementary, middle and high school, we'd have a lot less idiots who are leading to covid spreading because they don't understand how scientific studies work

 

[ditto]

Men are more likely to take risks, so a man who’s mediocre at math is more likely to say ‘I’ll pick a STEM major and study really hard and it’ll work out!’ And sometimes this turns out well and sometimes this doesn’t.

Also men from Asian and Indian backgrounds being forced into it by their families. But women from those same backgrounds won't be.

 

[CashMoney!]

I think maths and science are forgotten arts these days, along with encouragement for trades. I'm in IT but no way do I think I'm educated enough to pursue compsci out the gate lmao. At least my country is offering 2 years free study to anyone wanting to enter a trade after COVID.

 

[Notgoodwithusernames]

My deal is this... if a woman or nigger wants to go into stem then they should have just as much an opportunity to try as anyone else. However don’t go pushing stories about how we need more or less of group x in stem. Hire based on ability above all else. It doesn’t matter if the best person is a cis straight WASP neurotypical aryan male or a black disabled tranny lesbian with autism as long as they show enough skill.

 

[Bum Driller]

exceptions don't disprove a rule

Where I study, 25% of CS students are female, like I said before. I would hardly call that an exception.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

Women are much less likely to be failchildren than men. They aren’t getting that 120k a year coding job, but they are getting a job and moving out. So women’s behavior isn’t as concerning on a societal level.

I wonder if this is the same as those IQ charts where men are more likely to be at the high or low end and womens’ IQs are in a narrower band.

I’m also skeptical of the ‘pre-secondary education is feminized!’ thing, because at least in the US, women have been the primary school teachers since the 1800s. It isn’t a new thing that little boys were expected to sit still, and Sister Mary Rita was definitely enforcing that with the ruler in 1950. When school teachers were male education was even more strict and pupils were expected to memorize Latin passages and be able to translate them, not do ‘hands on projects’. It feels like the soft bigotry of low expectations applied to men when I see people saying that boys need graphic novels because they can’t possibly read a book without pictures.

 

[Gun Safety]

STEM is sort of overrated as some people have pointed out. Even if you get a degree in engineering or computer science there is no guarantee you're going to land yourself a job in those fields. A lot of American trained engineers and CS majors end up working in different fields, up to 50% for engineers. Mostly because a lot of the technical work is monkey work that you could get some H1B1 Indian or Chinese to do it for 2/3rd of the price that an American would want. STEM is definitely more valuable from a financial stand point than most non-STEM jobs and I'm sure it teaches you lots of personal skills that will help you later in life, but it's not like you get a STEM and then can expect to work in the field and make a big salary. You have to have motivation and/or people skills, not something that potential failsons have in abundance. That's the bigger issue than just inability.

Trade schools and living at home, on the other hand, are generally good ideas from a financial standpoint. Can make a good living with very little investment and you can generally get a job fairly easily and you don't have to worry about being replaced by automation or foreign labor. But you're not going to get a lot of people who want to go into it because it's essentially just relinquishing yourself to a life of peasantry from a social standpoint. The goal of most people going into college isn't really necessarily to make a big salary but to get a fancy degree and then move to a coastal city and work for like a non-profit or media thing, you know, 'change the world' kind of stuff. Even though they'll be broke as shit and sharing a dump with three other people they get to feel like they're important. Hard to convince a young guy that it's better to be a plumber in Boise even if by all material standards it would be better.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I’m also skeptical of the ‘pre-secondary education is feminized!’ thing, because at least in the US, women have been the primary school teachers since the 1800s. It isn’t a new thing that little boys were expected to sit still, and Sister Mary Rita was definitely enforcing that with the ruler in 1950. When school teachers were male education was even more strict and pupils were expected to memorize Latin passages and be able to translate them, not do ‘hands on projects’. It feels like the soft bigotry of low expectations applied to men when I see people saying that boys need graphic novels because they can’t possibly read a book without pictures

I've thought about this a lot and still give it some credence.

You have to remember there is a shift in how female teachers looked at boys.

Remember that prior to the removal of religion from our lives after the 50s / 60s, women were more right wing than men.

Then remember that they wouldn't be considered defective girls, but that there was the thought of "boys would be boys". There is some bigotry of soft expectations (part of that is coddling, part of that is removal of hierarchy in social relations between students).

