STEM is really a pastiche. Things one looks for in CS aren't the same as what's looked for in a Science program. It's way easier, for example, to see whether the person has a BS Chemistry degree (which has predefined requirements) than checking each course to see whether it's for majors or for poets or for pre-meds. I suspect it's similar in Physics, and Biology has the problem of being the safety major for pre-xxx types. Or at least it used to be.

Given the lab requirements, there's little undergraduates at uni can do in Science. They can participate in a paper, but they spend a lot of time trying not to hurt each other and develop some kinds of lab skills. And if they're p-chem or theoretical, they might not even get lab skills (more engineering). Some schools offer their lab-oriented majors the chance to intern at a biotech/pharma, and THAT has a major impact on hire-ability. But w/o the PhD, they're headed for lab tech.

For CS, on the other hand, you can build entire systems independent of attending uni. So yeah, what-you-have-done is usually more significant than what-did-you-study. Given this, trying to wedge Science and Technology together really isn't useful. Didn't some of the techbros call uni a waste of key programming years? Similar to how footy views uni vs. youth programs.