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

641–650 of 756 posts

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

#641

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#642

Post by underlipton »

MikeTheGreat wrote: post #588
jwagenet wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, phds and professional degrees are more or less geared toward students who are comfortable enough financially to stomach the opportunity cost of 6-10+ years of additional education, unpaid or underpaid residencies and internships, and long apprenticeship hours (which prevent backfilling financial gaps) before making “real” income.

Can I ask why this is getting downvoted? Most of the other comments are basically saying this ("the pay is too low for too long for not enough reward"). Anecdotally: I'm teaching a course in "How To Be Successful In College" (not it's real name) at the US community college where I teach Computer Science. I've got more than 1 student who are going to get a credential for nursing because there's just no way they can sp…

I don't know that people even care, at that. The way most are forced to interact with the healthcare system, a doctor is just a nurse in a white coat who's also a bit of an asshole (aloof and/or smarmy). Especially when they misdiagnose or miss a diagnoses.

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

#643

Post by elevation »

jancsika wrote: post #559
mcmcmc wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have $27 billion in their endowment. They are choosing not to fund those positions when they easily could on their own.

Chancellor mcmcmc: We have a $27 billion endowment. We can easily fund these positions. Chancellor mcmcmc, 2027: We have a $26 billion endowment. We can easily fund these positions. (Unrelated note: all freshman-level math courses have been moved to Temporary Building #17.) Chancellor mcmcmc, 2028: We have a $24.8 billion endowment. And congratulations to Chancellor Trump! (Note: all freshman humanities classes have…

> We have a $27 billion endowment. We can easily fund these positions. > Chancellor mcmcmc, 2027: We have a $26 billion endowment.

With that much capital, even conservative management should exceed $100M in interest annually, meaning they could have a $100M+ budget indefinitely. That's enough money to give a couple thousand employees a six figure salary while reserving 2x the salary amount for overhead like benefits, facilities and research efforts.

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

#644

Post by ModernMech »

mohamedkoubaa wrote: post #611
ModernMech wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"glorified immigration program" is not a factual statement, you'll have to back that up. The programs are in fact degree and certificate programs.

The purpose of a system is what it does and how it's used in practice, my friend.

That's an interpretation, not a fact. And “glorified immigration program” is not a neutral factual label because it implies the educational function is mostly pretextual. I can understand your perspective, but please stop pretending to me that you're simply making factual statements and not a value judgement.

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

#645

Post by frmersdog »

Retric wrote: post #595
garciasn wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A JD is most definitely a terminal degree. If you need a source; here is one: https://fulbrightscholars.org/sites/default/files/2024-07/US...

That’s arguable. “LL.M. programs are usually only open to those students who have first obtained a degree in law, typically an LL.B. or J.D.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Laws It’s generally for people who want to hyper focus on one area of law or switch countries.

That's strange, I was just asking Claude to write a motion for me earlier, and I've never even taken the LSAT.

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

#646

Post by jrochkind1 »

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #613
jrochkind1 wrote: post #356

> Relatedly, some federal agencies are discussing the possibility of factoring in geography when they allocate their funds, rather than basing decisions on scientific merit alone. Sounds ironically like "DEI".

No, it doesn't. DEI is about rewarding and punishing people for immutable characteristics like race and sex. Where people live isn't at all immutable, and a government may rightly do stuff to encourage economic activity (like research) in this area vs. another. In fact, they do it all the time.

Having polities to look at promoting regional diversity, equity between regions, and making sure all regions are included, instead of only one axis of "merit", in awarding research funds, is literally DEI.

So it's not that the administration wants them to only look at merit and nothing else, which I thought was the the explanation, but that they think some non-merit things are okay to balance for and try to encourage diveristy, equity, and inclusion on the axis of, and others aren't.

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

#647

Post by fredophile »

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…

You're looking at students at a top tier university in a field that pays extremely well. The numbers are going to be at the high end for what a grad student can make. A quick search for PhD salaries suggests that $20-35k/year is more common.

The median wage number you cited is also for the total population. According to this graph the median wage for college graduates is around $7k/mo. I'm fortunate to make very good money but I'd still notice a $2k/mo pay cut.

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

#648

Post by CamperBob2 »

djoldman wrote: post #640
CamperBob2 wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, the cost of discouraging the wrong kid -- the one who ends up curing cancer or otherwise innovating in an extremely useful area -- is unbounded. The cost of encouraging the ones who fail can be heavy, but at least it's finite. And it's not always obvious if "their performance already clearly shows they aren't going this route." The Nobel archives are full of acceptance speeches that describe how the rec…

> The thing is, the cost of discouraging the wrong kid -- the one who ends up curing cancer or otherwise innovating in an extremely useful area -- is unbounded. > The cost of encouraging the ones who fail can be heavy, but at least it's finite. Assuming that every kid has a non-zero chance of being the "right kid," then discouraging only one child results in infinite cost and so every child should be encouraged to tr…

True if resources are infinite, but they aren't.

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

#650

Post by zipy124 »

canjobear wrote: post #592
lovich wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, some PhD candidates are being paid near minimum wage and are still paying their university to do work for their university? That just sounds like indentured servitude with extra steps.

PhD students paying tuition would be highly unusual.

No it's typical. It's just that your stipend is usually just x amount of Dollars + whatever tuition is so you never have to care what it is and you don't pay it directly per se, it's just included in your stipend. Someone pays for it at the end of the day though.
Post reply on HN