I lived on 54 cent pancakes covered in free butter and honey, 9 cents per can baked beans (turns out I don't like baked beans, I like good sauce which this was not), and candy bars out of a broken and never fixed candy machine. I don't recommend it. I weighed 110 pounds by the time I left. All of my money went to dorm housing (paid to the school).
Later when I was a researcher I found out that the Provost takes 55% of grant money "for overhead like printer paper". If there is money involved, there are plenty of plenty of people willing to "take their cut" before it ever gets to the researcher or student.
If you can't afford to pay grad students enough to keep body and soul together, don't open the grad student slots.
Simpsons grad student sketch is different kind of funny for different people. For most people it's funny because it's exaggeration, for others it's funny because it's so close to reality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqrCoyVK80I
---
On more serious note, grad student working for next to nothing serves similar function as unpaid internships in companies and politics. Some positions are designed to help young people coming from wealthy families without explicitly shutting anyone out.
If you have trust fund, career in politics, academia or high profile law and financial firms is much easier.
Except, in the case of big tech, Internships pay six figures.
There are other perks of being a grad student than just the pay though...
: sure, the internships aren’t typically a year long, but if you do the math for what’s paid for their duration it’s an incredible amount if it did last a year.
a) not everyone who figured out higher education is a racket wants to do 180 degree career turn
b) many people would like to make their future in something else than easy code monkeying money
If everyone goes to write NoSQL serverless CRUD for adtech, who will be left to do research or something actually materially productive in the economy?
For one thing most tech internships want you to contribute to the business. Unpaid internships that involve doing real work are illegal in many industries/locations.
In some places if you have an unpaid tech internship, everything you do has to be an artificial training exercise for the sole benefit of the students.
Only kids from wealthy families can afford to move to say DC or NY and spend a year there on an unpaid internship. So that becomes a selection criteria to exclude those from poor and middle classes from advancing in those domains.
The same is true for entry-level media jobs. Paying $40-$50k in NYC... you can be sure kids without generational wealth & parents financial assistance choose other paths.
This is definitely untrue. There are plenty of young people willing to save roughly no money for the early years of their 20s by trying to make it in the big city in a flashy career. I know several who don't get any financial support from their parents (and certainly don't have generational wealth). The most you can say is that people who have parents that _require_ financial support aren't able to take this path, but that's a significantly smaller group.
In college, a professor recommended me for an academic award from industry. It was $1000. So I go to the yearly awards dinner and a month later got a check for $800. Apparently the university takes a 20% as administrative cost!
That's actually low! Most of the Universities we've explored research grants with wanted 45-65% overhead for the university, then another 10-15 for Research organization, with the remainder sorted between the researchers / company. We found it was actually just cheaper to pay for the research ourselves and hire the students directly for part time work than go through the grant process.
I sat on a couple school boards for a while, all that was ever discussed was fund raising and how we should be contributing more. Very little focus on education. Sadly it's turned me off spending time with Schools and just targeting students / researchers directly.
To a large degree yes, but a lot of the work would have fared better with a larger pool of people to work on the problem. We have to be more selective in candidates and in turn, we spend more money out of pocket vs wider spread from the grant pool of cash. The original purpose of grants was to spur technology growth and acceleration, now they're just one more notch on the ole' funding universities piece.
We need an overhaul on bloat in state schools at a minimum, then we're good.
The other issue is patent / design ownership arguments, but that's for another day.
Imagine how this team[1] felt when the University of Florida screwed them over not only a $750K preliminary prize (that would have been applied towards funding the next year's research agenda) but a subsequent $2MM prize for taking 1st place in DARPA's Spectrum Collaboration Challenge.
We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact webmaster@alligator.org or call 352-376-4458.
"
Can you provide more detail?
Usually grants/projects etc in research in Europe explicitly budget "overheads" as a separate budget line. The size ove the overhead varies between the different funding instruments, but are usually between 20% and 100% of the direct costs (mostly wages). Universities will have internal regimes that distribute the overheads between the central administration, for covering such things as office space, heating, shared services etc., and the research group in which the research takes place for covering computing, office supplies, local admin, travels, publication consumables etc.
