8 ms·

When I moved from Canada to the US for my post doc, it blew my mind to hear the level of debt my American colleagues were mired in - from $70-$110K, early 2010

• changoplatanero 4y ago
  Rather than the students, I’m rooting for the tax payer in this one. California should determine grad student pay at state schools based on what level of funding is required to meet its educational mission, attract good students, and balance against other state priorities.
  • ummonk 4y ago
    More importantly, I'm with the undergrads. Their tuitions shouldn't go up to pay for a bunch of whiny PhDs who could have worked in industry instead.
    • lapcat 4y ago
      PhD students provide a lot of the teaching labor at universities as lecturers and teaching assistants. What do you think would happen if they were gone? This is precisely why striking is effective, because the universities need them.
      • cudgy 4y ago
        Universities would have to hire and pay actual professors instead of milking their students?
        • lapcat 4y ago
          Yes, and actual professors are vastly more expensive than grad students, so how is that going to help with undergraduate costs?
          • cudgy 4y ago
            Are they really that much more expensive? Also, wouldn’t that provide more actual jobs for PHd’s instead of competing for a scant number of jobs? Furthermore, I do not believe that the costs of undergraduate education are driven by professor salaries; I suspect there are other drivers like administrative overhead and overbuilt facilities.
            • lapcat 4y ago
              > Are they really that much more expensive? Yes. From the article: "If the deal is approved by union members, graduate students would receive a minimum stipend of $34,000 by October 2024—a raise of $13,000 for some students". So as I said, professors are vastly more expensive. > Also, wouldn’t that provide more actual jobs for PHd’s instead of competing for a scant number of jobs? Yes. But it wouldn't do anything to save money on undergraduate education. > Furthermore, I do not believe that the costs of undergraduate education are driven by professor salaries; I suspect there are other drivers like administrative overhead and overbuilt facilities. Then what's the objection to higher stipends for PhD students?
              • cudgy 4y ago
                Why pay higher stipends if the students are no longer performing professorial duties? It may be the case that they are still warranted, but fewer duties means more learning and opportunities to earn money part-time in coops or private companies.
            • tosc 4y ago
              > I suspect there are other drivers like administrative overhead and overbuilt facilities. Right, and this is why they are trying to underpay teaching staff. There is no problem with “whiny” PhDs. The problem is with overpaid self-dealing administrators betraying the purpose of the institution.
        • jleyank 4y ago
          Actual professors, no. Adjuncts. They don’t need ta’s for anything other than lab safety for the major-specific courses. It’s the first two years with the gobs and gobs of students.
          • ablatt89 4y ago
            It's not just lab work, I TA'd for physics and students would come to TA discussion sessions to get a more detailed lesson on the material covered that week since often the professor is just repeating the contents of a textbook. Also, many TAs would spend many additional hours in tutoring and office hours, giving individualized attention to students, and this workload adds up. TAs also grade quizzes, final exams, create questions for problems, etc... The professor often does very little work and leaves it to the TA, at least in my experience as a TA for physics courses. It's a lot more than just maintaining a lab.
          • thatfrenchguy 4y ago
            Can’t get adjuncts for the price you pay phd students in California though.
          • mcguire 4y ago
            That's a different group in the strike. (https://www.science.org/content/article/postdoc-union-reaches-tentative-agreement-university-california https://www.science.org/content/article/postdoc-union-reache... discusses "postdocs and academic researchers", which isn't faculty, but I believe included adjuncts.)
          • tomrod 4y ago
            They outsource grading from professors to TAs. Adjuncts do this too where they can.
      • changoplatanero 4y ago
        Universities have many needs besides TAs. the key to figuring out what a fair price for satisfying those needs is to have a market where supply can match demand. The same process can be used to set a fair price for grad student TA labor.
        • jonnycomputer 4y ago
          And they raised demand by constricting supply. Nice.
        • mcguire 4y ago
          "The same process can be used to set a fair price for grad student TA labor." That is exactly what the union is negotiating.