But there was also room for competition in the class room, by challenging students who knew the answer and such. That has for a large part been replaced with group assignments. Group assignments allows more socially savvy students to leech off of the less socially savvy ones. Guess which are on average better at that.

Then there is also a focus on more exercises that focuses on language skills even for non-language subjects, like explain this math problem to your niece in a letter, further playing to girls strength and against boys strengths.

Then are the external factors that influence the experience in education. Perhaps most destructively, there is computergames and porn, giving huge dopamine inflation to boys from early ages and reducing their motivation towards other persuits.

And finally there is unchecked leftwing media from early ages on.

I first encountered the idea that men should be exterminated and only a couple left alive for breeding when I was 10 years old. I was too young to estimate how it influenced me and I didn't think about it a lot, but the fact that it mostly got people to nod and go "yeah that kinda makes sense" stayed with me.

I can only imagine what kids see and hear now, that tranny stuff is filtering through.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

I've thought about this a lot and still give it some credence.

You have to remember there is a shift in how female teachers looked at boys.

Remember that prior to the removal of religion from our lives after the 50s / 60s, women were more right wing than men.

Then remember that they wouldn't be considered defective girls, but that there was the thought of "boys would be boys". There is some bigotry of soft expectations (part of that is coddling, part of that is removal of hierarchy in social relations between students).

But there was also room for competition in the class room, by challenging students who knew the answer and such. That has for a large part been replaced with group assignments. Group assignments allows more socially savvy students to leech off of the less socially savvy ones. Guess which are on average better at that.

Then there is also a focus on more exercises that focuses on language skills even for non-language subjects, like explain this math problem to your niece in a letter, further playing to girls strength and against boys strengths.

Then are the external factors that influence the experience in education. Perhaps most destructively, there is computergames and porn, giving huge dopamine inflation to boys from early ages and reducing their motivation towards other persuits.

And finally there is unchecked leftwing media from early ages on.

I first encountered the idea that men should be exterminated and only a couple left alive for breeding when I was 10 years old. I was too young to estimate how it influenced me and I didn't think about it a lot, but the fact that it mostly got people to nod and go "yeah that kinda makes sense" stayed with me.

I can only imagine what kids see and hear now, that tranny stuff is filtering through.

Group assignments and math word problems are terrible, I agree. Sign your son up for quiz bowl/history bowl/certamen, that’ll get your little nerd feeling adrenaline.

I wonder if this lack of competition (outside of vidya) leads to young men not caring so much about staying at home indefinitely. No ambition to be better, to get your own place or a girlfriend.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Group assignments and math word problems are terrible, I agree. Sign your son up for quiz bowl/history bowl/certamen, that’ll get your little nerd feeling adrenaline.

I wonder if this lack of competition (outside of vidya) leads to young men not caring so much about staying at home indefinitely. No ambition to be better, to get your own place or a girlfriend.

It's part of the reason. More expensive housing is part of the reason. Destruction of marriage is part of the reason. The fact that women get men's resources through the state is another reason. The fact that men are failing to teach boys to be men is another reason. There's a lot of influences contributing towards it. Birth control and removal of religion may be the strongest reasons of all. This results in men and women being more materialistic in their choices due to religion. Whereas birth control first put pressure on women to use it and put out more to getting the man they want, while also removing the barriers for the most desirable men to juggle girls, so more of them end up doing that. And then when women do that, it means that more men turn into incels or at the least, don't find a woman that is worth committing too. It comes as no surprise to anyone that more promiscuous women are less desirable to commit to. And with destruction of marriage, commitment is riskier than ever. It all contributes to it.

Why did people move out of the house? To move to a university, to start a family or out of desire of luxury. The last is an effect on women, but not on men, on average. Men have little desire for it and most of attainment of luxury is a ploy to get women. They're human peacock feathers, the nests that male birds build in some species to attract females.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

It's part of the reason. More expensive housing is part of the reason. Destruction of marriage is part of the reason. The fact that women get men's resources through the state is another reason. The fact that men are failing to teach boys to be men is another reason. There's a lot of influences contributing towards it. Birth control and removal of religion may be the strongest reasons of all. This results in men and women being more materialistic in their choices due to religion. Whereas birth control first put pressure on women to use it and put out more to getting the man they want, while also removing the barriers for the most desirable men to juggle girls, so more of them end up doing that. And then when women do that, it means that more men turn into incels or at the least, don't find a woman that is worth committing too. It comes as no surprise to anyone that more promiscuous women are less desirable to commit to. And with destruction of marriage, commitment is riskier than ever. It all contributes to it.