So for example a 2 year project that has 120K allocated in direct cost salary, with a 75% overhead regime in a university with a 25% central overhead take would have an overall budget of 210K of which 120K would end up payed as salary to the researchers, 52.5K taken by central administration, and 37.5K taken by the research group.
While technically you could argue paying researchers more would also net the university more money, asthe overheads are calculated as a % on direct costs, in reality this does not hold as funding for research is very finite and funding agencies would not approve paying higher project grants.
Both universities and large businesses have been successfully lobbying for years for higher overhead % regimes in grant instruments, and since the budget for funding research has not changed in line with these evolutions, defaco shifting the windfalls of research grants from the researcher's wages to the administrations.
Why do you (and others) think that education and academia is somehow special and not the same as, say, acting (or any career) where people regularly earn no money and work bad 2nd jobs just to survive and do something they love or want as a career? In a free market system nobody is telling you to choose that career and a University and (typically) a non-profit doesn't have any particular incentive to not act in their own self interest in order to self perpetuate themselves.
Also I am sure the janitor at the University is paid decently and loves to work there. Reason is there are not as many people lined up for that job and basic economics takes over.
Unfortunately a PhD is sold as a key step for a well-paying and fulfilling career where you can make a difference. As we live in a society where education is fundamental to success and having a good life, a PhD is considered as the last and most exclusive step in a promising career path.
But then the disappointing part is that the system in place is designed to exploit newcomers and place them in an abuse relationship where they are forced to go through the ringer as indentured servants hoping that their ultimate goal is just around the corner.
You may quote simplistic cliches regarding economy and career choices, but the truth of the matter is that the grad school system is designed to be a monopoly where grad students have absolutely no power or influence over their career other than quitting, which ultimately results in total and definite exclusion from the industry, and thus are forced to endure years of indentured servitude. As a grad student you don't have the freedom to switch schools, negotiate your salary, or even be recognized as an employee.
This example demonstrates the absolute lack of power or influence that grad students have: if you disagree with your supervisor then say goodbye to your whole career.
I don't disagree that universities are horribly corrupt, extractive institutions squatting over responsibility for a system that creates an immense amount of value for society (academic research).
But the claim that "a PhD is a necessary step to _specific_ well-paying and fulfilling careers" isn't incompatible with the GP comment's claim that intrinsic motivation makes people shoulder these crappy conditions, just like (eg) actors. It's pretty well-known that PhDs are, on average, _terrible_ career moves from a self-interest and financial perspective. This is common knowledge among literally everybody I've ever met who has any exposure to academia. Hell, Piled Higher and Deeper has been around for more than _20 years_; my university's paper syndicated it.
Just like struggling actors, PhDs put up with low pay and bad conditions to take a shot at something they want to do, with the additional wrinkle that they're (nominally) increasing their human capital in a way that a failing actor isn't. Nothing about your comment rebuts the GP comment's claim that there's nothing unique about academia in this respect.
But you don’t have to work for the university while you do your PhD if you don’t want to. I didn’t - I worked for a company instead. Maybe if the university had paid more I’d have worked for it instead.
PhD in Europe is different than in the US. There's is very little industry-academia support in terms of working while doing your PhD.
From Princeton's policies, particularly the last sentence:
"Graduate study at Princeton, at both the doctoral and, in most cases, the master’s level, requires full-time commitment to study and research on the part of students. The Graduate School’s financial support structure, which extends throughout the length of the student’s program and ordinarily includes summers, is one indication of that requirement. Accordingly, the Graduate School considers employment beyond full fellowship, teaching or research support or its equivalent to be incompatible with full-time graduate study."[0]
It's even worse for international students. Under F1 visa, you can't work more than 20 hours on campus. However, all TA positions are deemed 20 hours of work. So you can't even work at the campus gym if you want.
You're talking about having a side job while doing a PhD. GP is talking about (as I understand it - not to put words in their mouth) having a job that will let you take some of the work you do there and turn it into a PhD. Which, admittedly, is not a very well-known or advertised route, but one that is a much better deal than the 'take internship-level pay for years for the privilege of being exploited or ignored'.
