4 ms·

> It seems pretty obvious to me, lots of people want to be professors and there are only a limited amount of spots. Being a full professor is highly, highly pre

by ardy42 8y ago

> It seems pretty obvious to me, lots of people want to be professors and there are only a limited amount of spots. Being a full professor is highly, highly prestigious so many people are willing to sacrifice quite a lot to attain that position. That drives pay down and makes it very competitive to get some of the few spots available. The real problem is that the people who should know better, the people who run Ph.D programs for disciplines whose only career prospects are in academia, decided to graduate more Ph.D's that they were willing to hire. Those guys control both supply and demand, and are perfectly capable of balancing them.

opportune 8y ago
I don't really think it's on the onus of the individual lab to ensure there are enough jobs for all their PhD students within the same lab. It's kind of both a tragedy of the commons (individual labs/departments don't want to hire more PhDs and less full time researchers/professors because it reduces output/$) and externality (research groups have no responsibility to ensure it's actually a good career move for their students to get PhDs) issue. That's why I think part of the solution needs to come from the top down to balance things out. Can't happen at the scope of the individual university
- ardy42 8y ago
  > I don't really think it's on the onus of the individual lab to ensure there are enough jobs for all their PhD students within the same lab. I didn't mean the department should hire its own students, just that it shouldn't graduate a higher number than it's willing to hire. So if they have 5 open positions, they should hire 5 from the market, but then only train and graduate 5 or so students (who can find jobs elsewhere) to maintain balance.
  - mamon 8y ago
    The problem is: new PhDs are made in just few years, but then they need a job for a lifetime. So, after you've graduated those 5 or so students you're willing to hire, are you gonna close your PhD program for the next 10 years? What about people that want to study out of the genuine interest in the field, but can't, because there are no universities taking students? What if one of them is a new Einstein, that would revolutionize the whole domain?

by ardy42 8y ago

opportune 8y ago

I don't really think it's on the onus of the individual lab to ensure there are enough jobs for all their PhD students within the same lab. It's kind of both a tragedy of the commons (individual labs/departments don't want to hire more PhDs and less full time researchers/professors because it reduces output/$) and externality (research groups have no responsibility to ensure it's actually a good career move for their students to get PhDs) issue. That's why I think part of the solution needs to come from the top down to balance things out. Can't happen at the scope of the individual university

ardy42 8y ago
> I don't really think it's on the onus of the individual lab to ensure there are enough jobs for all their PhD students within the same lab. I didn't mean the department should hire its own students, just that it shouldn't graduate a higher number than it's willing to hire. So if they have 5 open positions, they should hire 5 from the market, but then only train and graduate 5 or so students (who can find jobs elsewhere) to maintain balance.
- mamon 8y ago
  The problem is: new PhDs are made in just few years, but then they need a job for a lifetime. So, after you've graduated those 5 or so students you're willing to hire, are you gonna close your PhD program for the next 10 years? What about people that want to study out of the genuine interest in the field, but can't, because there are no universities taking students? What if one of them is a new Einstein, that would revolutionize the whole domain?