3 ms·
Because funded grad students are paid way, way below what they could get in a "real job" because it's an arrangement that benefits all: the grad student get the
by scott_s 9y ago
Because funded grad students are paid way, way below what they could get in a "real job" because it's an arrangement that benefits all: the grad student get the education and the degree, and the schools get cheap labor. Undergrads are typically not full-time employees of the school they attend. Funded grad students are. And for PhD students that are no longer taking classes, they are typically a net-positive in terms of cost.
For example, in my last two years of PhD, I was both a teaching assistant and an instructor. When grading finals weeks before graduating, one of the instructors I was a TA for joked that he's surprised they were letting me graduate because I was far too useful.
- tabeth 9y agoThe fact that they're paid below a "real job" is irrelevant. Should people working part time while doing their undergrad degree to pay if off also get the same benefit? Like TAs they too are getting paid less than what they would with a "real job", working full time. Not to mention getting a graduate degree is a relative privilege to begin with. Either everyone should get the benefit, or they should take loans out and not be required to work like everyone else. Anything else is just hypocrisy.
- scott_s 9y agoThe "real job" point is that people willingly are paid very little because of the arrangement. Undergrads are typically not full-time employees of the university, so it doesn't make sense for them to get the waiver. But, if an undergrad had a full scholarship from a university, I would also not want that taxed as income. It's this arrangement that enables more people to become grad students, not less. As the NYT opinion piece points out, these new rules will make it that only people who are independently wealthy, or can depend on support from wealthier family members, will be able to afford going to grad school.
- tabeth 9y ago> As the NYT opinion piece points out, these new rules will make it that only people who are independently wealthy, or can depend on support from wealthier family members, will be able to afford going to grad school. Again, the NYT article is fallacious. Such a student could take out loans, just like undergraduate students. It's nonsensical. There's no reason for admission and payment to be coupled. Also, the amount being paid is irrelevant. A university could pay graduate students $33k/yr + whatever it costs to attend their institution. The only reason they don't do this is because they'd be taxed. This arrangement is beneficial to the university. Not to mention the student would be taxed more heavily as well.
- scott_s 9y ago> A university could pay graduate students $33k/yr + whatever it costs to attend their institution. The only reason they don't do this is because they'd be taxed. The reason they don't do it is because for a large population of the grad students, it doesn't cost the university that much for that student to be at their school. Loans are an extra burden, and grad school is an unbounded process. I spent 7.5 years in grad school. In practice, far, far fewer people will do it, and it will tend to be people who are already much better off financially. This will hinder class and economic upward mobility.
- tabeth 9y agoI'm really not understanding you. 1. Everything you said applies to undergraduate students. 2. Undergraduate students are more in need than graduate students, not to mention that graduate students are better off financially. So, yeah.