4 ms·

One reason universities overproduce is because graduate students provide a cheap supply of labor. Also, much funding is contingent upon research and this means

One reason universities overproduce is because graduate students provide a cheap supply of labor. Also, much funding is contingent upon research and this means, for the most part, a research department which means graduate students. The reason we need universities to be better funded, though, is moral. Fewer than 50% of all people who start a 4 year degree every complete it. These people end up with a great deal of debt and it's debt that can't be forgiven. In an effort to cut costs universities are increasingly using adjunct labor. I believe that most people who teach in higher education are not tenured.

yummyfajitas 17y ago
The reason we need universities to be better funded, though, is moral. Fewer than 50% of all people who start a 4 year degree every complete it. I'm not sure I see the moral case for subsidizing people who try college but fail to complete it. Could you explain? In an effort to cut costs universities are increasingly using adjunct labor. I believe that most people who teach in higher education are not tenured. Why is this bad? Lower cost labor means that the taxpayers and students get more bang for their buck.
- yequalsx 17y ago
  Because it means that we end up producing more Ph.D's than can be supported by the job market. It leads to a glut of Ph.D's. The lower cost does not mean that taxpayers get more bang for their buck. The low cost has bad consequences. Right now, in areas like physics, mathematics, etc. it's simply not worth it to get an advanced degree. Also, increasing the supply of graduate students leads to a denigration of standards. There are very bad long term consequences when a society is such that getting an advanced degree is not economically worthwhile. It typically takes 7 years to get a Ph.D. in mathematics. Pay is low during this time and usually have no benefits. It takes another 4 - 7 years to get a tenure track position and getting such a position is hard. A person is economically better off doing something else. It is immoral to make people an indentured servant. This is the current setup we have in our university system. This is particularly true for poor people. Our greatest generation was great because they largely had free higher education. We took a generation of people and paid for them to get degrees if they could get into school and finish. This was of great benefit to society. We gone from this model to the current model where a person pays for the chance to get a piece of paper in the hopes of getting a nicer paying job. For many, they end up being slaves to their debt and don't end with the nicer paying job. It's an immoral system.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    Because it means that we end up producing more Ph.D's than can be supported by the job market. No, we have more Ph.D's than can be supported in the academic job market. It's not the same thing. I'm a math PhD. I've got 3 job offers in the pipeline, and I haven't even started actively looking [1]. My experience: people assume I'm smart given a PhD, but perhaps overly theoretical. A coding test lets me refute the second guess. A math PhD does help you find non-academic jobs. Yes, a PhD is hard to get, though if it takes 7 years you are just lazy (and you do get benefits). Tenure, aka permanent lifetime employment with almost 100% flexibility in your work life is hard to get. Uh, yeah, jobs paying $500k/year are also hard to get. In general, the better a job is (in terms of job security, work conditions or pay), the harder it is to get. No one is an indentured servant, and no one is stuck in PTL hell. A person stays in PTL hell because every semester, they choose to apply for more PTL positions rather than applying for jobs as coders or quants. We gone from this model to the current model where a person pays for the chance to get a piece of paper in the hopes of getting a nicer paying job. The piece of paper doesn't get the job because we give out too many pieces of paper. We give out too many pieces of paper because when you subsidize something, you get more of it. [1] Passively looking: Notice someone mention they are hiring on HN, send an email. Visit stackoverflow once, notice their job board, send out a resume or two.
    - yequalsx 17y ago
      Your information is wrong. You clearly don't know statistics on the average and median time it takes to get a Ph.D. in mathematics in the United States. Furthermore you clearly do not understand the American university system and the economic forces that bely it. I suppose you aren't even aware that community colleges do around 1/3[1] of the higher education teaching in the United States. Many graduate programs do not provide any benefits for their students. Purdue provided no benefits for it's teaching assistants in mathematics as of December of 1999. It is poor thinking to take your experience and assume it is normative. [1]Edited for accuracy. My original statement said 1/2 which is too much.
      - yummyfajitas 17y ago

yummyfajitas 17y ago

The reason we need universities to be better funded, though, is moral. Fewer than 50% of all people who start a 4 year degree every complete it. I'm not sure I see the moral case for subsidizing people who try college but fail to complete it. Could you explain? In an effort to cut costs universities are increasingly using adjunct labor. I believe that most people who teach in higher education are not tenured. Why is this bad? Lower cost labor means that the taxpayers and students get more bang for their buck.

yequalsx 17y ago
Because it means that we end up producing more Ph.D's than can be supported by the job market. It leads to a glut of Ph.D's. The lower cost does not mean that taxpayers get more bang for their buck. The low cost has bad consequences. Right now, in areas like physics, mathematics, etc. it's simply not worth it to get an advanced degree. Also, increasing the supply of graduate students leads to a denigration of standards. There are very bad long term consequences when a society is such that getting an advanced degree is not economically worthwhile. It typically takes 7 years to get a Ph.D. in mathematics. Pay is low during this time and usually have no benefits. It takes another 4 - 7 years to get a tenure track position and getting such a position is hard. A person is economically better off doing something else. It is immoral to make people an indentured servant. This is the current setup we have in our university system. This is particularly true for poor people. Our greatest generation was great because they largely had free higher education. We took a generation of people and paid for them to get degrees if they could get into school and finish. This was of great benefit to society. We gone from this model to the current model where a person pays for the chance to get a piece of paper in the hopes of getting a nicer paying job. For many, they end up being slaves to their debt and don't end with the nicer paying job. It's an immoral system.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  Because it means that we end up producing more Ph.D's than can be supported by the job market. No, we have more Ph.D's than can be supported in the academic job market. It's not the same thing. I'm a math PhD. I've got 3 job offers in the pipeline, and I haven't even started actively looking [1]. My experience: people assume I'm smart given a PhD, but perhaps overly theoretical. A coding test lets me refute the second guess. A math PhD does help you find non-academic jobs. Yes, a PhD is hard to get, though if it takes 7 years you are just lazy (and you do get benefits). Tenure, aka permanent lifetime employment with almost 100% flexibility in your work life is hard to get. Uh, yeah, jobs paying $500k/year are also hard to get. In general, the better a job is (in terms of job security, work conditions or pay), the harder it is to get. No one is an indentured servant, and no one is stuck in PTL hell. A person stays in PTL hell because every semester, they choose to apply for more PTL positions rather than applying for jobs as coders or quants. We gone from this model to the current model where a person pays for the chance to get a piece of paper in the hopes of getting a nicer paying job. The piece of paper doesn't get the job because we give out too many pieces of paper. We give out too many pieces of paper because when you subsidize something, you get more of it. [1] Passively looking: Notice someone mention they are hiring on HN, send an email. Visit stackoverflow once, notice their job board, send out a resume or two.
  - yequalsx 17y ago
    Your information is wrong. You clearly don't know statistics on the average and median time it takes to get a Ph.D. in mathematics in the United States. Furthermore you clearly do not understand the American university system and the economic forces that bely it. I suppose you aren't even aware that community colleges do around 1/3[1] of the higher education teaching in the United States. Many graduate programs do not provide any benefits for their students. Purdue provided no benefits for it's teaching assistants in mathematics as of December of 1999. It is poor thinking to take your experience and assume it is normative. [1]Edited for accuracy. My original statement said 1/2 which is too much.
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago