Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 180 posts

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#131

Post by Fomite »

MostlyStable wrote: post #60
msteffen wrote: post #29

My understanding is that scientific research has a dual problem, where the number of students needed to carry out existing professors' research is much larger than the number of junior faculty positions generally available. The result being that most trained PhDs must leave (US) academia because there are no jobs for them. In fact, I've heard scientists complain that universities owe it to students to provide more he…

If the culture normalized such that a much larger proportion of research was conducted by permanent, non-faculty, research employees, this would both reduce the need for so many students and increase the jobs available for students, and create a new employment niche with a different balance of teaching/administration/research. It would basically be turning "post doc" into an actual career rather than a stop over. Thi…

This isn't really a culture problem, IMO, as much as a funding one.

My group currently employs two people of the description you have, and it does reduce the need for students (and honestly, increase productivity).

It's also by far the most stressful part of my job. Funding them involves writing multiple grants per year (because the expectation of any particular grant is low, even with a decent hit rate) and I am constantly worried that I won't be able to keep them employed.

If one of them leaves this year, I'm not likely to replace them, simply because in the current funding environment, I can't look someone in the eye and promise them a long term position. There are so many more ways to fund a student, and they're inherently time limited, so even if things collapse, there's ways to white knuckle through it in a way there aren't for staff scientists.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#132

Post by aleph_minus_one »

imgabe wrote: post #85
travisgriggs wrote: post #53

I wonder how much generational impacts there are here. My son is a PhD student at an ivy. The most lucrative tuition source for the university is foreign students (as in, they bring in far more tuition dollars for each foreign student than they do native). He has also observed that the payers of these tuitions are usually the parents, who tend to be people who rose through the ideal of "the dream of american educatio…

Why is it necessary to have a flood of foreign money to operate the university? Universities in the past operated without an influx of wealthy foreign students paying outrageous tuition. Today they are bloated with administration that is nothing but a cost center, meanwhile they eliminate tenured professorships and have classes taught by tenuous adjunct faculty who are paid poverty wages. Universities could easily ri…

> Why is it necessary to have a flood of foreign money to operate the university? Universities in the past operated without an influx of wealthy foreign students paying outrageous tuition.

I guess it is not strictly necessary, but it brings in a lot more money, which the university is of course very eager to take.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#133

Post by Fomite »

materials4028 wrote: post #59
msteffen wrote: post #29

My understanding is that scientific research has a dual problem, where the number of students needed to carry out existing professors' research is much larger than the number of junior faculty positions generally available. The result being that most trained PhDs must leave (US) academia because there are no jobs for them. In fact, I've heard scientists complain that universities owe it to students to provide more he…

> much larger than the number of junior faculty positions generally available Expanding on this a bit, insight credited to bonoboTP: in a steady state the number of junior faculty positions will only open up at the same rate as current faculty retires. But each faculty member is expected to train dozens of students that are all in principle qualified for such jobs. Therefore, the vast majority, let's say 95%, of PhD…

"Ideally, I think there needs to be more non-faculty careers available for PhD graduates either outside or inside academia."

For awhile, I loved that my field had lots of opportunities outside academia for PhD students, and that they were held in pretty equal regard, prestige wise, with academic positions.

Then the current administration gutted the entire field.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#134

Post by Fomite »

travisgriggs wrote: post #53

I wonder how much generational impacts there are here. My son is a PhD student at an ivy. The most lucrative tuition source for the university is foreign students (as in, they bring in far more tuition dollars for each foreign student than they do native). He has also observed that the payers of these tuitions are usually the parents, who tend to be people who rose through the ideal of "the dream of american educatio…

This phenomenon (which is just an extreme version of out-of-state tuition for state schools) is almost entirely undergraduate driven, not STEM PhDs, who as mentioned in other posts, have tuition either waived or paid for via grants.

