Should academia reduce the number of graduate students they admit to doctoral programs?

[shinigamiasuka]

Interestingly, my program is one of the few at my new school where there are more international students than US resident students:

% of international PhD students : % US residents is ~ 70% : 30%.

For most programs, it's either ~ 50/50, or more US students.

Stats here: https://secure.rackham.umich.edu/academic_information/programs/

[Vene]

Here's a question, if the employment prospects for a PhD graduate are so awful that 50% of graduates can't find jobs, but you need the graduate students to perform research, why the hell aren't you hiring research staff instead? Overall cost can be comparable to a doctoral student because you're not responsible for tuition. But, instead of facing bleak job prospects they have an academic career. The slots available for graduate students can be few enough that those who do get a PhD should be able to find suitable work.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Vene

[ExponentialDecay]

Here's a question, if the employment prospects for a PhD graduate are so awful that 50% of graduates can't find jobs, but you need the graduate students to perform research, why the hell aren't you hiring research staff instead? Overall cost can be comparable to a doctoral student because you're not responsible for tuition. But, instead of facing bleak job prospects they have an academic career. The slots available for graduate students can be few enough that those who do get a PhD should be able to find suitable work.

 

The research thing was more of a general comment meant towards fields that need regressions run and specimen monitored 24/7. People don't really need many research assistants in theoretical physics, as far as I know. Besides, I don't know if I said that, but academia is kind of committed to propagating and creating knowledge, so it makes sense to bring in new people who will inherit the field.

[Vene]

The research thing was more of a general comment meant towards fields that need regressions run and specimen monitored 24/7. People don't really need many research assistants in theoretical physics, as far as I know. Besides, I don't know if I said that, but academia is kind of committed to propagating and creating knowledge, so it makes sense to bring in new people who will inherit the field.

I never said to get rid of PhD programs, just reduce the production as there is a clear excess. And I don't know how many assistants are needed in theoretical physics either, as it's not my field of study (my field of study does regularly hire technicians to keep labs running and they're great to work with).

 

Otherwise, more needs to be invested into the field so that employment prospects aren't as bleak. With physics, maybe expand national laboratories. I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that it's okay to take on a lot of talented people and put them through harsh training* at low wages and then discarding them after a handful of years.

 

*I say harsh due to how common depression and related maladies are for graduate students.

[ExponentialDecay]

Technicians aren't strictly research scientists though. They don't publish. 

 

I think there's definitely a mentality that people are clamoring to get into these programs, so PIs are like, I can take this $50k (and the PI's grant doesn't always pay the full $50k, as tuition is, I believe, in the majority of cases, covered by the university or the department or some combination thereof, so to the PI the grad student is about 70% cheaper than a paid professional) and I can get a grad student whom I will train to be a good scientist, and who may contribute a lot to the field, and who will sleep in the lab because they really need me to like them, because there is no shortage of people applying to the program. However, again, this training doesn't guarantee you a job. I see people (including on GradCafe) trying for 3 years to get into mediocre programs, and I don't understand it either, but if they, for some reason known only to them, want to do this even though they are fully appraised of the circumstances, who is anyone to tell them no?

 

I have friends who are PhD students who consult on the side. I have friends who are PhD students for the stipend, who spend the salient part of their life writing well-received poetry. I have friends who have received NSF grants, Rhodes fellowship, etc, who are really committed academics. I can't say that I have any friends who treat their PhD as training for a guaranteed job (as we here are often advised to do), rather than as an opportunity to spend 5 years of their life doing the one thing they really want to do, because the chances of finding a TT position are so ridiculous that there's just no point worrying about it. My QM friend is about 30% likely to get tenure, but are you going to suggest that he quit now and they give his position to a research technician because of the contingency that they might not want him to stay? At a certain point, it's caveat emptor, and at that point, if you still want to do whatever it is you're doing, that means you're getting a fair exchange for your risk and effort.

 

All of the suggestions here regarding science postdocs are great. I can definitely see that the system can and should be reformed, because it's not helping anyone in its current state. Will that functionally limit the number of grad students who can't find a job? Eh. I'd run Stata on this if I had anything to run Stata on, but I doubt it, to any practical amount.

[Monstercookie]

I won't claim to be particularly knowledgable regarding these topics, considering that I'm an international and haven't started the program yet. However, I have some comments based on the impressions I got during the graduate student visitation weekends and my own situation as an international.

