Hacker News Reader

Comment by gist | Hacker News Reader

Why do you (and others) think that education and academia is somehow special and not the same as, say, acting (or any career) where people regularly earn no money and work bad 2nd jobs just to survive and do something they love or want as a career? In a free market system nobody is telling you to choose that career and a University and (typically) a non-profit doesn't have any particular incentive to not act in their own self interest in order to self perpetuate themselves.

Also I am sure the janitor at the University is paid decently and loves to work there. Reason is there are not as many people lined up for that job and basic economics takes over.

View on HN

Unfortunately a PhD is sold as a key step for a well-paying and fulfilling career where you can make a difference. As we live in a society where education is fundamental to success and having a good life, a PhD is considered as the last and most exclusive step in a promising career path.

But then the disappointing part is that the system in place is designed to exploit newcomers and place them in an abuse relationship where they are forced to go through the ringer as indentured servants hoping that their ultimate goal is just around the corner.

You may quote simplistic cliches regarding economy and career choices, but the truth of the matter is that the grad school system is designed to be a monopoly where grad students have absolutely no power or influence over their career other than quitting, which ultimately results in total and definite exclusion from the industry, and thus are forced to endure years of indentured servitude. As a grad student you don't have the freedom to switch schools, negotiate your salary, or even be recognized as an employee.

This example demonstrates the absolute lack of power or influence that grad students have: if you disagree with your supervisor then say goodbye to your whole career.

But you don’t have to work for the university while you do your PhD if you don’t want to. I didn’t - I worked for a company instead. Maybe if the university had paid more I’d have worked for it instead.

> But you don’t have to work for the university while you do your PhD if you don’t want to.

Your comment is unrealistic and even absurd to the majority of those going through the PhD threadmill.

It's like saying you can dunk a basketball if you'd want to. Sure, show me LeBron James and how easy it is for him, but for those of us who aren't benefitting from abnormal competitive advantages then it's not that realistic.

How many people are lucky enough to be able to not only work a full-time job that pays the bills and is close enough to grad school and also be able to be in a field where literally part-time amateurs can do all the required academic work to write papers, a whole dissertation and defend a decent thesis? And in the end do well enough to aspire to have a career in your field of research?

You have a better chance of dunking on LeBron James.

"Let them eat cake."

Most schools will kick you out of the program if you take on a job during your PhD.

Why are they happy with you working for them but not for someone else?

PhD in Europe is different than in the US. There's is very little industry-academia support in terms of working while doing your PhD.

From Princeton's policies, particularly the last sentence:

"Graduate study at Princeton, at both the doctoral and, in most cases, the master’s level, requires full-time commitment to study and research on the part of students. The Graduate School’s financial support structure, which extends throughout the length of the student’s program and ordinarily includes summers, is one indication of that requirement. Accordingly, the Graduate School considers employment beyond full fellowship, teaching or research support or its equivalent to be incompatible with full-time graduate study."[0]

It's even worse for international students. Under F1 visa, you can't work more than 20 hours on campus. However, all TA positions are deemed 20 hours of work. So you can't even work at the campus gym if you want.

[0] - https://gradschool.princeton.edu/policies/employment

> However, all TA positions are deemed 20 hours of work. So you can't even work at the campus gym if you want.

This is not true at Princeton. Unless they are without funding, PhD students there commonly only work 10 hours per week (nominally) as TAs. The regular stipend is also generous compared to many other programs.

From the same link:

"This means that international students on a full AI or full AR appointment are not eligible for additional on-campus work, even if the Graduate School employment policy would otherwise allow it."

You're talking about having a side job while doing a PhD. GP is talking about (as I understand it - not to put words in their mouth) having a job that will let you take some of the work you do there and turn it into a PhD. Which, admittedly, is not a very well-known or advertised route, but one that is a much better deal than the 'take internship-level pay for years for the privilege of being exploited or ignored'.

