:)
Math majors can get a job ANYWHERE, but it's a dang big job o'work, worth it though.
Well, I wouldn't go that far, but it seems to me that in pure academia there is plenty of funding for research that is easy for the layman to understand.
I was interested in the conversation of "bad scholarship" in science. To give an example, Andrew Wiles is credited for proving the so-called Fermat's Last Theorem. The proof he published was incorrect. It had a "hole".
The hole was quickly plugged and the proof verified. Wiles didn't intend to deceive anyone and was quite upset with himself for the failure, but that would be considered bad scholarship by the writer of the article. In science, bad scholarship is either lost (the aforementioned uncited papers) or debunked. In the humanities, unless the infraction is egregious, it persists. Poor scholarship is simply a part of ethnic studies. It is to be expected in the social sciences. The hard sciences have standards that are rather high.
There's an old joke where a dean is complaining to the head of the physics department about all the scientific equipment that the university has to purchase. "Why can't you be more like the mathematicians?" the dean says, "They only need a pencil, paper and a wastebasket."
"Or the philosophers, who don't need the wastebasket."
Consider that the proof with a "hole" is several hundred pages long, with mathematical "density" of thought. Consider also that it took the author several years of exclusive devotion. Under these circumstances, the "hole" is not bad scholarship: to the contrary, this story is an example of true, self-sacrificing scholarhip; it is simply an error, which was corrected honestly and swiftly, as you pointed out.