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

A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

president.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 756 posts

Re: A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

#621

Post by dyauspitr »

mohamedkoubaa wrote: post #515
cmiles8 wrote: post #155

Academia is about to go through a generational reset. The system is broken and the market only tolerates broken systems for so long. There are a ton of great things that come out of universities but it’s also clear that a model of charging folks well into the six-figures for a useless degree that doesn’t prepare them for the workforce is dead and a reckoning is underway. Many schools will fail and shut down. Of those…

It's simple. The US used to be the most desirable place for immigrants and the US higher education system used to be the envy of the world and now for both of these it is not any more. A reset was always inevitable.

I don’t know what you’re talking about but both of those are definitely still true. It’s just that this administration is trying to stop the first from happening.

Re: A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

#622

Post by caminante »

CrazyStat wrote: post #596
caminante wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He appears to be tunnel-visioning on academia. The vast majority (>75%) of Computer Science PhDs leave academia. [0] Becoming a "world expert in a specific topic" is overfitting skills for a sub-niche of a specific career. There certainly aren't enough jobs in academia. [0] https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/213640/what-rat...

The goal of a PhD is to become a world expert in a specific topic, whether or not you’re planning on staying in academia. This may or may not be in alignment with the student’s goals, and many students don’t really understand it going in.

Yes, they don't realize it or lie to themselves because ~50% dropout.

Given the attrition, I really question if PhD programs are honest with incoming prospects. Law schools and business schools are similarly "guilty" of pimping outcomes.

ITT: it's people complaining about being overworked and mislead in their PhD programs.

Re: A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

#623

Post by EthanHeilman »

jrflo wrote: post #147

Besides the people in this thread bemoaning the state of research funding, international students, etc. (all of which are valid), a lot of people are becoming disillusioned with academia. Probably 80% of the recent PhD grads I know are looking to leave academia, despite the fact that they went into it to pursue a career in academia. The median science PhD takes 6 years now, and is grueling work for terrible pay, all…

I'm not arguing against anything you have said, but there is an important connection here that I want to make between disillusionment and funding.

> Besides the people in this thread bemoaning the state of research funding, international students, etc. (all of which are valid), a lot of people are becoming disillusioned with academia. ... grueling work for terrible pay, all for difficult job prospects given the current market.

If there was more research funding and more jobs for researchers in academia this would result in both better pay for PhD students and more academic jobs post-PhD. The disillusionment is related to the funding.

Imagine if the US currently had a new massive project for physics research, you would get a lot more people doing physics Phds and much faster progress in physics. We know this because Edward Teller tricked Reagan into pumping billions of dollars into optics research and that resulted in optics being one of few areas in physics to see breakthrough after breakthrough.

Re: A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

#624

Post by DaSHacka »

postalrat wrote: post #82
xnx wrote: post #65

> MIT: 20% drop in incoming graduate students This is kind of MIT's choice, right? They could change tuition or admission and have 20% more incoming graduate students.

Yes of course they could admit any person who didn't finish high school.

...or the massive swath of 95% of students with degrees they already decline? [0]

[0] https://mitadmissions.org/apply/process/stats/

Re: A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

#625

Post by chongli »

jrk wrote: post #605
nomadygnt wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking a longer time to graduate to become the “world expert” in their field is fine if grad students weren’t paid next to nothing for the 60+ hours a week that they are expected to work. As it is now it’s better to finish as quickly as possible so they can have a real life.

To make "next to nothing" concrete: MIT EECS PhD students are currently paid about $4700/mo. This is substantially less than they'd make in industry, but it's around the US median personal income across all working-age adults, and well above the average 24 year-old. They frequently make a substantial extra at summer internships, putting them well above US median in the years when they do. Also: it is school, not just…

Is that $4700/mo net pay? Or do they have to pay tuition fees out of that?

Re: A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

#626

Post by fg137 »

loeg wrote: post #140
elteto wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fund them to do what exactly? Come up with their own research ideas? You got the pipeline backwards. The government picks the research areas/priorities then allocates funding for those, and universities apply and compete to get grants. _Then_, once a grant is given to a school, is funding for labs and graduate students allocated. If the government has no interest in doing research and provides no funding then schools…

That is how it usually works, but again, MIT has tens of billions of dollars. They could literally write their own grants.

You have no idea how endowments work.

Re: A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

#628

Post by SecretDreams »

Retric wrote: post #500
SecretDreams wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pro the concept of unions. They get a bad rep for 3 reasons: 1) They overly protect legitimately poor employees. This poisons the perception of unions. 2) Certain unions have too much power and probably shouldn't exist. E.g. police unions can grind a city to a halt if they don't consistently get a raise. Some teacher unions span a whole state/province - this gives them outsized power. I support these unions and w…

I think you’re missing the point #1 reason people talk negatively about unions, they cost shareholders and management money. Essentially every large company and wealthy individual has a vested interest in reducing union power or preventing their formation, which results in a vast amount of anti union activity.

That I agree with. Rich people hate unions. But their reasoning is shit. They're only of consequence because they lobby hard against unions. The reasons I listed, however, are more valid (imo) and should be addressed. Addressing them would do a lot to diminish anti-union talking points.

Re: A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

#629

Post by fastaguy88 »

BeetleB wrote: post #202
fastaguy88 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no un-funded graduate (PhD) students in the sciences and engineering at MIT (or any other top-ranked graduate program). The number of graduate student admissions is directly tied to the amount of external funding. If the faculty do not have the grants, their departments cannot admit students.

Isn't that what the article is saying? Less research funding == Fewer admissions. > The number of graduate student admissions is directly tied to the amount of external funding. Minor quibble: It's not merely external funding. In many sciences (math, physics, chemistry), it's common for the department to promise funding through non-research means for a number of years. In my top school, I think physics students were…

While it is true that departments often fund their graduate students for the first year (or possibly 2) out of their own budgets, their budgets are largely determined by the generosity of their Deans (who got the money from indirect costs from grants) or their own indirect costs. And they will not be admitting students if they do not see a clear path for them to be externally funded after their first year or two.

Re: A message from President Kornbluth about funding and the talent pipeline

#630

Post by djoldman »

Many PHD programs might best be described as cults:

Most of the people in charge (faculty) are true believers and the acolytes (grad students) are as well.

They believe that a PHD and the years spent in pursuit of it will:

  1. get the student a college or university professorship in the USA; and/or
  2. allow for future opportunities that will outweigh the cost in time and money spent in pursuit of the PHD; and/or
  3. advance the state of science/research/knowledge that will justify (in feel-good vibes/emotions?) the lost years
... despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It is ironic that some of the brightest people ignore the data.

Post reply on HN