No, I am also talking about the same thing. But you correctly distinguish Europe vs. US. To make progress towards your PhD while working for company in the US, you typically need to be enrolled in a department approved "class" that is basically an internship. To be enrolled in these classes, you need to be a full-time student. Most departments outside of CS and EE don't allow for these courses. Obviously, this is going to be highly nuanced with regard to how each university/department implements it. For example, my department only allows summer internships and requires approval from Advisor and Director of Graduate Studies.
> However, all TA positions are deemed 20 hours of work. So you can't even work at the campus gym if you want.
This is not true at Princeton. Unless they are without funding, PhD students there commonly only work 10 hours per week (nominally) as TAs. The regular stipend is also generous compared to many other programs.
"This means that international students on a full AI or full AR appointment are not eligible for additional on-campus work, even if the Graduate School employment policy would otherwise allow it."
All things are true as long as they benefit the people in power in an institution. Contradictory things are simultaneously true. All justifications for the current system, which works well for the PTB are just obviously the case.
> But you don’t have to work for the university while you do your PhD if you don’t want to.
Your comment is unrealistic and even absurd to the majority of those going through the PhD threadmill.
It's like saying you can dunk a basketball if you'd want to. Sure, show me LeBron James and how easy it is for him, but for those of us who aren't benefitting from abnormal competitive advantages then it's not that realistic.
How many people are lucky enough to be able to not only work a full-time job that pays the bills and is close enough to grad school and also be able to be in a field where literally part-time amateurs can do all the required academic work to write papers, a whole dissertation and defend a decent thesis? And in the end do well enough to aspire to have a career in your field of research?
You have a better chance of dunking on LeBron James.
Yes, you do. I work as an engineer in a research group of a top 10 US graduate research university. I am exposed to many different groups. No group will take you if you are not working for them at ludicrously low pay. You can’t get a PhD if you’re not a part of a group. You either find one that will take you within a year or you leave.
There’s no shortage of folks being sold “key steps” to high paying jobs. Maybe their meter stick is different from yours, but taking that job as the night attendant at the hotel to move up the ranks or getting a salaried position as an assistant manager at Burger King as a path to a regional manager.
Lots of folks trying to sell you a path to success.
It's not like that. If you want to be hired as a staff scientist, you need a PhD. If you have an MS you can't be a staff scientist. If you have a BS you can't be a staff scientist. The most you'd get with those degrees is Research Assistant or Technician, then you will hit a ceiling in your career unless you step away from research and step more into business. This is true in academia, government labs, and the private sector, both in the U.S. and internationally.
It's like if you want to be a General, you are going to have to be a Private first. There is a progression in the sciences.
I think they got their analogy slightly wrong but it makes sense. If you want a career in research, a Bachelor's or Master's degree is like enlisting. You won't progress beyond a certain level. Whereas going to grad school for a PhD is like attending a military academy - which is the only path to becoming a general today. A military academy has the added benefit of a guaranteed officer job upon graduation. No such guarantees exist for a PhD.
> Whereas going to grad school for a PhD is like attending a military academy - which is the only path to becoming a general today.
What proportion of officers in the US Armed Forces graduates from the military academies? A third? I very much doubt graduating from one is required to become a general. Being a great political operator is but it’s not like only military academy graduates can do that.
> If you want to be hired as a staff scientist, you need a PhD. If you have an MS you can't be a staff scientist. If you have a BS you can't be a staff scientist.
That's not entirely true, though as I understand it is becoming more true; there are definitely places that will promote to positions for which the normal route is a post-graduate degree based on a lesser degree plus experience (including publications under the rubric of experience).
Now, university faculty positions, degree standards tend to be ironclad, though.
I face this unfortunate reality. I am simply not rich enough to get a PhD. I am certainly capable and willing. So instead I work as a tech in a research group of something that interests me for wage that is still too low for my capabilities.