Why did people move out of the house? To move to a university, to start a family or out of desire of luxury. The last is an effect on women, but not on men, on average. Men have little desire for it and most of attainment of luxury is a ploy to get women. They're human peacock feathers, the nests that male birds build in some species to attract females.

It’s also that parents are tolerating this. A working class family in a cramped house where every dollar counts isn’t going to let a grown child sit around playing vidya all day, if he isn’t bringing in disability checks. Working class families are not paying for ‘failure to launch’ programs.

 

[Win98SE]

To address OP directly, I briefly worked at one of those programs that specifically targeted kids & teens that lived in rural areas where the pre-college STEM classes were dogshit. The course was designed to help them to get a self-start programming so they could build up a portfolio that might potentially help with college admission (fucking but w/e.)

Parents sat in on the first few hours of the first day of each class. When we'd talk to the parents, most of them would talk at great lengths about how smart their kid was when it came to computers and how they were constantly blown away by all the cool things they were doing with them. I swear to god I heard, "He spends ALL DAY on the computer" dozens of times. At first glance it seemed like these rural areas were cultivating brilliant comp. sci nerds who would blow through the material in a day.

The reality is that 90% of them were total failures that folded 4 hours into the first day's lesson (intro to Javascript, variables, and functions.) By hour 5 they were alt-tabbing between Minecraft and whatever program we had them writing JS in. They just wanted to game, browse Reddit, or watch YouTube. When it came time to show off the work they'd done, most just claimed they accidentally deleted the code/it disappeared/or the computer fucked up in some obscure way. By day 2 we knew which students had zero interest and just let them sit and do whatever - it took too much work to get them caught up.

Of the remaining students, maybe 2 or 3 were outright amazing programmers who either already understood the material, or picked it up extremely fast. 5 to 6 struggled and needed frequent help, but could write basic programs on their own by the course's end. The rest learned "Hello World" and fucked off after that to post shit on Reddit.

When the parents came back on the last day to get their debrief, we'd have to give these awkward talks with the failsons' parents about how their kid failed to complete the lessons, and that they might consider looking into IT or other computer-based work. The fucking look of disbelief - "I'm telling you, he's on the computer all night sometimes. He has all these programs open, and he talks to people, and-" Max levels of cope, basically.

For perspective, the parents of these kids were farmers, worked in factories, or did other manual labor work for a living. They were just easily amazed at their kid's ability to somehow spend all day on a computer because they probably had a very limited idea of what you could do on a computer other than weird math shit. In reality, their failson was downloading nude Skyrim mods and shitposting on Reddit.

There were a lot of these types when I was uni. Many CS majors asked on day 1 why they had to learn all the boring shit if they just wanted to be a game developer. When told that game dev. was one of the more technical and "boring" pursuits in programming, they almost always failed downward into some kind of IT-related field or switched majors entirely. The motivation to do so was just that they sat on the computer all day gaming, so obviously they needed to get a job programming them. Just a total lack of self-awareness or any kind of drive in life.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

To address OP directly, I briefly worked at one of those programs that specifically targeted kids & teens that lived in rural areas where the pre-college STEM classes were dogshit. The course was designed to help them to get a self-start programming so they could build up a portfolio that might potentially help with college admission (fucking but w/e.)

Parents sat in on the first few hours of the first day of each class. When we'd talk to the parents, most of them would talk at great lengths about how smart their kid was when it came to computers and how they were constantly blown away by all the cool things they were doing with them. I swear to god I heard, "He spends ALL DAY on the computer" dozens of times. At first glance it seemed like these rural areas were cultivating brilliant comp. sci nerds who would blow through the material in a day.

The reality is that 90% of them were total failures that folded 4 hours into the first day's lesson (intro to Javascript, variables, and functions.) By hour 5 they were alt-tabbing between Minecraft and whatever program we had them writing JS in. They just wanted to game, browse Reddit, or watch YouTube. When it came time to show off the work they'd done, most just claimed they accidentally deleted the code/it disappeared/or the computer fucked up in some obscure way. By day 2 we knew which students had zero interest and just let them sit and do whatever - it took too much work to get them caught up.

