I have frequently made the observation that those who emphasize STEM conveniently ignore what will have to be cut/sacrificed. I see education as a system largely based on limited time and financial resources. Changing an emphasis requires reallocation and this seems to be ignored.
A recent NY Times article addresses just this point and notes that some politicians are making this argument directly – increase STEM downgrade the liberal arts.
I spent considerable time as a university department administrator. I was the chair of a Psychology department. It is difficult to know exactly how different individuals “position” what I would describe as a social science. You certainly do not see such fields addressed as a part of STEM even though the content of the field is based on scientific research. This background aside, the field is very popular with students. I was always willing to compete for resources based on student demand, but this was not the way things worked. I still find this frustrating. Can you push students into fields that do not appear to be of greatest interest to them?
I think politicians are naive regarding the role that aptitude and motivation play in vocational preparation. I think politicians also confuse education and vocational preparation. I also think politicians exert influence on education at a level out of step with the politician-controlled contributions made to fund it.