I experienced that a large fraction of the incoming graduate students had, at least in my perspective, unrealistic expectations and ways of reasoning regarding their life choices. It was not uncommon to hear comments along the line of "It is reasonable to give up all my interests and suffer for the coming 5-6 years, because that will prepare me for a wonderfull TT position". I find this disturbing for many reasons, but in particular because realistically only a few will actually go on to TT positions. In addition, I had the impression that there was a general feeling, projected from both students and professors, that the academic path is the only truly honorable path.

I think these attitudes are different from what I'm use to from home. At my undergraduate university, I feel that most people who go into PhDs do it mainly out of interest, and that there are no particular "rules" regarding what you should or shouldn't do after graduation. Even though the TT job market is probably worse than in the U.S., I don't feel that people have the same level of concer regarding their future prospects. There are probably many reasons for this, one surely being that the general environment here is not nearly as competetive; however, I would not be surprised if the attitudes play a large part. Students know what they're getting into and plan their PhDs according to their personal desires and needs, and faculty tend to be supportive. That said, there is a fair bit of uncertainty and job market anxiety here as well, but it doesn't seem to be on the scale scale.

I got the impression that many students in America are going into programs with rather uncompromising attitudes, putting all their focus working towards an academic position without seriously considering other options. Additionally, faculty may be fueling this by portraying academia as the only acceptable path. Driven by these kinds of attitudes, students might be tailoring themselves for jobs that they likely won't ever get. I'm thinking that the biggest issue is that graduate studies are covered in a sort of lie, claiming that the purpose of the studies is to pursue an academic career, while in reality only a fraction of the students follow that path. If so, the attitudes need to change. Students need to know what their prospects are, and the programs need to adapt so that the students get appropriate training in regards to where they will be going after graduation.

On another topic, I've read a number of comments regarding implementing tougher quals/proposals/whatevertheymaybecalled to weed out a large fraction of the students after the first year. I'd just like to add that from and international student perspective this would be horrenderous. Starting graduate studies as an international often involves uprooting your whole life and moving to another continent, which is not trivial to say the least. Coupling this with possibly getting thrown out after a year would be nerve wrecking. The relocation process is hardly reversible; for example, if I had to move back after a year I would not be able to get a decent appartment, I would have lost a large sum of money and I would have to rebuild my whole life again. In addition, I might not be able to find a job/get into a new program for a while. I won't make any claims regarding whether such implementations would be good or bad when considering a greater picture, but I hope you will consider the situations of international students when discussing such suggestions.

As mentioned, I hardly have the experience to be an authority on these topics, and I'm just presenting my own highly speculative ideas.

[Vene]

Technicians aren't strictly research scientists though. They don't publish.

The technicians I know at my university are published. They don't write the manuscript, but they certainly publish.

 

I think there's definitely a mentality that people are clamoring to get into these programs, so PIs are like, I can take this $50k (and the PI's grant doesn't always pay the full $50k, as tuition is, I believe, in the majority of cases, covered by the university or the department or some combination thereof, so to the PI the grad student is about 70% cheaper than a paid professional) and I can get a grad student whom I will train to be a good scientist, and who may contribute a lot to the field, and who will sleep in the lab because they really need me to like them, because there is no shortage of people applying to the program. However, again, this training doesn't guarantee you a job. I see people (including on GradCafe) trying for 3 years to get into mediocre programs, and I don't understand it either, but if they, for some reason known only to them, want to do this even though they are fully appraised of the circumstances, who is anyone to tell them no?

My PI is required to pay for my stipend, health insurance, tuition, and fees (waived if I TA, but that's a funding mechanism of last resort). So, that's where I'm coming from saying that the costs are comparable.

And it okay to tell people no. The Department of Labor will tell people no if they want to work at a wage less than minimum wage, even if people can be found who are willing to take less. A race to the bottom does nobody any good. All sectors, including academia, have to duty not to be exploitive. If you're bringing people in for half a decade+, paying them paltry amounts of money, inducing high stress, and then discarding them with zero prospects afterwards you are exploiting them. If there was a reward for the toil, then it's one thing as it becomes an investment. But, if you're in a place where half of graduates are unable to find gainful employment there is exploitation happening.