No, I am also talking about the same thing. But you correctly distinguish Europe vs. US. To make progress towards your PhD while working for company in the US, you typically need to be enrolled in a department approved "class" that is basically an internship. To be enrolled in these classes, you need to be a full-time student. Most departments outside of CS and EE don't allow for these courses. Obviously, this is going to be highly nuanced with regard to how each university/department implements it. For example, my department only allows summer internships and requires approval from Advisor and Director of Graduate Studies.

> requires full-time commitment to study and research on the part of students

How can they say this, and then also ask their graduate students to teach? They're contradicting themselves.

All things are true as long as they benefit the people in power in an institution. Contradictory things are simultaneously true. All justifications for the current system, which works well for the PTB are just obviously the case.

That’s not an option for most students, especially if you want to have a shot at publishing regularly.

Research is already a full time job.

Yes, you do. I work as an engineer in a research group of a top 10 US graduate research university. I am exposed to many different groups. No group will take you if you are not working for them at ludicrously low pay. You can’t get a PhD if you’re not a part of a group. You either find one that will take you within a year or you leave.

There’s no shortage of folks being sold “key steps” to high paying jobs. Maybe their meter stick is different from yours, but taking that job as the night attendant at the hotel to move up the ranks or getting a salaried position as an assistant manager at Burger King as a path to a regional manager.

Lots of folks trying to sell you a path to success.

It's not like that. If you want to be hired as a staff scientist, you need a PhD. If you have an MS you can't be a staff scientist. If you have a BS you can't be a staff scientist. The most you'd get with those degrees is Research Assistant or Technician, then you will hit a ceiling in your career unless you step away from research and step more into business. This is true in academia, government labs, and the private sector, both in the U.S. and internationally.

It's like if you want to be a General, you are going to have to be a Private first. There is a progression in the sciences.

that last line is what my point is. Stepping stones and prerequisites are part of many career progressions - actually quite the norm.

There’s a way that academics come off which I don’t think they intend to - which is somehow their path is special and their trials are unique.

They’re not.

> If you want to be hired as a staff scientist, you need a PhD. If you have an MS you can't be a staff scientist. If you have a BS you can't be a staff scientist.

That's not entirely true, though as I understand it is becoming more true; there are definitely places that will promote to positions for which the normal route is a post-graduate degree based on a lesser degree plus experience (including publications under the rubric of experience).

Now, university faculty positions, degree standards tend to be ironclad, though.

It's like if you want to be a General, you are going to have to be a Private first. There is a progression in the sciences.

That's not how the military works at all. A Private is an enlisted rank, and their career path typically tops out at a level like Warrant Officer.

If you want to be a General, you're going to have to start as a Lieutenant (the lowest commissioned officer).

I think they got their analogy slightly wrong but it makes sense. If you want a career in research, a Bachelor's or Master's degree is like enlisting. You won't progress beyond a certain level. Whereas going to grad school for a PhD is like attending a military academy - which is the only path to becoming a general today. A military academy has the added benefit of a guaranteed officer job upon graduation. No such guarantees exist for a PhD.

> Whereas going to grad school for a PhD is like attending a military academy - which is the only path to becoming a general today.

What proportion of officers in the US Armed Forces graduates from the military academies? A third? I very much doubt graduating from one is required to become a general. Being a great political operator is but it’s not like only military academy graduates can do that.

I face this unfortunate reality. I am simply not rich enough to get a PhD. I am certainly capable and willing. So instead I work as a tech in a research group of something that interests me for wage that is still too low for my capabilities.

I don't disagree that universities are horribly corrupt, extractive institutions squatting over responsibility for a system that creates an immense amount of value for society (academic research).