      • Vaslo 4y ago
        [flagged]
        • mjhay 4y ago
          That's a dumb thing to say, because it sounds like striking worked in this situation. By this same all-caps libertarian logic, any strikes would be ineffective because the workers need "The FACTORY" or whatever. The "university" is a huge collection of thousands of people, numerous competing groups, etc. The grad students can shut the whole thing down if they strike, because they are integral towards research and undergrad education happening. There's nothing quite like the unfounded confidence that ignorance brings.
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]
      • ummonk 4y ago
        They won't go, and if they do senior undergrads and masters students will do the teaching instead.
        • lapcat 4y ago
          > masters students will do the teaching instead It's a graduate student union. Both Masters and PhD students are in the same union. > senior undergrads 1) They're not qualified. 2) Why would they even want to? It's time consuming and low paying. In fact, it would be even lower paying without a union, so senior undergrads would need to form one. Also keep in mind that PhD students are generally intending to go into teaching in the future, whereas undergrads generally aren't.
          • ummonk 4y ago
            Masters students often don't receive a stipend.
            • mcguire 4y ago
              If they're working in a teaching or research position, they do get paid. If they don't work for the university, these union negotiations don't affect them.
              • ummonk 4y ago
                And there are plenty that aren't, who should be hired to union bust and keep costs low.
                • lapcat 4y ago
                  Have you considered that college students tend to be supportive of unions and wouldn't want to bust one?
    • tosc 4y ago
      Who should do the teaching instead?
      • ummonk 4y ago
        Senior undergrads and masters degree students, as well as PhDs who are willing to work for the current market rate.
    • time_to_smile 4y ago
      Tuition increases are by far going towards administrative faculty rather than academic faculty. Most academic faculty, especially those doing research, are getting their own funding and not burdening the tax payer in the slightest. Research is also incredibly important, especially at state schools, so that undergraduate students have more opportunity to participate in and learn from active research. In my experience having worked at both prestigious private and low ranking state schools, state school doing research are much more willing to have undergrads involved in research. I've seen plenty of young students coming from low income, rural homes go on to become more successful than they ever imagined because they had access to research facilities and teams. edit: it's worth noting as another commenter has that most of the teaching in universities is done by highly underpaid grad students.
      • passwordoops 4y ago
        Just made me wish this place supported the "100" emoji
    • idontpost 4y ago
      [dead]
    • jleyank 4y ago
      Replying to lapcat’s comment (which wasn’t possible), I suspect the schools would just look to adjuncts or senior u-grad students to be the necessary ta’s. It’s not like a 1st or 2nd year PhD student is particularly good or interested in ta’ing - they might be taking courses and are certainly fulfilling program entry requirements. Any research out of these people is gravy. Interesting concept. Paying students to attend. I survived on this support in ancient times as somebody has to handle all those pre med/vet/dental students. But it was lean and I still can’t enjoy Mac and cheese. It certainly wasn’t a job or career. Edit: reply again to deeper in the thread: we used the early students for things like 1-2 year lab as they were way better at lab than the students. Nobody handled a recitation unless they were 3rd year or more, had neutral+ evaluations and their boss lacked RA funding. Those with funded profs didn’t waste time ta’ing as they did work and wrote paper drafts. Those with new or unfunded profs did the ta gig and they also did full time work and writing drafts. 10+ extra hours a week ta.
      • lapcat 4y ago
        > I suspect the schools would just look to adjuncts Adjuncts are more expensive than PhD students. That's not going to help at all with undergraduate costs. > or senior u-grad students to be the necessary ta’s. It’s not like a 1st or 2nd year PhD student is particularly good or interested in ta’ing - they might be taking courses and are certainly fulfilling program entry requirements. If 1st or 2nd year PhD students are not particularly good, then wouldn't senior undergraduate students be even worse? Anyway, in my experience 1st or 2nd year PhD students didn't usually TA. It was the longer tenured students who were the TAs.