Of the remaining students, maybe 2 or 3 were outright amazing programmers who either already understood the material, or picked it up extremely fast. 5 to 6 struggled and needed frequent help, but could write basic programs on their own by the course's end. The rest learned "Hello World" and fucked off after that to post shit on Reddit.

When the parents came back on the last day to get their debrief, we'd have to give these awkward talks with the failsons' parents about how their kid failed to complete the lessons, and that they might consider looking into IT or other computer-based work. The fucking look of disbelief - "I'm telling you, he's on the computer all night sometimes. He has all these programs open, and he talks to people, and-" Max levels of cope, basically.

For perspective, the parents of these kids were farmers, worked in factories, or did other manual labor work for a living. They were just easily amazed at their kid's ability to somehow spend all day on a computer because they probably had a very limited idea of what you could do on a computer other than weird math shit. In reality, their failson was downloading nude Skyrim mods and shitposting on Reddit.

There were a lot of these types when I was uni. Many CS majors asked on day 1 why they had to learn all the boring shit if they just wanted to be a game developer. When told that game dev. was one of the more technical and "boring" pursuits in programming, they almost always failed downward into some kind of IT-related field or switched majors entirely. The motivation to do so was just that they sat on the computer all day gaming, so obviously they needed to get a job programming them. Just a total lack of self-awareness or any kind of drive in life.

That’s pretty sad. On the other hand, I assume for a kid in that environment, getting a 9-5 air conditioned desk job doing tech support at the county courthouse/town hall/school department/hospital would be considered a pretty decent gig. But like all jobs, that requires effort.

I roll my eyes when I see psychiatrists talking about ‘gaming addiction’, but yet there are clearly a lot of young men who spend way too much time gaming.

 

[Xarpho]

I think it's more than STEM overpopulation, and it's not just economy or minorities/immigrants/green card holders.

Many boomers (actual baby boomers) and some "boomers" (Gen X) still assume you can can just drift in anywhere with a résumé and nice clothes, and have a reasonable chance of getting a job. It won't work. They'll either hand you an employment form which will end up in the recycling bin within 24 hours, tell you to apply online (also a black hole), or laugh you out of the building.

Trying to write letters and reach out to potential employers has a slightly better reception rate, but it hamstrings you in terms of interviews because they can smell desperation and will use that to their advantage (read: your employment will be fairly short, miserable, and poorly paid). The interviews are also all rigged, you never know what the interview is like, whether the interview is "we just need to confirm you're halfway competent and aren't crazy" or "we need to interview X people to check off a box" or anything in between. You'll fail the interview and wonder if it was something you said or the HR lady just didn't like how you look. (Group interviews WILL fall into either extreme, you're either already hired or you're meant as fodder for the people that are hired...plus it will inevitably involve some group project with a total stranger)

Connections are everything. The best way is to be good friends or have your dad be good friends with someone with influence in a company (or maybe your dad is that person), but most people don't have that luxury. But it's just not connections to get into prestigious industries based in California or NYC, it's literally everything, including most professional sciences (of which I am a bachelor of, but instead I currently deliver pizza in my late 20s and live with my parents). Some of said "professional sciences" do have internships, but they're hard to get into.

Compounding that is job listings with unrealistic expectations, and even if you take the bait to think it's just to ward off plebs, you just get filtered by algorithms because it doesn't "look good". (Listen to any LinkedIn ad, and see how highly antagonistic to job seekers). This means that to get noticed, you basically have to lie ("why yes, I am trilingual and have been working consistent jobs since I was 16") which is not going to look good in any professional sense.

The worst part of all this is that because you didn't find a job soon after college or whatever, boomers and Xers are completely oblivious to the very real challenges and just think you're not trying hard enough.

 

[abacussedout]

There are also opportunities to volunteer in just about every field. Like setting up an online donation platform for a local nonprofit, or collecting sample data and coding some charts for your town's parks foundation, creating a banner ad and initiating an "online marketing" campaign for a school fundraiser, etc. etc. that add lines/time to your resume/Linkedin. Lots of online volunteering and pro bono work in every STEM field is available these days...a lot of it is mundane, but it's experience. Also GitHub portfolios as others have mentioned. Just don't bullshit or exaggerate, folks see through that. You can still be maximizing your time during the pizza delivery years.

