> 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. I don't know about that. A 3-10x reduction would mean grad classes of 1-2 students. In the grad classes I took, there was never "dead weight," everybody contributed in study sessions. Even those students who would go on to get tenure were learning from those who wouldn't. I'm not sure professors would even be motivated to teach such small courses. The price of graduate tuition would also go up by that 3-10x factor, so PhDs would be exclusively for the rich. Several of my coworkers have PhDs, as do I. We all bring special skills, and working together, we combine those skills to great effect. None of us are faculty. That's not the only thing you can do with a PhD. Should ta/ra/sessional positions pay a living wage? Absolutely. But don't cut the rest of us out because you don't see our value.