      • avisser 4y ago
        You can get adjuncts and undergrads to be replacement TAs, but from my 2nd-hand experience via my wife (PhD in psychology) it would be research where things fall apart. The tenured professors rely heavily on PhD students to run grant-funded research and write papers for the lab. The general public thinks first and foremost about education, but for lots of academics, teaching is a necessary evil and research is where the prestige (and money) is.
        • 4y ago
  • uluyol 4y ago
    PhD students really don't get paid much. Tuition is waived if you're a TA, and you get a small stipend + good benefits. If you're an RA, you bring money into the university (through being the engine that pulls in grant money and having your tuition paid). Most students I know were TA for one or two semesters and RA for the remainder of their 6 years. As far as I can tell, they are all a financial gain, not drain, for the university. That will likely depend on the department though. I don't know about Masters students.
    • jleyank 4y ago
      No, if you’re an RA your prof brings in the money. Might also be the fund draw for post docs but I can imagine some with their own funding (awards or governmental). Based on my experience I would think PhD candidates are smart technicians for much of their residency.
      • twelve40 4y ago
        You both bring the money, ideally. I co-authored grants with my professor and was expected to publish to make name for our work and fulfill the proposal's publishing requirements. Sure, the professor is infinitely better than me at this stuff, but there was a whole team, including grad students, who labored to get those grants, at least when I was there.
        • jleyank 4y ago
          I did all that also, but $randomgradstudent didn’t get the grant. Like $majorprof didn’t do the lab work, work up the numbers, …. They merely edited, which was important, and had to mojo to get published.
        • mcguire 4y ago
          That's part of your training.
      • RHSeeger 4y ago
        That feels like saying it's a restaurant owner that brings in money, not the staff. If the professor couldn't do all the work on their own, then it's the team (which includes the RAs) that's bringing in the money. Sure, the professor is the "name" behind the work, but there's a lot people involved.
  • vt85 4y ago
    [dead]
  • okaram 4y ago
    If your students are striking, chances are you won't attract good students, and are not balancing priorities well.
• chriskanan 4y ago
  PhD students get stipends and tuition covered most of the time. They were striking for greater stipends and benefits.
• photochemsyn 4y ago
  Realistically, that means cutting administrative overhead. It's fairly ridiculous that the top UC administrators are getting higher salaries than the state's governor is. There's also a lot of contracting deals for services that could use some scrutiny in the UC system. This trend has been ongoing for years (2015): > "Weeks after an announced increase in state funding staved off a tuition hike, the Board of Regents riled spending critics this summer by handing 3% raises to some of UC’s highest-paid employees. The number of those making at least $500,000 annually grew by 14% in the last year, to 445, and the system’s administrative ranks have swelled by 60% over the last decade — far outpacing tenure-track faculty." https://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-uc-spending-20151011-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-uc-spending-20...
  • theGnuMe 4y ago
    The top pay goes to medical doctors, the football/basketball coaches and some admins. This money isn't coming necessarily directly from tuition costs. I agree though it is too expensive. Universities are always building new buildings.
    • HDThoreaun 4y ago
      New buildings are funded by donors who might not have donated without the building.
      • domoritz 4y ago
        And universities need buildings.
        • DrThunder 4y ago
          [dead]
        • downrightmike 4y ago
          If they don't have building by now, and they already have a billion dollar endowment, they can spend what they have or use the resources wisely.
• kyrra 4y ago
  The issue is back in 2009, the US government started backing student loans, so they were guaranteed loans. There was also no loan limit on these. This is allowed universities to charge more and more money, in the fed was happy to back these loans. This is led to bloat within universities. See: https://stanfordreview.org/stanfords-administrative-bloat-is-out-of-control/ https://stanfordreview.org/stanfords-administrative-bloat-is...
  • kneebonian 4y ago
    This is the correct answser if the a ton of money suddenly becomes available for something the price of that thing will increase because the amount of the thing hasn't changed. You see this most especially in colleges because we've established a price floor by promising every student 5k and then promising them more loans on top of that. Then we make the loans non-dischargable and there is no real reason for a university to every place any limit on what they charge for tuition since the customer who is buying the product is not the customer paying for the product.
