Be careful what you wish for. Increasing the competence of fraudsters will simply make fraud harder to detect.

Had the original theory simply included a "measured" coefficient, the debunking would have been much weaker and never made it into a gotcha story for bystanders to enjoy. This was sloppy from the outset.

What we need isn't stronger technical skills, but strong self-correction mechanisms and incentive structures.

(Ironically, the management consultant who orchestrated this whole ploy is in the field of group psychology - so perhaps it was performance art all along)

The less exposure one has to these concepts the more tempting it becomes to skip the reasoning part.

True, but there is an upper bound to the amount of exposure one can receive before they are simply a STEM major, rather than another major with more STEM exposure.

But you shouldn’t be able to get a degree in a soft “science” without demonstrating that you can apply disciplined thinking by passing some proper STEM courses.

Nominally, that is already the case.