711–720 of 756 posts
The real problem is we make it too hard for international researchers to stay here. These high end student visas should have strong paths to permanent residence - maybe even an expectation
They are looking at alternatives in Europe instead.
I don't know the situation at MIT in particular but overall creating some budgetary pressures for universities is probably a good thing. Every since it became near impossible to discharge student debt due to legislation in the Bush presidency that was designed to make student loans more easily available, the money spigot has been opened far too wide and this is largely funded by debt taken on by 18 year olds who aren…
It may be good but also can be very problematic. Organizations don't really shrink well. When times are good, they hire a lot of people that are marginally necessary. Over the good times, these roles become well-integrated into how the organization does business; whether or not they were necessary at first, people start depending on that person for a task, their approvals become part of a critical workflow, they deve…
There's not really an equivalent in the education world, because of how the university prestige economy works. Prestige is sort of like a natural monopoly: The more prestigious your university, the more talent you attract in terms of students and professors. The more talent you attract, the more prestige you generate via their discoveries. And both talent and prestige lead to donations, which in turn attract further talent and prestige.
The real problem is we make it too hard for international researchers to stay here. These high end student visas should have strong paths to permanent residence - maybe even an expectation
See for example "Graduate work visas: a disaster we were warned about" here: https://www.neilobrien.co.uk/p/the-deliveroo-visa-scandal
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is politely calling out the effects of the current regime in Washington and indicating that the government is finding other ways to not give funding to schools they don’t like. I am kinda surprised this wasn’t a prominent conversation point.
MIT started it. They cancelled Dorian Abbot in 2021. Federal funding is supposed to be in the interest of the American people. If you're adopting extreme left-wing politics at the institutional level, and shouting down political views associated with half the country, how exactly is giving you money in the interest of the American people? I wouldn't expect a far-right university to get federal funds. Why should a far…
These talking points are such a great example of the effectiveness of organized groups versus individuals in the market place of ideas.
It makes me appreciate the early days of the internet even more, and the good fortune to be alive in that moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MIT started it. They cancelled Dorian Abbot in 2021. Federal funding is supposed to be in the interest of the American people. If you're adopting extreme left-wing politics at the institutional level, and shouting down political views associated with half the country, how exactly is giving you money in the interest of the American people? I wouldn't expect a far-right university to get federal funds. Why should a far…
Thank you, I needed that. It is a great reminder that eventually these talking points will always swamp any communication channel. These talking points are such a great example of the effectiveness of organized groups versus individuals in the market place of ideas. It makes me appreciate the early days of the internet even more, and the good fortune to be alive in that moment.
>It is a great reminder that eventually these talking points will always swamp any communication channel.
I notice that some people will respond to arguments by saying: "Oh, that argument. I've heard it many times before."
What's interesting to me is that they seem to think simply saying "I've heard that many times before" should suffice as a counterargument.
Really, it should be the opposite: If you've heard it many times before, you've had plenty of time to think about it. If the argument is invalid, you ought to have a very good counterargument by now. So where's your incredible counterargument? Seems rather suspicious that you're unwilling to share it!
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…
People were talking about housing market being overheated (Financial Times, UK's finance minister etc) since, yet it carried on for 8 years before it exploded.
Markets can stay insane for years, if not decades
The real problem is we make it too hard for international researchers to stay here. These high end student visas should have strong paths to permanent residence - maybe even an expectation
You have to be careful. These student-to-resident visa programs end up being used by "students" who really just want a visa. And then the "educators" turn into toll collectors who are accepting "tuition" in exchange for visa access. See for example "Graduate work visas: a disaster we were warned about" here: https://www.neilobrien.co.uk/p/the-deliveroo-visa-scandal
“Masters only programs” is a bad hack that needs to be gone. It is just a cash grab from overseas students desperate for a Visa to work in the US. Many of these programs are highly exploitative and leave overseas students with crippling debts and have almost no academic merit. I’ve seen this in supposedly good schools like CMU that offer Masters in Software Engineering which is basically a cash grab for overseas stud…
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.
I worked a ton in grad school, and it definitely sucked at the time. But it’s crazy to complain about getting paid to go to school. A grad stipend is there to minimally support you so you don’t have to get another job and can focus on your research. It’s not supposed to be a career!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 Has this changed recently?
Yes, in positivist sciences 20% intending to stay would be very high by historical standards. This paper https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/93208 gives and estimate 87% PhD holders leave before becoming (tenured) faculty. And that's academia-wide. In the sciences more will be leaving. In exact sciences yet again more. Truth is most people leave before even getting a PhD, so it's even worse (and the advice is to thi…
i'd be interested in a source for this. i did not find in the article you cite mention of historical trends.