Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of them shifted into fields that didn't exist in 1900 because in 1900, food and shelter were the majority of what people in the US worked for. Exactly -- science led to technology which led to job creation. That's the whole story of the 20th century, with a couple of wars tossed in to keep things moving. Meanwhile, in 2010, science and technology are just two more things most Americans take for granted. We still…
"Meanwhile, in 2010, science and technology are just two more things most Americans take for granted. We still have to fight the Scopes monkey trial every few years, we couldn't get back to the Moon with any less time and money than it took the first time, and especially since 9/11, we're no longer a place where the world's STEM students come to study and live." You're actually very wrong about foreign STEM students…
I challenge the idea that this is a "simple fact", rather that it's even true at all. How do you know? Right now it may appear so because so many schools grade on a bell curve (i.e. no other outcome is possible). In my experience, aside from people with genuine disorders, everyone has a similar (high) potential. The majority are just not properly stimulated. Maybe they have bad teachers, bad parents or are just lazy but if they were properly motivated they could achieve much more than they do.
Personally I find ideas like "the simple fact that human intelligence follows a bell-curve" dangerous. You're framing the potential of a whole species and people tend to assume this is true and act accordingly (e.g. grading on a bell curve).