3 ms·
When given the opportunity, few people will vote against something that gives them more money. But whether their self-interest is in the broader interest is r
by supernova87a 3y ago
When given the opportunity, few people will vote against something that gives them more money. But whether their self-interest is in the broader interest is rarely solved for by such a mechanism.
What will happen is that given a finite pot of money, fewer grad students will be taken on by the university's PhD programs, so that the ones who voted for this can get paid more.
I'm not sure that's the right choice.
- colechristensen 3y agoIt’s the right choice. We need academia to be a competitive choice, to attract top talent, to not just be those with enough resources or enough passion to put up with awful pay and working conditions.
- supernova87a 3y agoIf high quality grad students are lining up to apply to Stanford at non unionized salary rates, and you can also give more people the educational opportunity with slots than if you had to distribute higher salaries to fewer people, why would I choose the 2nd option?
- hitekker 3y agoYou've been spamming comments across threads on this issue. Why does it rankle you?
- pkoird 3y agoMaybe stop paying the bloated management so much and put money where mouth is.
- senel 3y agoIn the program where I did my Master’s, there was a professor who had a salary of 300K and didn’t seem to do anything exceptional compared to his peers. PhD students told me he had been the president of some unit at the university and when he stepped down, he didn’t let go of the money. This silly financial idiocy easily costs 3-4 grad student more to the university every year.
- supernova87a 3y agoI agree with that. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.