 

I have friends who are PhD students who consult on the side. I have friends who are PhD students for the stipend, who spend the salient part of their life writing well-received poetry. I have friends who have received NSF grants, Rhodes fellowship, etc, who are really committed academics. I can't say that I have any friends who treat their PhD as training for a guaranteed job (as we here are often advised to do), rather than as an opportunity to spend 5 years of their life doing the one thing they really want to do, because the chances of finding a TT position are so ridiculous that there's just no point worrying about it. My QM friend is about 30% likely to get tenure, but are you going to suggest that he quit now and they give his position to a research technician because of the contingency that they might not want him to stay? At a certain point, it's caveat emptor, and at that point, if you still want to do whatever it is you're doing, that means you're getting a fair exchange for your risk and effort.

It depends on what he would do if he doesn't get a TT position. If he finds work as a scientist for someplace like NIST or a consultant for someplace like 3M, then he's employed in a reasonable job for somebody with a PhD. If he needs to take a job driving a forklist at a warehouse, then it would be better if he was employed as staff instead of being enrolled as a graduate student. He would still perform work to further his field's knowledge, but as a career instead of just a few years.

[Catria]

Let's not forget outsourcing of non-academic jobs.

 

Unless supply is reduced (I would do so gradually though), the demand for PhD graduates in what non-academic jobs remain will be increasingly elitist (i.e. prestige will play an ever-increasing role in hiring) or otherwise prestige-driven. But how exactly prestige would then relate to non-academic employability is highly job-dependent and field-dependent, so I suspect that in-field prestige would matter on some level, perhaps more than the university-wide prestige. Except when one talks about business/strategic consulting or investment/international banking, in which case university-wide prestige will trump in-field prestige more often than not.

 

So, yes, adequate career guidance is necessary (and often inadequate career guidance leads to placement disasters from a program's standpoint) but one needs to watch out for outsourcing.

[Crucial BBQ]

I disagree, part of the reason international applicants have difficulties is because the higher cost at state schools: less grad students in the department means more resources put into each grad student, theoretically. 

Dr. Michio Kaku claims that 50% of Ph.D candidates studying STEM in U.S. are international students.

 

 

 

*edit to add* 

 

Dr. 

Edited July 6, 2015 by Crucial BBQ

[Catria]

Dr. Michio Kaku claims that 50% of Ph.D candidates studying STEM in U.S. are international students.

 

What gives that claim any pretention to accuracy would be mathematics and engineering. Biological and biomedical sciences provide a baseline of domestic graduate students due to PhD programs in biology and biomedical sciences being sometimes (don't know how often though) applied to concurrently with med school applications.

 

US physics PhD programs are well on their way of reducing their dependence on international students since the domestic pool of physics undergraduates has been on the upswing, but it will still be two years until one can conclusively claim that the internationals' contributions to physics PhD programs has shrunk.

 

Because the undergrads that entered college for physics in the LHC era, which provided a significant boost to physics undergraduate programs nationwide, will be undertaking their PhD application season this year and next year (depending on when they entered college)

Edited July 6, 2015 by Catria

[shinigamiasuka]

Dr. Michio Kaku claims that 50% of Ph.D candidates studying STEM in U.S. are international students.

 

 

 

*edit to add* 

 

Dr. 

 

I presume the greater percentage of them make the "E"?

 

Digressing here, but I should add that the curricula that a lot of us "third world countries" follow are based off of the British system we where choose and specialise towards the end of high school; meaning, it isn't the general kind of high school education as practised in the US (although yes, I'm aware of the AP and IB). Since I had already decided that I wanted to pursue a degree in engineering, I only took science and maths based subjects (+ English) for my IGCSEs. Later on for my A Levels, I just had Maths, Physics, and Chemistry. That way we're made to already focus on science and maths before the more rigorous college training sets in. Similarly, the SSC (Secondary School Certificate; taken after completing grade 10) and HSC (High School Certificate; after 12th grade) of Bangladesh each offer 3 kinds of curricula depending on your interests: 1) science and maths, 2) commerce, 3) arts and humanities. Number 1 has the greatest advantage if chosen for SSC since they are allowed to transfer into 2 or 3 later for HSC (one of my younger cousins went from 1 in SSC to 3 for HSC). This means that people choose their tracks early on and only follow onwards.

Pros:

• Better prepared for college/undergrad

Cons:

• Did not receive a well-rounded education
• Forced to choose future education track very early on

And vice versa for the "general" high school curriculum in the US.

 

I just had to spell out the difference since it came up.