There was a whole thing if you recall in the first Trump admin about treating tuition waivers as income, which at an Ivy is potentially a financially catastrophic thing for a grad student.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#135

Post by Fomite »

imgabe wrote: post #85
travisgriggs wrote: post #53

I wonder how much generational impacts there are here. My son is a PhD student at an ivy. The most lucrative tuition source for the university is foreign students (as in, they bring in far more tuition dollars for each foreign student than they do native). He has also observed that the payers of these tuitions are usually the parents, who tend to be people who rose through the ideal of "the dream of american educatio…

Why is it necessary to have a flood of foreign money to operate the university? Universities in the past operated without an influx of wealthy foreign students paying outrageous tuition. Today they are bloated with administration that is nothing but a cost center, meanwhile they eliminate tenured professorships and have classes taught by tenuous adjunct faculty who are paid poverty wages. Universities could easily ri…

Continual cuts to both state funding and federal research support is a large part of it for public universities. Essentially, every time there is a major budget crisis, state support gets slashed, and it never gets put back when things get better.

Tuition is one of the few levers left, and while people will object to tuition hikes for in-state students, very few people will do the same for foreign students.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#136

Post by Fomite »

Mistletoe wrote: post #31

I’m a US sixth generation or more citizen and a scientist and I want to leave if the next election doesn’t go wildly different than the 2024 one. The brain drain is real. It’s sad to see it happen in your own country.

The number of colleagues who have gone from "Eh, maybe a sabbatical year..." to "Yes, I am actively looking" is really frightening.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#137

Post by kelipso »

MostlyStable wrote: post #89
j7ake wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your suggestion would have fewer fresh eyes to look at the problem. If the scientific enterprise were just about churning out widgets, then yes it’s better to have permanent staff. But having a strong training pipeline for the globe is a huge plus for US prestige, and the top people are still offered jobs as faculty or industry within the country, so it still a net gain for USA. But it’s brutally competitive for the…

While I'm more skeptical than you are of the value of a string of new students coming through as opposed to just keeping the very best students, I'm also not suggesting we mandate this change or force it. I'm suggesting that we give people more information to make better informed decisions. If students decide that they are comfortable with a sub 20% job placement rate, then great, nothing needs to change. If they are…

AI in industry was basically made my PhD grads. Without that pipeline, there would be no AI, and I am not exaggerating much at all.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#138

Post by kelipso »

selimthegrim wrote: post #36
integralid wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is not "exporting" anything. PhDs are people, they pay for their education and they leave. Nevertheless responding to your question: >Contrary to common perceptions, US technology benefits from these graduates' work even if they leave: though the US share of global patent citations to graduates' science drops from 70% to 50% after migrating, it remains five times larger than the destination country share

STEM PhD students do not pay for their education

They work like a 120k a year job for 30k a year.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#139

Post by neuah »

advisedwang wrote: post #57

The more important question is: what is the rate of scientists coming in vs going out? If they are in balance, then it looks a lot less of a problem. It may even be the case that because of the desirability of working in the US for US institutions the US is gaining the best from all around the world and shipping out a more mixed ability set.

"Using new data which tracks US-trained STEM PhDs through 2024, we show that despite foreign nationals comprising nearly 50% of trainees, only 10% leave the US within five years of graduating, and only 25% within 15 years."

That sounds like net benefit for the US. Foreign nationals come, the US sells them (overpriced) education, they do relatively low-paid but high-value PhD research, and then most of them stay and continue to contribute to US research endeavors and the economy. This is such an enviable position, and this administration wants to close the doors? This is the secret sauce. This is what has made america great.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#140

Post by spiritplumber »

kragen wrote: post #97
travisgriggs wrote: post #53

I wonder how much generational impacts there are here. My son is a PhD student at an ivy. The most lucrative tuition source for the university is foreign students (as in, they bring in far more tuition dollars for each foreign student than they do native). He has also observed that the payers of these tuitions are usually the parents, who tend to be people who rose through the ideal of "the dream of american educatio…

> The most lucrative tuition source for the university is foreign students (as in, they bring in far more tuition dollars for each foreign student than they do native). Those probably aren't STEM PhD students, whose tuition (especially at Ivies!) is normally paid for out of research grants or teaching funds.

In 2007 I was an Italian citizen studying at a university in Texas.

For a final project, we built a cool autopilot, and demoed it on several vehicles, including a precision dropper airplane, and a sailboat.

The airplane happened to be slightly better than what the USAF admitted to having at the time.

There were 5 of us working on that project, including 1 US citizen.

The citizen got a NASA internship out of it. The rest of us were put on a list and I for one had a very tough time getting a green card later on even with a NIW.

I shudder to think what this maladministration is doing to foreign STEM students now!

Post reply on HN