> If typical science PhD programs reduced their admittance by a factor of 3-10, you would still have a highly competitive field - but one where students, and in

> If typical science PhD programs reduced their admittance by a factor of 3-10, you would still have a highly competitive field - but one where students, and in turn faculty have a career path should they produce results. Then science would have a serious problem, because the only way to get things done is to abuse this cheap labour: it is much easier to get funding for a handful of PhD students or post-docs than for the equivalent in permanent staff. Large research universities would have a very hard time, and the way things work with funding agencies would have to change fundamentally. I am not saying it would be bad, far from it. But in the current system, it’s easier for everybody to go along, so changing things will be hard. It does not depend on individual behaviours. OTOH, I think that overall it is good to have PhDs going out and do stuff in unrelated fields. A PhD is still a wonderful way of broadening your horizons. We’d be better having more PhD politicians, for example, instead of lawyers. You can do a lot of things after a doctorate. I think the post-doc trap is much more insidious.