 

[Stalphos Johnson]

This is a cope I've been hearing for over a decade. As I said in the previous post, we're entering an era where also M.D. grads are finding themselves locked out of the practice of medicine. If you have a degree that is traditionally geared towards a certain profession and you have to fight hundreds of your peers to get into that profession: surprise, you're in an asset bubble.

Coping isn't bad, but at the same time, you can't deny that the bill of goods you were sold was a counterfeit.

As a bit of an aside, The rise in "pH.D. only" positions in Big Pharma and Big Tech is largely because the gatekeepers are exploiting the credential glut.

While a bit late, I can comment on the M.D. grads. My perspective is from the D.O. side and there are 3 main problems affecting both. I have a family member who runs a residency program for primary care and I've learned a few things as for why these graduates are not being able to practice.

The first is that there is an insane amount of foreign competitions for residencies. My relative got over 500 applications for a small primary care program and when filtering for only US citizens that passed their boards cut down the applicants down to 50. Typically, this is narrowed down further to about 20 or fewer applicants for interviews.

Another problem is that there are no longer D.O. and M.D. specific residency programs. Recently the AMA and the AOA opened up the residencies so that anyone with an M.D or D.O. degree can apply to any residency program in the country. In effect, this has increased competition for both M.D. graduates and D.O. graduates as the amount of candidates for every residency program has increased. My relative has selected more M.D.'s than D.O.'s since this program merger while previously only being able to select D.O's.

The final problem is overspecialization and being unwilling to work outside of specific places. There is a shortage of primary care physicians in the US right now, especially in rural areas. My relative has gotten a lot of unsolicited job offers from health networks in primarily rural states (ND, Montana, Idaho, etc.) offering major pay raises, benefits, and student loan repayments. Despite offers like this from a lot of rural health networks, there is still a shortage of primary care physicians and it is still projected to exist for the foreseeable future. If you think the amount of applications for primary care is big, that is nothing compared to the amount of applications for certain specialties like dermatology. These competitive specialties also exist primarily in suburban or urban areas in the US and tend to have fewer slots open for residents. Many residents who were unable to land a residency spot in one of these specialties would probably have had better luck applying for a rural primary care physician residency, but are unwilling to consider primary care or don't want to give up living in the cities or suburbs. All of these factors have led to increased numbers of M.D. graduates being unable to find work after graduation. This has affected D.O. graduates, but not as much, as D.O. graduates tend to choose primary care residencies more often than M.D. graduates.

 

[DumbDude42]

I’m also skeptical of the ‘pre-secondary education is feminized!’ thing, because at least in the US, women have been the primary school teachers since the 1800s. It isn’t a new thing that little boys were expected to sit still, and Sister Mary Rita was definitely enforcing that with the ruler in 1950. When school teachers were male education was even more strict and pupils were expected to memorize Latin passages and be able to translate them, not do ‘hands on projects’. It feels like the soft bigotry of low expectations applied to men when I see people saying that boys need graphic novels because they can’t possibly read a book without pictures.

what boys need is to be collectively kept in line by strictly enforced discipline.
if you want them to learn, then you need them to take what the teacher says seriously, and for that you need them to take the teacher himself seriously. and they're not gonna do that if the teacher is a pushover who lets the kids walk all over him and act like monkeys in his classroom.

Women are much less likely to be failchildren than men. They aren’t getting that 120k a year coding job, but they are getting a job and moving out. So women’s behavior isn’t as concerning on a societal level.

women can go through life on a mediocre or low tier job just fine, or even on no job at all. they'll have no problems finding a man who will gladly take care of her, let her move in with him, etc, so it's all fine with them either way

situation is very different for men. if you're in a mediocre or low tier job, your prospects with women are dogshit. if you don't have a career that gives you good social status or big income then you're gonna be borderline undateable and lonely throughout your entire life. for guys who realize this, it's extremely demoralizing, and probably a huge part of what makes them go "fuck it" and NEET out

 

[Lemmingwise]

To address OP directly, I briefly worked at one of those programs that specifically targeted kids & teens that lived in rural areas where the pre-college STEM classes were dogshit. The course was designed to help them to get a self-start programming so they could build up a portfolio that might potentially help with college admission (fucking but w/e.)