> a PhD is sold as a key step for a well-paying and fulfilling career where you can make a difference
Yes, it is sold as such. But the appeal is fading fast.
Academia nowadays is something between a Beauty Pageant and the Hunger Games where people struggle with underpayment for years for maybe one day getting the famed tenured position.
Nobody in graduate school has delusions of expecting a professorship. It is well known that professorships are hard to get and involve a lot of politics. Graduate students don’t have bright prospects and are given a bad financial situation, but do it all the same because that’s the only way to work on something gratifying or important. It seems insane to punish the most talented and passionate for pursuing their calling.
In the Netherlands every PhD will be paid fairly decently. That's how it should be. Nor excuse for rich universities like those in UK & US to exploit those dreaming of s research career.
Maybe the number of anthropology researchers we deem appropriate as a society is actually not that high.
Maybe if these people want to do anthropology research, they can, but at their own expense.
When I was looking into doing grad school, I had no illusions that if I went in without a grant that I'd be doing anything other than scraping by. I have no idea why anyone would expect anything else.
Even worse the UC system (and by extension UCSC) are state run institutions that get a hefty chunk of their operating budget from the state. They also prioritize foreign students over domestic as they pay higher tuition (nee fees as it was illegal in California for UC and CSU schools to charge tuition for a very long time). The state should not be in the business of exploiting cheap labor. Period.
It's fucking absurd how top heavy the state run universities (especially UC) are. I would hope that grad students at other UC campuses would strike in solidarity, but knowing that UC's got them by the short and curlies I doubt that'll happen.
US universities don’t offer half time PhD studentships and then expect full time work. This was common in Germany when I had grad student acquaintances ten years ago. I doubt things have changed.
>Also I am sure the janitor at the University is paid decently and loves to work there. Reason is there are not as many people lined up for that job and basic economics takes over.
Janitor and other unskilled labor jobs at public universities tend to pay crap but are highly sought after because they usually come with the union negotiated benefits package that makes them a better value (than local work in private industry for more money and less benefits) for many people.
Back when I was doing those kinds of jobs I wouldn't even think about wasting my time working for a public university but I was young and needed the money more than I needed healthcare and 40hr weeks.
That's a pretty simplistic view of society. Do we need not need novels or music either? Let's drink nothing but soylent and devote 80 hours per week to our STEM careers
First of all there is no such thing as a free market.
Universities advertise good careers if you go through them, and I am not sure these numbers are as balanced as they could be.
Second even if it were, there is a terrible imbalance of power between students, which are distributed actors with little to no individual power and little information or experience, vs a much bigger actor with more information and a lot of power in such a relationship.
The graduate students had union protection. They chose to disregard the contract the union had negotiated and membership had ratified in 2018 thus throwing away that union protection.
As far as I can tell according to the article, the union did not support the UCSC strike but it has done some things that support the wildcat strikers, including filing an unfair labor practices suit against the university and openly commenting on the mistreatment of the strikers.
This is not actually where overhead really goes to. A lot of overhead simply pays for departments that don't bring in money (eg humanities, some social sciences) and I think that's fine too. But let's not say that an experimental lab with ~10 people and ~2000sqft that pays >$1mm a year in overhead spends it on "office space, internet, electricity, utilities..." because that is disingenuous (btw those numbers reflect the reality of the lab i got my phd in). Most overhead comes from expensive experimental labs (hard science + engineering + medicine).
Expected that there is some overhead to keep lights on, sure. But should lab A who brought in a 1 million dollar grant pay 500k in overhead for internet and electricity while lab B in the next bay in the same room brought in a 50k grant and only needs to pay 25k? Overhead is baked into salary budgeting too, you might budget 60k for your technician in your grant, knowing they'd receive 40k, the 20k allegedly covering the employees various benefits (which said employee will find are withheld from their 40k paychecks anyway).
Later when I was a researcher I found out that the Provost takes 55% of grant money "for overhead like printer paper". If there is money involved, there are plenty of plenty of people willing to "take their cut" before it ever gets to the researcher or student.
If you can't afford to pay grad students enough to keep body and soul together, don't open the grad student slots.