I hope they manage to do something similar for the NSF. The proposed cuts there are crushing. The NSF funds great science in all parts of the country, and subsequently tons of jobs to the area.
It was not something one could live on long-term (no chance to save money whatsoever, could never buy a home or decent car, etc). But, I wasn't starving and I wasn't taking on debt.
At the same time, it is a sacrifice. Most of my friends the same age were making "real" money, buying homes, going on nice vacations, saving for retirement, etc. So, I get extra irritated and defensive when I hear people who have no idea what they're talking about repeat conspiracy theories about science and academia. If I wanted to be a rich scam artist, I'm pretty sure there were better options than a science PhD...
Tuition coverage for grad students is a way for universities to take money from grants and pay it to themselves. (And for undergrads they often limit the amount that external scholarships can reduce the expected student and parental contribution, in order to pocket as much money as possible.)
It's still important to realize that grad students are cheap labor for research (e.g. from NSF's perspective if they are the funding agency) and teaching purposes (e.g. from the university's perspective.)
- Undergrad education breaks even
- Research operates at a loss
- Master's and professional programs makes a modest profit because most students pay full tuition.
- Interest income off the endowment barely covers operating expenses
- The remaining balance comes from donations.
YMMV, but at the end of the day, what keeps many universities afloat is providing good experiences to students in their formative years so that when they get older and make money, they just give a portion of it back to their alma mater due to good vibes and nostalgia. That's the business model, not bilking grad students.
2. NSF's operating model is based on low-paid graduate students and postdocs.
3. Universities (at least until recently?) took a significant cut (for example 50%) off the top of NSF (and other) grants as overhead, but their overhead rate is significantly lower than typical government contractors in industry.
4. If you are a grad student and ever want to become (more) depressed (for both present and future prospects), read an NSF (or similar) grant for the project you are doing all the work for, and see how the funds are allocated.
5. Universities also underpay their professional athletes in "money" sports such as football and basketball.
6. Administration growth has outpaced enrollment growth (and faculty expansion etc.) for decades. So undergraduate education may "break even", but it's still paying an army of non-teaching administrators.[1] (Universities defend themselves by saying that regulatory compliance is more expensive now, etc.)
[1] https://stanforddaily.com/2024/03/13/behind-stanfords-double...
2. NSF operating model is based on maximizing the number of supported graduate students, not maximizing support per student. As someone who was a low-paid graduate student, I have sympathy for the perspective they are low-paid. But I also support graduate students now and I understand how expensive it really is.
3. Yes, but at least at my university, the overhead they get from grant funding isn't enough to actually cover research overhead. So research operates at a loss despite the negotiated overhead rate. Research is very expensive.
4. In my experience, graduate students are often involved in writing grant proposals. They also tend to lack the depth of experience necessary to really interpret budgets.
5. Sure, but I didn't really talk about sports programs in relation to academic funding, because sports usually funds itself and proceeds don't go over to pay for academics.
6. Sure, but you say "non-teaching administrators" as if they don't serve the academic mission. For example, in my department we have a non-teaching administrator who helps with advising. In our college, we have an office of tutoring which is very popular with students, and includes many non-teaching administrators. Access to resources like these lead to better student outcomes, but they do cost money.
Even though I've seen military bases in the middle of nowhere, I've certainly seen some bases and defense contractors (Raytheon, Lockheed, etc) in non-rural areas.
I'm cynically, and pessimistically, kind of assuming that it's really just about what's being funded in this case. Military spending is pretty much always supported by both politicians and the public, whereas there is a VERY strong anti-science and anti-academia wave in our culture at the moment (even more so than I always used to think there was...).