No. STEM fields have an unemployment rate of about 3%, compared to about 5% overall.

Nonsense. About 75% of ALL college grads work outside their major. STEM majors are more likely to work in their major, and those that don't frequently work in other STEM fields, such as physics majors working as programmers.

Yes they are. If a finite percentage of your evaluation is based on how you dress, then it is a logical necessity for other things to count for less. I have worked for a business that required ties. I have also worked for companies that required slacks and collared shirts. I currently work for a company that is fine with shorts, sandals and tank tops. The tie company was a defense contractor, that sucked up lots of tax dollars, but never delivered a working product. The collared shirt and slacks company had lots of time wasting meetings, and was always six months to a year behind schedule. The shorts and sandals company ships code daily and has lots of happy customers, who also tend to wear shorts and sandals.

Collared shirt. Long pants that are not jeans or cargo. Shoes that are not sandals or athletic (running, tennis, hiking, etc.) shoes. Socks.

At my company, we require shorts and tank tops during the summer months. If you violate the dress code by wearing long pants or sleeves, then you are not allowed to complain about the AC temperature setting. It is currently set to 78F (26C).

I care. A dress code sends a message about a company's culture. The stricter the code, the more that company cares about having a professional appearance, and less about professional performance.

This is exactly the opposite of what is happening in America. The rules for hobbyists are lax, and the rules for using a drone for anything economically useful are far more severe. The FAA is focused, not on safety, but on minimizing competition with manned aircraft.

Is CROMULENT a valid Scrabble word string? If not, they need to embiggen the dictionary.

Vaccines work on uneducated people, and they work 24/7. Bed nets do not. People can use bed nets improperly, divert them for other uses (such as fishing nets), or just not use them at all. The bed nets need to be replaced every two years, as they fray, and the pesticide wears off. They offer no protection during most of the day, when people are working, and going about their lives.

Why do you assume the vaccine will cost more than the bed nets? TFA says nothing about cost. Vaccines that do not require refrigeration can often be delivered very cheaply. Oral polio vaccines cost a few cents per dose.

Electricity prices in France are about twice what they are in America.

If the tests are not standardized, then there is no way to compare results, which makes them meaningless for improving the schools through accountability.

They are not. So that is a phoney objection. However, the standardized test for reading and math ARE based on specific knowledge, like being about to add, subtract, multiply, and recognize and know the meaning of specific words. Do you also object to that as "indoctrination"?

That can be taught and tested. I have a meter long shelf with books full of puzzles that require "out of the box thinking" rather than conventional approaches, written by Martin Gardner, and other puzzle masters. I use problems from these books when I volunteer for after school enrichment programs. The kids love them, and they definitely get better at them with practice. The creative thinking exercises help them quickly come up with solutions in robotics and programming competitions.

Poor analogy. Doctors can choose their patients. Teachers can rarely choose their students.

If what is on the test is not what you want the students to be learning, then the problem is with the design of that test, not with standardized testing in principle. Most people that object to our current system of testing, have no interest in improving it, but rather prefer no accountability at all.

It is unlikely that kids are going to be inspired by someone doing something that people older than their great-grandparents already did 50 years ago.

The people asking for manned missions to the moon are not young people looking for inspiration, but geezers trying to relive their childhood.

That was one of the (few) justifications for the ISS. It didn't work. The kids were way more inspired by the robotic missions to Mars, which cost 1% as much, and actually engaged in real science.

A gravity wave detector is disrupted by vibrations, and would benefit from NOT putting humans on the moon. A robotic mission would cost about 1% as much as a manned mission, and would actually be superior for this purpose.