I know, it's technically not a question dealing with the STUDY of history. But, as a community of historians, surely this is as pressing of a matter as any. As the question says, I'm curious to hear this community's insight as to how we can ensure that history education remains as relevant as STEM--should we accept that STEM is simply "where the money is," or should we see the declining number of history majors in the U.S. as an alarming sign of a broader case of historical ignorance?
To piggyback, how do you think the historical community can better market the non-explicit skills of historical training, ie thoroughness of research, analysis of multifaceted facts and in many cases intellectual skepticism?