But the claim that "a PhD is a necessary step to _specific_ well-paying and fulfilling careers" isn't incompatible with the GP comment's claim that intrinsic motivation makes people shoulder these crappy conditions, just like (eg) actors. It's pretty well-known that PhDs are, on average, _terrible_ career moves from a self-interest and financial perspective. This is common knowledge among literally everybody I've ever met who has any exposure to academia. Hell, Piled Higher and Deeper has been around for more than _20 years_; my university's paper syndicated it.

Just like struggling actors, PhDs put up with low pay and bad conditions to take a shot at something they want to do, with the additional wrinkle that they're (nominally) increasing their human capital in a way that a failing actor isn't. Nothing about your comment rebuts the GP comment's claim that there's nothing unique about academia in this respect.

> a PhD is sold as a key step for a well-paying and fulfilling career where you can make a difference

Yes, it is sold as such. But the appeal is fading fast.

Academia nowadays is something between a Beauty Pageant and the Hunger Games where people struggle with underpayment for years for maybe one day getting the famed tenured position.

Nobody in graduate school has delusions of expecting a professorship. It is well known that professorships are hard to get and involve a lot of politics. Graduate students don’t have bright prospects and are given a bad financial situation, but do it all the same because that’s the only way to work on something gratifying or important. It seems insane to punish the most talented and passionate for pursuing their calling.

Tenured positions aren't all they're cracked up to be either.

In the Netherlands every PhD will be paid fairly decently. That's how it should be. Nor excuse for rich universities like those in UK & US to exploit those dreaming of s research career.

Maybe the number of anthropology researchers we deem appropriate as a society is actually not that high.

Maybe if these people want to do anthropology research, they can, but at their own expense.

When I was looking into doing grad school, I had no illusions that if I went in without a grant that I'd be doing anything other than scraping by. I have no idea why anyone would expect anything else.

Just with some fast googling, I think they're paid in about the same range as US PhD's. Or am I mistaken?

Without any searching, the cost of living is probably much higher in California.

US universities don’t offer half time PhD studentships and then expect full time work. This was common in Germany when I had grad student acquaintances ten years ago. I doubt things have changed.

Even worse the UC system (and by extension UCSC) are state run institutions that get a hefty chunk of their operating budget from the state. They also prioritize foreign students over domestic as they pay higher tuition (nee fees as it was illegal in California for UC and CSU schools to charge tuition for a very long time). The state should not be in the business of exploiting cheap labor. Period.

It's fucking absurd how top heavy the state run universities (especially UC) are. I would hope that grad students at other UC campuses would strike in solidarity, but knowing that UC's got them by the short and curlies I doubt that'll happen.

There are strikes at UCSD and UCSB.

UC Davis, I believe. UC San Diego is awaiting poll results to decide whether they'd like to strike.

>Also I am sure the janitor at the University is paid decently and loves to work there. Reason is there are not as many people lined up for that job and basic economics takes over.

Janitor and other unskilled labor jobs at public universities tend to pay crap but are highly sought after because they usually come with the union negotiated benefits package that makes them a better value (than local work in private industry for more money and less benefits) for many people.

Back when I was doing those kinds of jobs I wouldn't even think about wasting my time working for a public university but I was young and needed the money more than I needed healthcare and 40hr weeks.

Another huge benefit is some schools offer reduced or free tuition to your children.

First of all there is no such thing as a free market.

Universities advertise good careers if you go through them, and I am not sure these numbers are as balanced as they could be.

Second even if it were, there is a terrible imbalance of power between students, which are distributed actors with little to no individual power and little information or experience, vs a much bigger actor with more information and a lot of power in such a relationship.

(From a comment in the other thread about this subject on how this particular market was skewed: https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/how-why-gove... )

And janitor is in all likelihood a decent job with union protection (good for them).

The graduate students had union protection. They chose to disregard the contract the union had negotiated and membership had ratified in 2018 thus throwing away that union protection.

As far as I can tell according to the article, the union did not support the UCSC strike but it has done some things that support the wildcat strikers, including filing an unfair labor practices suit against the university and openly commenting on the mistreatment of the strikers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com