Parents sat in on the first few hours of the first day of each class. When we'd talk to the parents, most of them would talk at great lengths about how smart their kid was when it came to computers and how they were constantly blown away by all the cool things they were doing with them. I swear to god I heard, "He spends ALL DAY on the computer" dozens of times. At first glance it seemed like these rural areas were cultivating brilliant comp. sci nerds who would blow through the material in a day.

The reality is that 90% of them were total failures that folded 4 hours into the first day's lesson (intro to Javascript, variables, and functions.) By hour 5 they were alt-tabbing between Minecraft and whatever program we had them writing JS in. They just wanted to game, browse Reddit, or watch YouTube. When it came time to show off the work they'd done, most just claimed they accidentally deleted the code/it disappeared/or the computer fucked up in some obscure way. By day 2 we knew which students had zero interest and just let them sit and do whatever - it took too much work to get them caught up.

Of the remaining students, maybe 2 or 3 were outright amazing programmers who either already understood the material, or picked it up extremely fast. 5 to 6 struggled and needed frequent help, but could write basic programs on their own by the course's end. The rest learned "Hello World" and fucked off after that to post shit on Reddit.

When the parents came back on the last day to get their debrief, we'd have to give these awkward talks with the failsons' parents about how their kid failed to complete the lessons, and that they might consider looking into IT or other computer-based work. The fucking look of disbelief - "I'm telling you, he's on the computer all night sometimes. He has all these programs open, and he talks to people, and-" Max levels of cope, basically.

For perspective, the parents of these kids were farmers, worked in factories, or did other manual labor work for a living. They were just easily amazed at their kid's ability to somehow spend all day on a computer because they probably had a very limited idea of what you could do on a computer other than weird math shit. In reality, their failson was downloading nude Skyrim mods and shitposting on Reddit.

There were a lot of these types when I was uni. Many CS majors asked on day 1 why they had to learn all the boring shit if they just wanted to be a game developer. When told that game dev. was one of the more technical and "boring" pursuits in programming, they almost always failed downward into some kind of IT-related field or switched majors entirely. The motivation to do so was just that they sat on the computer all day gaming, so obviously they needed to get a job programming them. Just a total lack of self-awareness or any kind of drive in life.

This is a story of you failing to match children's aptitudes with learning material that matched. There's plenty of computerwork to be done that isn't all programming.

I started kids off with a finished program to modify. About the same percentage of kids end up building stuff from the ground up, but there is plenty to learn and do that isn't writing code from scratch.

 

[Saint Alphonsus]

While a bit late, I can comment on the M.D. grads. My perspective is from the D.O. side and there are 3 main problems affecting both. I have a family member who runs a residency program for primary care and I've learned a few things as for why these graduates are not being able to practice.

The first is that there is an insane amount of foreign competitions for residencies. My relative got over 500 applications for a small primary care program and when filtering for only US citizens that passed their boards cut down the applicants down to 50. Typically, this is narrowed down further to about 20 or fewer applicants for interviews.

Another problem is that there are no longer D.O. and M.D. specific residency programs. Recently the AMA and the AOA opened up the residencies so that anyone with an M.D or D.O. degree can apply to any residency program in the country. In effect, this has increased competition for both M.D. graduates and D.O. graduates as the amount of candidates for every residency program has increased. My relative has selected more M.D.'s than D.O.'s since this program merger while previously only being able to select D.O's.

The final problem is overspecialization and being unwilling to work outside of specific places. There is a shortage of primary care physicians in the US right now, especially in rural areas. My relative has gotten a lot of unsolicited job offers from health networks in primarily rural states (ND, Montana, Idaho, etc.) offering major pay raises, benefits, and student loan repayments. Despite offers like this from a lot of rural health networks, there is still a shortage of primary care physicians and it is still projected to exist for the foreseeable future. If you think the amount of applications for primary care is big, that is nothing compared to the amount of applications for certain specialties like dermatology. These competitive specialties also exist primarily in suburban or urban areas in the US and tend to have fewer slots open for residents. Many residents who were unable to land a residency spot in one of these specialties would probably have had better luck applying for a rural primary care physician residency, but are unwilling to consider primary care or don't want to give up living in the cities or suburbs. All of these factors have led to increased numbers of M.D. graduates being unable to find work after graduation. This has affected D.O. graduates, but not as much, as D.O. graduates tend to choose primary care residencies more often than M.D. graduates.

Increasingly I'm convinced that academia and medicine are part of the globalist cabal. The whole thing reeks of a Gnostic mystery cult.