Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Age or Ability Specific Forums College It's the Student, Not the College

It would be great if it worked that way, however the economy is changing. It is unclear if this statement is based on research, statistics, anecdotes, or personal opinion... and what particular areas of STEM graduate studies you are referring to. Might you clarify?

At my physics PhD program in the 1990s, graduate students who did not have research assistantships were given teaching assistantships. The stipends were enough for a single person to live on. They were not charged tuition and were not taking on more debt. This was the norm, and I believe it still is in the natural sciences. See for example MIT Department of Physics Graduate Funding Information. I think too many people go to graduate school as it is, and I would even more strongly discourage anyone from going to graduate school if they needed to borrow to do so.

It is still the norm across most STEM disciplines, as far as I'm aware.

Yes-- graduate school SHOULD be "free" to those going. IMO.

If "too many" are going to grad school, does this mean that there may be more grad students that what the institution can place as research assistants and teaching assistants? Or what is "too many"... how does one determine the threshold?

When something is "free" at point of service, that means the costs are being transferred to other individuals. Who should pay for these students to attain higher degrees and the potentially higher salaries they may expect to earn? Who should sacrifice so they may benefit?

"Too many" does indeed mean that there are more students than can be placed in jobs in the field. The problem is worst in the humanities, but affects the sciences as well.

Humanities: article in Slate

STEM: The Atlantic

And on and on. Just google something along the lines of "phd can't get job."

Ah-duh. They're supposed to go on and make discoveries that will ultimately improve the lives of others. Research studentships are supposed to be investments in the future of the society, but selfish Americans have trouble seeing past the idea that they're getting a "free" Ph.D. (note: they're actually working their little backsides off).

They work for peanuts, which is why the universities love them and why there are too many of them.

Careful there, you're opening a new can of worms that has been opened previously on these forums and was hotly debated (smirk) There is not right answer to your question, only opinion.

One side says, "We need to invest in the future by investing in our best and brightest"


The other side says, "Why do I want to invest in our best and brightest? Our best and brightest need to invest in themselves as they'll be the ones who reap the financial reward and can afford to pay it back."

Neither thought pattern is "wrong".....both have logical thought patterns.

Is there a statistic on how many do this?

Are the discoveries believed to be great enough to offset the debt that the future society will inherit, in part to have funded these discoveries? Will gifted kids of the future, who must pay down the national debt, feel that decision makers of today were acting in their best interests? Will they experience a beautiful deleveraging? International news about the Greek debt crisis and austerity measures may hint at the future of the US, when US debt US debt comes due and needs to be repaid. The work of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) may also be of interest.

There are many professions which benefit the future of society, with dedicated individuals working long hours, but not receiving a "free" Ph.D.

What might be the predominant reasons that a large number of individuals are choosing this path?

Yes, this seems to disagree with statistics which state that there is low (or virtually no) unemployment for individuals with advanced degrees. Possibly some of the statistics are historical, and do not reflect current trends.