  • listenallyall 4y ago
    Your timeline is incorrect. Student loans were federally guaranteed for decades up until 2010.
  • downrightmike 4y ago
    1991 MIT won a supreme court case that allowed them to raise tuition as much as they wanted as long as they gave out cost breaks to students that would not be able to pay that much, this qualified MIT to be taxed as a charity and pay nothing in taxes. Other schools followed and jacked up tuition. They still are. It is all a grift. Even in the 90's the freshman class at MIT paid more than enough to fund all the teaching needs of all the other classes along with their own. Realistically, if student loan forgiveness happens, it needs to be pulled from the college endowments that the tuition stuffed into.
    • Wyoming23 4y ago
      This system also obliterates the middle class and penalizes saving money while rewarding irresponsible behavior. It essentially makes the system be "tell us how much money you have, and that's what the price is for you". If you spend 18 years saving money for your kid's college, or they work and save during high school, the university just takes all that money. If you spend it all instead, you'll get more "financial aid" to lower the price. Which, if you're a socialist school administrator is great news. No one keeps any money, everyone leaves school equally poor and dependent on the state, regardless of their previous labor or financial responsibility.
• jancsika 4y ago
  I'm all for reigning in student debt, but how about solving fast homomorphic encryption first? Look I'm for affordable tuition, but is frankly going to be a lot[1] easier with the jobs that homomorphic is gonna bring to cloud. 1: "a lot" spoken suddenly guttural, like Trump does
  • Thorrez 4y ago
    I don't understand how this is related. We can put more effort into finding fast homomorphic encryption regardless of student debt.
• Eumenes 4y ago
  Taking on student loan debt is a choice, we need better financial literacy in this country. This is bigger than just student loan debt - look at how Americans rack up credit cards, car loans, becoming house poor with massive mortgages. Most of my friends growing up came from low or low-middle class incoming earning households. They ALL went to community colleges, then transferred to state colleges, saving tons of money in the process. The only people I know IRL who have massive student loan debt were the upper middle class kids from well off families. I think has to do more with how you're raised/your mindset about budgeting/money. Yes, colleges need to cut admin bloat too ... but good luck on that happening.
• s3000 4y ago
  >graduate students would receive a minimum stipend of $34,000 by October 2024—a raise of $13,000 How do those numbers add up? If a degree costs $100K and a graduate student costs $25K per year, then one person can pay a personally tutoring graduate student for four years to acquire all knowledge. If 10 students pool their money, education costs only $10K. There needs to be some space to meet and there needs to be a budget for professors but another $10K should cover that easily. What's the obstacle that prevents students and graduate students and even professors from going back to the beginnings? They can organize their own university where the administration works for them. There is no need to strike if the university has to match the offer of a competent competitor. >Universities were generally structured along three types, depending on who paid the teachers. The first type was in Bologna, where students hired and paid for the teachers. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_university#Characteristics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_university#Characteri...
  • solveit 4y ago
    See also SMBC making this point a few years ago: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/college-level-mathematics https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/college-level-mathematics The problem is that being privately tutored by UC Berkeley faculty is worth much less than a UC Berkeley degree[1], even though you might learn a lot more. And starting a new university from scratch is apparently difficult, although I share your confusion on exactly which part is so difficult, and whether the difficulty could be circumvented by getting a billion or so in private donations, or if it's a case of "no matter how much money you pump into Brown, it'll never become Harvard. Only Harvard can become Harvard". [1]: Unless you go and make yourself famous for it, which in this case might be quite doable[2]. But the general point that just learning the material without an official piece of paper recognized by the system is often worth significantly less than having the piece of paper. [2]: And someone should do it and make headlines.
  • mcguire 4y ago
    3 semester hours / class, 15 semester hours per semester, 8 semesters (4 years) works out to about 40 different instructors over 4 years. Don't get me wrong, I really liked Bruce Porter, but I don't think he could replace Bob Mugerauer teaching Contemporary Moral Problems.
• DrThunder 4y ago
  [dead]